Re: CHAT: Race, ethnicity, and hyphenization (was Re: PC terminology)

Tom Wier wrote:
>
> Nik Taylor wrote:
>
> > That I also have trouble with, any hyphenated American, for that
> > matter.  To me, a better term might be American of Irish descent or
> > Irish American (no hyphen).  Why?  It seems to me that if you're an
> > American citizen, especially if you were born in America, that part is
> > more important.  The Irish should be an adjective, or better yet, in a
> > prepositional phrase like "of Irish descent".  I'm descended from German
> > and English ancestry, but I wouldn't call myself German-American or
> > English-American, or German-English-American.
>
> I question why anybody feels the need to label themselves as somethingat
> all.  I mean, I
> surely think it's important to know your roots, and what
> kind of culture you have traditionally celebrated, but at base each person
> is a unique individual, without parallel... so why pretend otherwise?
>
My response is rather far afield of conlanging, but you did ask. Right
now, I am reading a book called "The Nurture Assumption" by Judith Rich
Harris. The primary topic is child development, with an emphasis on
socialization. One of the principles that Harris puts forth is that
division into groups is an innate part of human cognitive and social
behavior. Children as young as three will do this spontaneously, if
there are enough of them present. It's apparently something that we all
do, unconsciously, all through our lives. It's also something that is
very difficult to overcome. I don't want to get into a treatise here on
sociology or psychology. But Harris's material seems sound to me, and it
would mean that in order to operate *only* as a unique individual
(rather than being both a unique individual and a member of several
varying groups), it would take a continual conscious effort on the part
of the individual. And you'd still have the innate tendency of all your
fellow humans to view you as a member or non-member of all the various
groups they use.

In another note in this thread, Jim Hopkins wrote:

> The feeling of aversion to "labeling" is interesting considering that (in my
> admittedly non-expert) opinion that is exactly what all language is: Labeling
> for the purpose of making distinction.
I agree. It's something else that we humans seem to do innately and
unconsciously, even when children are told by their elders not to do it.
Another point that Harris makes is that we are constantly categorizing
ourselves and the people around us, even to the point of generating more
categories than we (or the society) ever gives linguistic labels to. But
the categories still exist as concepts in our minds, and therefore have
a chance to influence our behaviors.

I will now leave off pontificating. I admit to being enthusiastic about
the book. But anyone else who is interested will have to read and judge
for yourselves.

Laurie
---
Laurie Gerholz
milo@winternet.com