Ethnic identities

The other day I was watching an episode of Modern Family. It was an episode where the entire family was in Paris for some sort of convention. The second Gloria (latina second wife of the father) came into the picture I had this double. Reaction. Up till that moment I had seen Gloria as the character that she's probably intended to be; the latina woman, putting some spice and diversity into the Pritchard family. But seeing her in a Paris hotel made it all fall apart; suddenly Gloria was just another European woman, probably from the Mediterrenean, but not necessarily. The whole latina thing somehow suddenly stopped working for me.

I was wondering if anybody else had something like that. Maybe from personal life.

From watching TV shows? Yeah. I've been watching a lot of retro TV during this covid pandemic, including westerns like Gunsmoke, Bonanza, Wagon Train. Also police shows like Adam-12 and Perry Mason, and "family" shows like Leave it to Beaver and The Andy Griffith Show. :noob:

Some of the shows I watched as a kid, but didn't pick up on the stereotypes of racism or sexism like I do now. It's cringe-worthy how women, Mexicans, Native Indians, Chinese, and really any immigrants were portrayed. Not to mention the absence of black actors, or that they were mostly playing the criminal role. It's sad that we don't see it in real time because we're "entertained". :(

A few years ago, I was struck by a sudden realization that I thought of desis in Stockholm as immigrants, and desis in London as Brits. Same for brown people from all over the world, tbh. That's changed though :)

Identity depends a lot on situational context, so it makes sense that one's perception of who is "what" depends on whether you're watching a TV show, in a room of people, where you/they are, etc.

That said, it seems the way we talk/think about these issues has shifted in ways that are probably and mostly positive.

When my eldest daughter was two her favourite TV programmes were Doc McStuffins and Sophia the First, we very regularly had those two shows on.

Out shopping before Christmas I found a Doc McStuffins doll and picked it up for her. It was only then that I noticed that Doc McStuffins was black - I mean I'd seen the show very regularly, and we sang the songs with her etc but to me she was simply a slightly obnoxious cartoon child toy doctor with magical abilities to make toys come to life - I hadn't even picked up on the fact she was black until I picked up the inanimate doll.

It's her imagination, not magic. A lot of the episodes are about fixing shit she broke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

It's her imagination, not magic. A lot of the episodes are about fixing shit she broke.

---

Its magic I believe, or at least an ability and one that her grandmother had that skips a generation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Its magic I believe, or at least an ability and one that her grandmother had that skips a generation.

---

Been so long I had to look it up, its her stethoscope thats considered magic. Abby used to watch it but has moved on to paw patrol.

I mentioned it originally cause the Doc being black caused some ripples when it was first announced and Disney made it clear they weren't going to fairytale it, which some minorities see as not helpful.

I'm glad I got to witness this discussion on the finer points of Doc McStuffins lore.

The One Day at a Time "reboot" on Netflix has a similar problem to what Rand pointed out with the kids shows. It's started out as a comedy about a strong Cuban family, but no matter how much they talked about the upcoming Quinceañera, the whole thing came across as just another unrealistic white middle class family. So they ended up pivoting towards drug abuse and gay/trans issues.

It was still a fun show to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Been so long I had to look it up, its her stethoscope thats considered magic. Abby used to watch it but has moved on to paw patrol.

I mentioned it originally cause the Doc being black caused some ripples when it was first announced and Disney made it clear they weren't going to fairytale it, which some minorities see as not helpful.

---

Its in the season 4 premier "Welcome to McStuffinsville" which was an hour long special they go into the origins of it, she has the ability to use the magic stethoscope. Her grandmother also has the ability and she gave the stethoscope to her. Disney Junior regularly put that episode on as an hour long special still titled that rather than just another episode of the seires.

Chloe doesn't watch it anymore much either, she's moved on to YouTube more than any particular TV show.

The exception is if she's sick. Chloe woke up throwing up last week and if she's sick our tradition is to tuck her in under blankets and put Doc McStuffins on. It cheers her up.

It's not movie or TV related, but even as a child I knew the Aunt Jemima brand was pushing a racial stereotype. (Black Mammy is there to serve your white family.) There are other pantry stables re-defining (acknowledging) how corporate America exploited ethnicity for profit.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wi...ins-2020-06-17

Now I'm disturbed that many of our grocery stores have "ethnic food" aisles. :bulb:

This is as good a place as any. Yesterday I saw one of those shows on TV where a person goes back up the family tree. You know the kind of show where you learn all sorts of things about where you came from.

