Yep. I'm a blonde-haired, blue-eyed white guy, and I identify as Hispanic. Claims to the contrary will be met with anything from the production of my passport or a picture of my family, to a fist to the jaw. I am very serious about my cultural identity.
Man, no need to punch people if they get your culture wrong. Only if they are a bigoted dick about it.
Hence why I provided a range for "claims to the contrary." It's alright to say "You certainly don't look Spanish." It's definitely not okay to have someone tell me I'm not Spanish even after I've given them the list of reasons as to why I am. As silly as that last bit sounds, I once had a teacher (she claimed to know my family due to living in the same neighborhood as my grandparents) who insisted that "You're not Spanish, you're American," repeatedly, in what boiled down to a match that ended with me saying, "You know nothing of my family. Do some research."
My dad, a Spanish-Colombian man with a mustache, a balding head, a dark complexion, and a temper so hot you could fire clay with it, stopped by the next parent-teacher conferences. He interrupted her first sentence with, "Stop. I understand you told my son he was not Spanish. We're going to talk about that."
She didn't give me anymore trouble about my heritage after that.
That's dumb. Why do people insist you have to be only one? You have Spanish and American cultures and languages combined. To deny your Spanish-ness is dumb, as is to deny your American-ness.
That's dumb. Why do people insist you have to be only one? You have Spanish and American cultures and languages combined. To deny your Spanish-ness is dumb, as is to deny your American-ness.
True facts. But, this is the same woman who explained that our class would be one of learning through group discussion, and then attempted to crush anyone who dared question Catholic dogma, so she was an idiot.
I have a similar problem with people calling me "Italian-American." To me, those two cultures are very far apart. My dad is 100% Italian, and my mom is 100% American. There's no overlap (I lived with one at a time, not them together).
Yup. There should be some sort of 'degrees of separation' requirement when writing off donations. You should not be able to essentially donate something to yourself as a write off.
I have a similar problem with people calling me "Italian-American." To me, those two cultures are very far apart. My dad is 100% Italian, and my mom is 100% American. There's no overlap (I lived with one at a time, not them together).
But you mush them both together in your persona, because you have absorbed both cultures. If you have both, then aren't you Italian-American? Are you not an American citizen of Italian heritage? Or would you rather be categorized as "Italian/American?" You should never shun a perfectly good group because you judge it by its worst members. I mean, come on, Michelle Bachmann plays up her Norwegian-American heritage, but that does not mean I am not going to call myself Norwegian-American.
She gave this speech about how the Norwegians came to Iowa (which was not when her family came to Iowa, but that's beside the point) and how they had good Christian values and they "were smart."
I like "Italian/American," actually. Italian-American culture is very distinct from both of those cultures. It's true that there are many Italian-Americans I like, but they skew more towards the Brooklyn side (than the Jersey side).
To me, it feels like the difference between Italian pizza and New York pizza. Both can be delicious, but I prefer Italian pizza.
In Occupy news, I'm disappointed by the many people who think they have a "right" to occupy parks. It's textbook civil disobedience, and is being treated as such (though with a bit more harshness than is warranted). It seems that a lot of people are focusing their anger at this, rather the overarching issues that started the movement.
People is people. They can self-distinguish as much as they like, and I will respect their self-declared identities. However, we are all individual humans and it is (IMO) silly to put too much stock into labeling/sub-group identifying.
Lawrence Lessig makes a great point about the Occupy movement here which I agree with. He doesn't say that the Occupy movement is wrong, in fact he supports it, but there is common ground between the Occupiers and the Tea Partiers, between the Left and the Right, across the political spectrum. In order to bring about change, we ALL need to acknowledge this and work to fix our broken political system.
Lawrence Lessig makes a great point about the Occupy movement here which I agree with. He doesn't say that the Occupy movement is wrong, in fact he supports it, but there is common ground between the Occupiers and the Tea Partiers, between the Left and the Right, across the political spectrum. In order to bring about change, we ALL need to acknowledge this and work to fix our broken political system.
It's important to recognize the difference between the "Original" Tea Party and the more recognizable, astroturfed version which most people associate the name with now.
Lawrence Lessig makes a great point about the Occupy movement here which I agree with. He doesn't say that the Occupy movement is wrong, in fact he supports it, but there is common ground between the Occupiers and the Tea Partiers, between the Left and the Right, across the political spectrum. In order to bring about change, we ALL need to acknowledge this and work to fix our broken political system.
It's important to recognize the difference between the "Original" Tea Party and the more recognizable, astroturfed version which most people associate the name with now.
True, but that's besides the point. Lessig points out that there are issues that the majority of Americans feel the same way about. We need to harness this dissatisfaction from both "camps" in order to start the ball rolling.
True, but that's besides the point. Lessig points out that there are issues that the majority of Americans feel the same way about. We need to harness this dissatisfaction from both "camps" in order to start the ball rolling.
Actually, it makes a huge difference. Today's Tea Party is nothing more than a way for the Republican powers to sow dissent about the Democratic party. It has absolutely nothing to do with any of the Occupy issues such as government corruption and curtailing to the 1%. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of today's Tea Party believes they are part of the 1%. Just look at "Joe the Plumber".
Again, I agree, but even in today's Tea Party, there are still those people who believe in the core of what the party used to stand for, the "Paulian" Tea Partiers rather than the Bachman or Pailin Tear Partiers.
The Paulsters want to go back to the gold standard, ruining the global economy. The Bachmaniacs are anti-intellectual, and would see American science driven into the ground. The Palinians are more driven by their love of tits and a cult of personality than any sort of political grounding.
The Republican party didn't used to stand for any of those things.
Again, I agree, but even in today's Tea Party, there are still those people who believe in the core of what the party used to stand for, the "Paulian" Tea Partiers rather than the Bachman or Pailin Tear Partiers.
I don't see how the the "Paulians" are any better than the Bachman or Pailin followers (seriously, they are all at the deep end of the crazy and ignorant pool).
Say what you will about Ron Paul, yes... he's bat-shit crazy, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING he says is bat-shit crazy. On many of the civil libertarian issues (legalizing marijuana, the war on terror, the Patriot Act, the use of torture) I agree with Ron Paul quite a bit.
Regardless of anything else about the Tea Party, regardless of what the media portrays about them or their "leaders" even say, there are still people who identify as members of the Tea Party who are against corruption in government, who think that the special interests have taken control of the political process, who want to return the government to the people. In that sense, the Tea Party and the Occupiers want the same thing, at a base level. Of course the Tea Party wants certain things that the Occupiers disagree with and vice versa, but there is common ground, there is a shared belief that there is something wrong with the way our government is running and who has influence on our elected officials.
Say what you will about Ron Paul, yes... he's bat-shit crazy, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING he says is bat-shit crazy. On many of the civil libertarian issues (legalizing marijuana, the war on terror, the Patriot Act, the use of torture) I agree with Ron Paul quite a bit.
Regardless of anything else about the Tea Party, regardless of what the media portrays about them or their "leaders" even say, there are still people who identify as members of the Tea Party who are against corruption in government, who think that the special interests have taken control of the political process, who want to return the government to the people. In that sense, the Tea Party and the Occupiers want the same thing, at a base level. Of course the Tea Party wants certain things that the Occupiers disagree with and vice versa, but there is common ground, there is a shared belief that there is something wrong with the way our government is running and who has influence on our elected officials.
Just because some Tea Party folks hold a few reasonable stances does not redeem the "party" for its overall insanity. More importantly, a desire for change in and of itself is not enough of a commonality when the change sought differs so profoundly.
More importantly, a desire for change in and of itself is not enough of a commonality when the change sought differs so profoundly.
I disagree. I think there is sufficient common ground on some really important key issues regarding the functionality (or lack thereof) of our government and corruption that both sides could come together and make some real progress. Fixing the way our government works must be done first before we can address what we want our government to do for us.
Is the change both groups are seeking that different or is it simply the means which both groups desire to use to reach the goal where the disagreement exists?
Comments
My dad, a Spanish-Colombian man with a mustache, a balding head, a dark complexion, and a temper so hot you could fire clay with it, stopped by the next parent-teacher conferences. He interrupted her first sentence with, "Stop. I understand you told my son he was not Spanish. We're going to talk about that."
She didn't give me anymore trouble about my heritage after that.
Italians:
Americans:
Italian-Americans:
This is cool.
You should never shun a perfectly good group because you judge it by its worst members. I mean, come on, Michelle Bachmann plays up her Norwegian-American heritage, but that does not mean I am not going to call myself Norwegian-American.
To me, it feels like the difference between Italian pizza and New York pizza. Both can be delicious, but I prefer Italian pizza.
In Occupy news, I'm disappointed by the many people who think they have a "right" to occupy parks. It's textbook civil disobedience, and is being treated as such (though with a bit more harshness than is warranted). It seems that a lot of people are focusing their anger at this, rather the overarching issues that started the movement.
The Republican party didn't used to stand for any of those things.
Regardless of anything else about the Tea Party, regardless of what the media portrays about them or their "leaders" even say, there are still people who identify as members of the Tea Party who are against corruption in government, who think that the special interests have taken control of the political process, who want to return the government to the people. In that sense, the Tea Party and the Occupiers want the same thing, at a base level. Of course the Tea Party wants certain things that the Occupiers disagree with and vice versa, but there is common ground, there is a shared belief that there is something wrong with the way our government is running and who has influence on our elected officials.