One of the joys of school in the modern day is the endless forms we are constantly asked to fill out. Standardized tests, surveys, teacher evaluations - you name it. Along with other demographic information, one question we always have to answer these days is "ethnicity."
Different forms have different categories, and sorting through them can be confusing, especially for someone of European descent, such as myself.
For instance, my ethnicity is often described as "Caucasian." This strikes me as rather odd, since not only am I not from the Caucasus, and I know of no ancestors of mine that used to live there, but I doubt I've ever even met anyone from there.
I can point it out as that mountain range between the Black Sea and the Caspian, but I can't tell you what kinds of food they eat there, languages they speak, religions they practice or anything else about them.
Another favorite one-word description for people like me is "Anglo." Sure, I probably have some Anglo blood in me, but my ancestors are primarily German, Irish and Norman. The Angles and later the Anglo-Saxons were enemies of most of my ancestors, and yet I'm supposed to call myself one? How insulting.
Then of course there's the tried-and-true "white" classification. This, I am told, is in reference to the color of my skin. However, as I look at said skin, I can't fail to notice that its color is significantly different from the white of a sheet of paper, a cloud or Styrofoam.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
I'm not sure how I'd describe the color exactly. Somewhere on the pinkish side of tan, maybe. Actually, considering the sunburns I got this weekend, add some splotches of red. Underneath my clothes I'm a little paler, but still not nearly what I'd describe as white.
So this got me thinking about the other categories on these lists, and how most of them are also bad descriptions of people. Take "African American" for example. Many of the people who are told to use this self-description have never even been to Africa. Most of them don't speak an African language, wear African clothes or claim citizenship in an African country.
Besides that, Africa is a big place, with lots of different people. Egyptians are from Africa, but rarely are described as African Americans when they move to the U.S. The same is true of the descendents of the Boers from South Africa. Niger-Congo and Bantu peoples are thought of as "Africans," but that obscures some serious cultural and linguistic differences.
Speaking of generalization by continent, what about "Asians?" Gee, that narrows it down for me. An Asian can be anyone from an Israeli to a Laotian and a whole lot of other things besides. Yet rarely do I hear Iranians or Siberians referred to as Asian.
Supposedly, "Asians" are just people who look like they're from China, Japan, Korea or Southeast Asia. I guess we figure there must not be much difference between someone from Vietnam and someone from Hokkaido.
Then the vaguest description of all - "Hispanic."
What does that mean? Someone who speaks Spanish? Someone from Latin America? Are Brazilians Hispanic? Are Cayman Islanders?
Are there no meaningful differences in culture and history between Mexico City and Tierra del Fuego?
And don't even get me started on "Latin" America - they don't all speak Latin, and I'd bet few are Latin descendents.
But what do I know?
It seems that, after even a cursory examination of these ethnic categories, they are woefully inadequate at describing the vastness and complexity of humanity. This need to squish everyone into a few broad, generalist categories mystifies me.
Why must we group people in such small and ill-defined boxes?
Ironically, I think that the main proponents of this ethnic description mentality are the ones who want to try to break down barriers between different kinds of people.
They hope that by emphasizing human diversity and ethnic identity they can foster greater understandings between differing groups.
But it seems like their method of categorization does just the opposite.
It relegates people to a description that may have nothing to do with their identity, painting them in broad, color-specific strokes that wash out cultures and replace them with stereotypes.