In this case the show was about Jurgen Raymann. He's a Black comedian with a Surinamese background, but born in Amsterdam. Of course the trail back leads to Surinam, first Paramaribo. The story up to that point is relatively as you would expect it; a number of his ancestors were enslaved. Which probably is true for half of the people or more in Surinam. Then there is a twist. Jurgen mentions that his grandmother on his mother's side was Jewish. Next thing we know we're in a boat to Jodensavanne (Jewish Savanah) where we learn that one of his ancestors was a founding father of the Jewish community in Surinam. So you think: 'funny, so he's actually Jewish, who'd have thought'. For him it was a confirmation of family lore. But then things got a bit strange. Because said Jewish ancestor wasn't just a founder of the Jewish community in Surinam. He was in the service of the WIC (Dutch West Indies Company). The WIC had a monopoly on trading slaves in the Dutch Caribean and Jurgen's Jewish ancestor wasn't just in its service, but he was in their service as a an actual slave trader and turned out to be an owner of slaves as well. Slavery in Surinam being what it was, I would think that's something to not be proud of.

Yet somehow Jurgen managed to be proud of his Jewish heritage, while completely discarding the reality that that part of his family had been involved enthousiasticly in the enslavement, trade and exploitation of his other ancestors. I found it somewhat unsettling to see.

Without some degree of Cognitive Dissonance, it would be pretty hard for anyone to love their Family Tree. :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

This is as good a place as any. Yesterday I saw one of those shows on TV where a person goes back up the family tree. You know the kind of show where you learn all sorts of things about where you came from.

In this case the show was about Jurgen Raymann. He's a Black comedian with a Surinamese background, but born in Amsterdam. Of course the trail back leads to Surinam, first Paramaribo. The story up to that point is relatively as you would expect it; a number of his ancestors were enslaved. Which probably is true for half of the people or more in Surinam. Then there is a twist. Jurgen mentions that his grandmother on his mother's side was Jewish. Next thing we know we're in a boat to Jodensavanne (Jewish Savanah) where we learn that one of his ancestors was a founding father of the Jewish community in Surinam. So you think: 'funny, so he's actually Jewish, who'd have thought'. For him it was a confirmation of family lore. But then things got a bit strange. Because said Jewish ancestor wasn't just a founder of the Jewish community in Surinam. He was in the service of the WIC (Dutch West Indies Company). The WIC had a monopoly on trading slaves in the Dutch Caribean and Jurgen's Jewish ancestor wasn't just in its service, but he was in their service as a an actual slave trader and turned out to be an owner of slaves as well. Slavery in Surinam being what it was, I would think that's something to not be proud of.

Yet somehow Jurgen managed to be proud of his Jewish heritage, while completely discarding the reality that that part of his family had been involved enthousiasticly in the enslavement, trade and exploitation of his other ancestors. I found it somewhat unsettling to see.

---

I think this is an interesting question writ large that the US in particular is struggling with now. We've always known that many of the great figures involved in the founding of the United States were slaveowners, or at least tolerant of slavery; nearly all of them expressed openly racist ideas. Yet they are often venerated for their contributions to establishing the political and societal institutions that made the US what it was. In individual families, even if you can't trace an ancestor back to someone who exploited others, you can probably guarantee that one of your ancestors held deeply objectionable views. How is one to confront the tension between veneration and revulsion?

I personally think it's not all that hard to address. Few people are saints, and most people's behavior in the past was considered contextually appropriate (even if it was in fact an affront to modern ethical sensibilities). One can honor or have pride in someone for their remarkable contributions to our world (or family) without providing tacit approval of the times when they fell short of our ideals. That isn't to say that one shouldn't be distressed at one's ancestors' role in past wrongdoing or even atrocities. But one can still maintain an appreciation for the whole person, even with their flaws.

There's a certain tendency to canonize historical figures. I've never really understood that: how is a Lincoln or Washington (or, hell, Moses) an inspiring figure if they were without fault? I look up to people who have erred or had character flaws - but nevertheless went on to do something remarkable. Someone who was perfect is simply unattainable and, frankly, unrealistic.

I would imagine that 200 years from now, my descendants would find some of the things I do or views I hold - or societal norms that I tolerate - to be at least shocking, if not horrifying. I certainly hope that on the balance I will be viewed in a positive light, but it's okay if I would not be seen as a model citizen in a few centuries: mores change, and our progression toward a more just and ethical society proceeds apace. In fact, if I'm seen as unusually saintly in the future, I would be disappointed that we haven't done a better job in making the world a better place.

In other words, Cognitive Dissonance might be an existential, or evolutionary necessity. *You* might not think it's hard to address, wiggin, but plenty of people are trying to figure it out in the 21st century....where we have monuments that canonize historical figures from the Confederacy (the lost cause), or military bases named after traitors to the Union. Or sports teams with racist names (Indians, Redskins).

I think it's harder now than ever before to just be a decent citizen, and hope our descendants feel pride in simply being in the Family Tree. I wouldn't worry about being seen as saintly figure in the future; that's false pride, hubris. ;)

If a tourist visits USA, the tourist may like to see what make USA unique. A great American meal, a great American song, a place filled with history to travel in time. A good band playing a folk song. Same if you visit the uniqueness of UK or Germany or any other western nation. So even if some people say "western culture", there is no such a thing. There are ethinicies and cultures in the western world. You may not acknowledge that because you always lived under such culture, but for foreigners it is exotic.
Watching a unique mount Rushmore, or a unique country song, or watching a parade in a town during a 4th of July. Or watching these traditional outfits in Germany, German beer and sausage, or go to UK and visit a pub that gives you a feeling of being in 1930.

That is just as cool and exotic as visiting Hawaii to see a folk dance or Alaska to see the precious landscapes.
You people have ethnicity you should be proud of, history that makes you unique.

Every nation has its sins. But you are not snowflake people, so you can embrace them, without guilt, instead of hiding that by destroying the reminders. You were not slaves and you did not own any slave. If you think about giving land to the historical owners, USA should be given to indians, and all whites should go to Europe and all black to Africa, and all muslims should be sent back to Arab regions, because the land they conquered was not theirs.

Today what you are seeing is a war called 5GW, 5th generation warfare. It is an information war aimed at hacking your mind, confuse you and strip you from any identity, to turn you into an obedient drone of whoever is throwing their 5GW on you. Unlike conventional war, bombs do not blast buildings, they blast people's minds to compel them to destroy what is the most dear, once you recover common sense. 5GW is a war of dischord, a war of information. This is why you are not allowed to speak, because words are weapons of war.

If a tourist visits USA, the tourist may like to see what make USA unique. A great American meal, a great American song, a place filled with history to travel in time. A good band playing a folk song. Same if you visit the uniqueness of UK or Germany or any other western nation. So even if some people say "western culture", there is no such a thing. There are ethinicies and cultures in the western world. You may not acknowledge that because you always lived under such culture, but for foreigners it is exotic.
Watching a unique mount Rushmore, or a unique country song, or watching a parade in a town during a 4th of July. Or watching these traditional outfits in Germany, German beer and sausage, or go to UK and visit a pub that gives you a feeling of being in 1930.

That is just as cool and exotic as visiting Hawaii to see a folk dance or Alaska to see the precious landscapes.
You people have ethnicity you should be proud of, history that makes you unique.

Every nation has its sins. But you are not snowflake people, so you can embrace them, without guilt, instead of hiding that by destroying the reminders. You were not slaves and you did not own any slave. If you think about giving land to the historical owners, USA should be given to indians, and all whites should go to Europe and all black to Africa, and all muslims should be sent back to Arab regions, because the land they conquered was not theirs.

Today what you are seeing is a war called 5GW, 5th generation warfare. It is an information war aimed at hacking your mind, confuse you and strip you from any identity, to turn you into an obedient drone of whoever is throwing their 5GW on you. Unlike conventional war, bombs do not blast buildings, they blast people's minds to compel them to destroy what is the most dear, once you recover common sense. 5GW is a war of dischord, a war of information. This is why you are not allowed to speak, because words are weapons of war.

Hey man it looks like someone hacked your mind and deleted some DLLs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Hey man it looks like someone hacked your mind and deleted some DLLs

---

Hmm. I want the stuff he is smoking. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I think this is an interesting question writ large that the US in particular is struggling with now. We've always known that many of the great figures involved in the founding of the United States were slaveowners, or at least tolerant of slavery; nearly all of them expressed openly racist ideas. Yet they are often venerated for their contributions to establishing the political and societal institutions that made the US what it was. In individual families, even if you can't trace an ancestor back to someone who exploited others, you can probably guarantee that one of your ancestors held deeply objectionable views. How is one to confront the tension between veneration and revulsion?

I personally think it's not all that hard to address. Few people are saints, and most people's behavior in the past was considered contextually appropriate (even if it was in fact an affront to modern ethical sensibilities). One can honor or have pride in someone for their remarkable contributions to our world (or family) without providing tacit approval of the times when they fell short of our ideals. That isn't to say that one shouldn't be distressed at one's ancestors' role in past wrongdoing or even atrocities. But one can still maintain an appreciation for the whole person, even with their flaws.

There's a certain tendency to canonize historical figures. I've never really understood that: how is a Lincoln or Washington (or, hell, Moses) an inspiring figure if they were without fault? I look up to people who have erred or had character flaws - but nevertheless went on to do something remarkable. Someone who was perfect is simply unattainable and, frankly, unrealistic.

I would imagine that 200 years from now, my descendants would find some of the things I do or views I hold - or societal norms that I tolerate - to be at least shocking, if not horrifying. I certainly hope that on the balance I will be viewed in a positive light, but it's okay if I would not be seen as a model citizen in a few centuries: mores change, and our progression toward a more just and ethical society proceeds apace. In fact, if I'm seen as unusually saintly in the future, I would be disappointed that we haven't done a better job in making the world a better place.

---

I should maybe point out that given the size of the population of Surinam, we're most likely not talking about a theoretical relationship of slave-enslaved. But you also missed out on the fact that the previously unknown ancestor was learned about and put in the 'pride' column, where it would not have been strange to have labeled him as 'disappointing' at least.

I'm saying that pride and disappointment need not be mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rille

Hmm. I want the stuff he is smoking. ;-)

---

Shush, you're not allowed to speak. :haha:

Is that you, Kathaksung? :bulb: