0 comment Tuesday, October 21, 2014 | admin
For a change, I am going to write a little about a couple of subjects that I really enjoy writing about: Cajuns. And history.
Part of my childhood, a very happy part, was spent in South Louisiana. And one of the best things about 1950s South Louisiana was the people there, who were mostly Cajun.
I have a special fondness for Cajuns and their way of life. Who wouldn't like Cajuns? They are known for their joie de vivre, their joy of living, and for their easy-going, open ways, their down-to-earth attitude, their sense of humor, and their wonderful food. And their music.
But despite all this, they are a group of people with rather a sad history.
Cajuns are a group of people of mostly French descent, whose ancestors settled in Canada, and who were displaced in a tragic event referred to as Le Grand Dérangement.
Le Grand Dérangement ("The Great Disturbance") is the name given to the Acadians� 1755 mass expulsion from their homeland by the British military. An illegal action undertaken during peacetime without approval of the British government in London, the expulsion was devised by Major Charles Lawrence, a professional British soldier who in 1754 took command of the colony as its lieutenant governor.
Later appointed full governor, Lawrence feared that the Acadians, despite their claims of neutrality, would become fifth columnists in the event of another war with France. The Acadians� numerical advantage over their British overseers magnified his fear. In addition, Lawrence desired the Acadians� fertile farmlands for loyal Anglo-Protestant settlers. Failing to acquire from the Acadians an ironclad oath of allegiance to the British crown, Lawrence summoned Acadian males to fortified posts under false pretenses and arrested them while soldiers burned homes and boats and rounded up women and children. Herded into ports, Lawrence divided the Acadians into groups according to age and sex, loaded them onto overcrowded vessels, and scattered them across thousands of miles in a deliberate attempt to wipe out the Acadian identity. (Numbering some 12,000 to 18,000 total, only 6,000 to 7,000 Acadians were actually expelled on British ships, the remainder fleeing to neighboring regions.) According to some estimates, about half the pre-expulsion Acadian population died from disease, exposure, and starvation brought about directly by the British operation (which by modern standards arguably constituted an incident of genocide or "ethnic cleansing"). ''
As usual, in these historical accounts of 18th century colonial North America, the British are cast as the bad guys. I will overlook that for now. It certainly does seem as though the Cajuns suffered some real ill-treatment in this event. But Canada's loss was eventually Louisiana's gain.
From the Wikipedia entry on Cajuns:
Cajuns are an ethnic group mainly living in Louisiana, consisting of the descendants of Acadian exiles and peoples of other ethnicities with whom the Acadians eventually intermarried on the semitropical frontier. Today, the Cajuns make up a significant portion of south Louisiana's population, and have exerted an enormous impact on the state's culture.
[...]
The Cajuns retain a unique dialect of the French language and numerous other cultural traits that distinguish them as an ethnic group. Cajuns were officially recognized by the U.S. government as a national ethnic group in 1980 per a discrimination lawsuit filed in federal district court. Presided over by Judge Edwin Hunter, the case, known as Roach v. Dresser Industries Valve and Instrument Division (494 F.Supp. 215, D.C. La., 1980), hinged on the issue of the Cajuns' ethnicity. Significantly, Judge Hunter held in his ruling that:
"We conclude that plaintiff is protected by Title VII's ban on national origin discrimination. The Louisiana Acadian (Cajun) is alive and well. He is "up front" and "main stream." He is not asking for any special treatment. By affording coverage under the "national origin" clause of Title VII he is afforded no special privilege. He is given only the same protection as those with English, Spanish, French, Iranian, Portuguese, Mexican, Italian, Irish, et al., ancestors."
From the Encyclopedia of Cajun Culture:
Dictionaries generally define Cajun as "a Louisianian who descends from French-speaking Acadians." However, many common Cajun surnames � for instance, Soileau, Romero, Huval, Fontenot � are not Acadian in origin, but rather are Spanish, German or French Creole. Some are even of Anglo or Scotch-Irish origin, as in the case of famed Cajun musicians Lawrence Walker and Dennis McGee.
For this reason, contemporary scholars of Cajun history and culture tend to offer a more complex, comprehensive view, attributing the traits of modern-day Cajuns to a dynamic, unending process of ethnic interaction. Although modern Cajuns are largely homogenous, their ancestry consists of a mixture of many ethnic groups.
Most early Acadians originated in the Centre-Ouest region of France, but others came from families of Spanish, Irish, Scottish, English, Basque, and, in a few instances, American Indian heritage. After their 1755 expulsion from Nova Scotia, Acadians seeking refuge in South Louisiana again intermixed with other ethnic groups, particularly with French, Spanish, German, and, later, Anglo-American settlers, as well as Indians (albeit to a lesser extent). Historian Carl A. Brasseaux has shown, for example, that after the Civil War over fifty percent of brides and grooms with Acadian surnames were marrying persons with non-Acadian surnames.''
From another source:
In July 1632 three hundred French settlers arrived in Acadia to carve out frontier homes near the community of Port Royal. Fifty-five percent of these Acadian "first families" hailed from the Centre-Ouest region of France (Poitou, Aunis, Angoumois, and Saintonge); of these, eighty-five percent came from the La Chausée area of Poitou. These families included Doucet, Bourgeois, Boudrot (Boudreaux), Terriault (Theriot), Richard, LeBlanc, Thibodeaux, Comeau(x), Cormier, Hébert, Brault (Breaux), Granger, and Girouard.
Most of these and later Acadian settlers derived from Old World peasant stock, shared similar cultural traits, and on the frontier developed a common Acadian identity.
According to historian Carl A. Brasseaux, the Acadian pioneers were characterized by individualism, adaptability, pragmatism, industriousness, egalitarian principles, and an ability to pull together when threatened. They also possessed extended families, and distinctive language and speech patterns. The Acadians were also typically non-materialistic, seeking only economic independence and a decent standard of living through an agrarian way of life. Some ethnic diversity did exist among the Acadians, however: a few were of English, Scottish, Irish, Spanish, Basque, and even American Indian origin.
Those of French origin, however, dominated the cultural landscape, and as intermarriage occurred the Acadian population quickly became homogenized. Studies indicate that between 1654 and 1755 the Acadian population grew from 300-350 colonists to about 12,000-15,000 (despite a fifty-percent child mortality rate). Sources: Ancelet et al., Cajun Country; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun; Brasseaux, "Scattered to the Wind"; Domengeaux, "Native-Born Acadians"; Dormon, People Called Cajuns.''
[Emphasis mine]
So despite their fewness in number and the centuries that have passed since their arrival in North America, the Cajuns have maintained their identity as a distinct group of people. For the first century or so of their life in America, they lived side by side with various other settler groups in Louisiana, but kept their distinctivness as a people. It was not until the upheavals of the War Between the States and Reconstruction that their identity was somewhat threatened by social change.
Of that era, Julie Elizabeth Hebert says:
Several stereotypes which still accompany the idea of "a true Cajun" developed in these eras: lazy, ignorant, illiterate, and simple. Able to remain unassimilated for the most part, Cajuns continued to act in the ways they had before the war. Like all good Southerners, they still loved card games, parties, and communal get togethers, but unlike the Americans, Cajuns continued to work at their own pace, a work ethic which stood in complete contrast to the American idea of progress. James Dorman, in his work on the ethnicity of the Cajun culture, quotes several journalists of the day who described the Cajuns as follows: "a Utopian dreamer and idler...�one who sits on the skirts of progress," "the Acadian who overworks is indeed a rara avis [rare bird]," and "most of them are mere squatters on the Prairies." Southerners, in general, thought little of the Cajuns and their culture because their values negated the closely held American values of material wealth, the Protestant work ethic, and progress. Cajuns, themselves, thought little of American standards including those regarding education, and Cajun folk wisdom summed up the Cajun opinion on education: "My son is rascal enough without an education." Cajuns reveled in their illiteracy, and this attitude concerning education served as another reason why the Americans looked down upon the "poor," "stupid" Cajuns of south Louisiana.
Despite these qualities which fostered a negative stereotype of Cajuns, observers of Cajun communities repeatedly remarked upon two distinct Cajun ethnic qualities in a positive light: hospitality and family ties. Travelers in the South during the post-Civil War era commented upon the friendliness with which the Cajun family welcomed strangers into their home and their willingness to share what little they had with those in need. Motivated, not by a conscious sense of charity, but rather by an inherited trait of hospitality, Cajuns opened their homes to all who graced their doorsteps. Continuation of the strong family ties among the Cajun communities, the second positive quality of Cajun culture, survived through the institution of marriage. Cajun youth often married among their own kind. Women of Cajun descent usually married men of similar heritage; however, if a young Cajun woman decided to marry a German or Creole, the family ties, although slightly altered, still remained strong within her own family. According to most historians of this culture, the Cajun culture continued to flourish mainly because of the female population and the roles mothers played in childrearing and in the preserving of family customs and traditions. Cajun women reared their children while the men worked, and if the woman was Cajun, she reared her children to appreciate and respect their Cajun traditions and heritage.
Hebert describes how the expansion of railroads reduced the isolation of the Cajuns, and increased the trend toward cultural homogenization. However, those Cajuns who did not choose the urban lifestyle became the keepers of Cajun culture in their rural small communities.
Huey P. Long, the governor of Louisiana from 1928-1932 (and later Senator), also did his part in discouraging the isolation of the Cajuns by means of his road improvements.
Those influenced by these improvements most likely did not realize the extent to which these improvements functioned as infiltrators of their isolationism and their ethnic culture. Despite all the necessary changes brought by the Long administration, one piece of legislation issued a substantial blow to the Cajun ethnic identity: the Louisiana Constitution of 1921. Through this document, the legislature denied public schools the right to instruct children in both French and English. Most Cajun rural folk and children were monolingual and able to speak very few words of English. Louisiana legislators through this law in essence denied Cajun children the right to education in their primary language forcing them either to learn English or remain illiterate.[...]
As the ethnic ties of the community as a whole continued to unravel, the negative stereotype in regards to French speakers remained a constant on the Louisiana social landscape. Through all of this, rural Cajun culture survived almost untouched, and observers of these decades described the rural Cajuns in much the same way as others had described them in previous decades:
"Their homes are always spotless, and there is always a welcome and a cup of black coffee for any caller, even though he be a stranger," a typical Cajun "lives in his own home, usually with several relatives, besides his immediate family. He keeps a cow, some chickens, and raises a few vegetables which he sometimes sells. Sometimes he helps keep a store in the nearby village," and "an unsophisticated agrarian people who have clung tenaciously to their old customs and traditions."
Because of their "geographic, occupation, and language isolation," the rural Cajuns achieved a social isolationism "greater than that of any other American ethnic group." People in the 1920s and 1930s identified this Cajun ethnicity and began to describe the Cajun culture based on its ethnic qualities. While the urban Cajun assimilated, the rural Cajun in his isolation preserved his cultural traditions.
Later on, World War II, which took many young Cajun men far from home and heritage, further encouraged their assimilation into the larger society. Following the war, the Rural Electrification Administration brought the 'modern world' into rural Acadiana, and the spread of television in the 1950s was a further blow to traditional Cajun ways.
Other modernizing trends took their toll:
With the advent of supermarkets, the need for boucheries deteriorated, and the variety of foods available in these markets expanded the Cajun palate which undermined the traditional cuisine. The bals de maisons found their replacements in the radio, the television set, and the movie theater. Cajun music came under attack, as well, and in the 1950s others called this music "Chanky-Chank" music "suggesting the simplicity of instrumentation and rhythm as well as the characteristically reiterative harmonic line." Modernization resulted in a definite decline in the rural Cajun ethnic culture.''
And then came the 1960s, which was the beginning of a wholesale tearing-down of traditional mores in general, including those of Cajun country. But one benefit of the 1960s and 70s was a new interest in ethnicity and roots. 'Folk music' enjoyed a wave of popularity. At first, most of the 'folk music' craze was a dilettantish dabbling by academics and college students looking for something quaint and different and 'authentic'. The result was manufactured 'folk music' like that of the Kingston Trio and the college 'Hootenanny' craze. However, it did eventually lead many people to explore genuine roots music and honest-to-goodness traditional music from many sources. Cajuns benefited from this, as Cajun music became respectable and respected again, rather than being disparaged as 'chanky-chank' music. And not only Cajun music, but Cajun history, culture, and the Cajun dialect of French gained new attention.
With all this, however, the Cajun people are unmistakably part of America. There is something quintessentially American about their character along with their distinctiveness as a people. They, to my mind, are an example of a healthy ethnic group which is nonetheless part of America. There is none of the chip-on-the-shoulder, outsider victimhood mentality among Cajuns, in my experience. There may be some individuals with such attitudes but I have not encountered them.
Do I contradict myself? I now and then rail about unassimilable ethnic groups who have a stand-offish, us-vs.-them attitude towards the rest of us. I remember a discussion at Free Republic a few years ago involving Cajuns and their language, and somebody made a snarky comparison between Cajuns and Mexican immigrants who speak Spanish. The comparison incensed me; the attitudes of Cajuns and Mexicans are not comparable. At all. Cajuns love Louisiana, and they love America. Cajuns carry no residual allegiance to France or to Canada, their original home in the New World. This country, specifically Louisiana, is their home. They have no centuries-old grudge against Anglo-Americans as have Latinos. I remember no hostility in school between kids of Cajun descent and those of Anglo or other descent. Everybody got along famously; the Cajun kids were the most accepting and agreeable of all the classmates I had during my school years, despite my 'Texan' origin. There was a kind of jocular rivalry with Texans at that time, but no animosity. (And maybe it helped that I had a surname that, despite its non-French origin, was a surname borne by some Cajun families in the area.)
And somehow, along with their distinctiveness, Cajuns seem to be very much a part of the South. Their ways, although identifiably 'Cajun' are also part and parcel of the South. There is a compatibility there. There is no sense of disharmony or cultural clash between south Louisiana and, say, Texas. They differ, but there are commonalities. They are part of a larger whole: America, and the South specifically.
But the thought that crosses my mind most often these days in connection with the Cajuns is that they represent a group of people who might have disappeared centuries ago, but who have survived, despite being a small and rather vulnerable group of people, who were displaced and harried by historical events. Yet they have maintained their identity while still becoming part of the United States of America. It proves to me that if the sense of belonging to a group, and a pride in that group, is strong enough, the people and their culture can survive even if greatly outnumbered. That may be a lesson we will have to take from the Cajuns, we or our children and grandchildren, as they become an outnumbered and displaced group of people in the new 'America' or whatever takes its place.
From the website of the wonderful Cajun band, Balfa Toujours, this passage seems apposite:
Today the Cajun people are standing tall. After 400 years of almost constant pressure to conform to the larger cultures surrounding them, they have proven that their identity is too strong to be eradicated. This challenge has been increased greatly by the developments of this century, which have taken their toll on many subcultures. It appears that these challenges have largely been met in Louisiana, with many young people now taking pride in their heritage. A clear example of this is with the language. In the 1950's and 1960's, many people were punished in school for speaking French. Today, there are French immersion schools in which all classes are taught in a language that was considered shameful only a few decades ago.
This cultural revival has brought the Cajun people a lot of attention. While this is good for the Cajuns, certainly, it is perhaps not enough. It was Dewey Balfa's sincere hope that the further effect of his work would be to inspire other cultures as well. He hoped that others would see his pride and begin to feel it more strongly about their own heritage. If the story of the Cajuns can help to accomplish this, it will truly have done something marvelous.''
We who are the sons and daughters of Anglo-America can learn from the Cajuns a pride in their heritage, their people, and culture. If we can regain that, we will have half-won the battle.
However, one advantage the Cajuns had which is denied us in our 21st century America is isolation and freedom of association. They were able to have their own little area of South Louisiana in which their culture could persist and thrive, and they had the strength of community and kinship ties to sustain their culture. Our mass Tower of Babel culture does not afford us this luxury, as our communities are being purposely broken up.
Can we Americans survive as a distinct people, possibly even a minority people, in the face of the forcible multiculturalizing of our country, and despite the attempt to discredit our history and our culture? I think it will be an uphill journey unless we return to a more manageable, decentralized way of life with local control, and regain our freedom of association. Think small'; think local. Remember how destructive the mass media can be, and re-create a genuine way of life apart from the pernicious effects of television and mass pop culture.
Forum comments are here.
Part of my childhood, a very happy part, was spent in South Louisiana. And one of the best things about 1950s South Louisiana was the people there, who were mostly Cajun.
I have a special fondness for Cajuns and their way of life. Who wouldn't like Cajuns? They are known for their joie de vivre, their joy of living, and for their easy-going, open ways, their down-to-earth attitude, their sense of humor, and their wonderful food. And their music.
But despite all this, they are a group of people with rather a sad history.
Cajuns are a group of people of mostly French descent, whose ancestors settled in Canada, and who were displaced in a tragic event referred to as Le Grand Dérangement.
Le Grand Dérangement ("The Great Disturbance") is the name given to the Acadians� 1755 mass expulsion from their homeland by the British military. An illegal action undertaken during peacetime without approval of the British government in London, the expulsion was devised by Major Charles Lawrence, a professional British soldier who in 1754 took command of the colony as its lieutenant governor.
Later appointed full governor, Lawrence feared that the Acadians, despite their claims of neutrality, would become fifth columnists in the event of another war with France. The Acadians� numerical advantage over their British overseers magnified his fear. In addition, Lawrence desired the Acadians� fertile farmlands for loyal Anglo-Protestant settlers. Failing to acquire from the Acadians an ironclad oath of allegiance to the British crown, Lawrence summoned Acadian males to fortified posts under false pretenses and arrested them while soldiers burned homes and boats and rounded up women and children. Herded into ports, Lawrence divided the Acadians into groups according to age and sex, loaded them onto overcrowded vessels, and scattered them across thousands of miles in a deliberate attempt to wipe out the Acadian identity. (Numbering some 12,000 to 18,000 total, only 6,000 to 7,000 Acadians were actually expelled on British ships, the remainder fleeing to neighboring regions.) According to some estimates, about half the pre-expulsion Acadian population died from disease, exposure, and starvation brought about directly by the British operation (which by modern standards arguably constituted an incident of genocide or "ethnic cleansing"). ''
As usual, in these historical accounts of 18th century colonial North America, the British are cast as the bad guys. I will overlook that for now. It certainly does seem as though the Cajuns suffered some real ill-treatment in this event. But Canada's loss was eventually Louisiana's gain.
From the Wikipedia entry on Cajuns:
Cajuns are an ethnic group mainly living in Louisiana, consisting of the descendants of Acadian exiles and peoples of other ethnicities with whom the Acadians eventually intermarried on the semitropical frontier. Today, the Cajuns make up a significant portion of south Louisiana's population, and have exerted an enormous impact on the state's culture.
[...]
The Cajuns retain a unique dialect of the French language and numerous other cultural traits that distinguish them as an ethnic group. Cajuns were officially recognized by the U.S. government as a national ethnic group in 1980 per a discrimination lawsuit filed in federal district court. Presided over by Judge Edwin Hunter, the case, known as Roach v. Dresser Industries Valve and Instrument Division (494 F.Supp. 215, D.C. La., 1980), hinged on the issue of the Cajuns' ethnicity. Significantly, Judge Hunter held in his ruling that:
"We conclude that plaintiff is protected by Title VII's ban on national origin discrimination. The Louisiana Acadian (Cajun) is alive and well. He is "up front" and "main stream." He is not asking for any special treatment. By affording coverage under the "national origin" clause of Title VII he is afforded no special privilege. He is given only the same protection as those with English, Spanish, French, Iranian, Portuguese, Mexican, Italian, Irish, et al., ancestors."
From the Encyclopedia of Cajun Culture:
Dictionaries generally define Cajun as "a Louisianian who descends from French-speaking Acadians." However, many common Cajun surnames � for instance, Soileau, Romero, Huval, Fontenot � are not Acadian in origin, but rather are Spanish, German or French Creole. Some are even of Anglo or Scotch-Irish origin, as in the case of famed Cajun musicians Lawrence Walker and Dennis McGee.
For this reason, contemporary scholars of Cajun history and culture tend to offer a more complex, comprehensive view, attributing the traits of modern-day Cajuns to a dynamic, unending process of ethnic interaction. Although modern Cajuns are largely homogenous, their ancestry consists of a mixture of many ethnic groups.
Most early Acadians originated in the Centre-Ouest region of France, but others came from families of Spanish, Irish, Scottish, English, Basque, and, in a few instances, American Indian heritage. After their 1755 expulsion from Nova Scotia, Acadians seeking refuge in South Louisiana again intermixed with other ethnic groups, particularly with French, Spanish, German, and, later, Anglo-American settlers, as well as Indians (albeit to a lesser extent). Historian Carl A. Brasseaux has shown, for example, that after the Civil War over fifty percent of brides and grooms with Acadian surnames were marrying persons with non-Acadian surnames.''
From another source:
In July 1632 three hundred French settlers arrived in Acadia to carve out frontier homes near the community of Port Royal. Fifty-five percent of these Acadian "first families" hailed from the Centre-Ouest region of France (Poitou, Aunis, Angoumois, and Saintonge); of these, eighty-five percent came from the La Chausée area of Poitou. These families included Doucet, Bourgeois, Boudrot (Boudreaux), Terriault (Theriot), Richard, LeBlanc, Thibodeaux, Comeau(x), Cormier, Hébert, Brault (Breaux), Granger, and Girouard.
Most of these and later Acadian settlers derived from Old World peasant stock, shared similar cultural traits, and on the frontier developed a common Acadian identity.
According to historian Carl A. Brasseaux, the Acadian pioneers were characterized by individualism, adaptability, pragmatism, industriousness, egalitarian principles, and an ability to pull together when threatened. They also possessed extended families, and distinctive language and speech patterns. The Acadians were also typically non-materialistic, seeking only economic independence and a decent standard of living through an agrarian way of life. Some ethnic diversity did exist among the Acadians, however: a few were of English, Scottish, Irish, Spanish, Basque, and even American Indian origin.
Those of French origin, however, dominated the cultural landscape, and as intermarriage occurred the Acadian population quickly became homogenized. Studies indicate that between 1654 and 1755 the Acadian population grew from 300-350 colonists to about 12,000-15,000 (despite a fifty-percent child mortality rate). Sources: Ancelet et al., Cajun Country; Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun; Brasseaux, "Scattered to the Wind"; Domengeaux, "Native-Born Acadians"; Dormon, People Called Cajuns.''
[Emphasis mine]
So despite their fewness in number and the centuries that have passed since their arrival in North America, the Cajuns have maintained their identity as a distinct group of people. For the first century or so of their life in America, they lived side by side with various other settler groups in Louisiana, but kept their distinctivness as a people. It was not until the upheavals of the War Between the States and Reconstruction that their identity was somewhat threatened by social change.
Of that era, Julie Elizabeth Hebert says:
Several stereotypes which still accompany the idea of "a true Cajun" developed in these eras: lazy, ignorant, illiterate, and simple. Able to remain unassimilated for the most part, Cajuns continued to act in the ways they had before the war. Like all good Southerners, they still loved card games, parties, and communal get togethers, but unlike the Americans, Cajuns continued to work at their own pace, a work ethic which stood in complete contrast to the American idea of progress. James Dorman, in his work on the ethnicity of the Cajun culture, quotes several journalists of the day who described the Cajuns as follows: "a Utopian dreamer and idler...�one who sits on the skirts of progress," "the Acadian who overworks is indeed a rara avis [rare bird]," and "most of them are mere squatters on the Prairies." Southerners, in general, thought little of the Cajuns and their culture because their values negated the closely held American values of material wealth, the Protestant work ethic, and progress. Cajuns, themselves, thought little of American standards including those regarding education, and Cajun folk wisdom summed up the Cajun opinion on education: "My son is rascal enough without an education." Cajuns reveled in their illiteracy, and this attitude concerning education served as another reason why the Americans looked down upon the "poor," "stupid" Cajuns of south Louisiana.
Despite these qualities which fostered a negative stereotype of Cajuns, observers of Cajun communities repeatedly remarked upon two distinct Cajun ethnic qualities in a positive light: hospitality and family ties. Travelers in the South during the post-Civil War era commented upon the friendliness with which the Cajun family welcomed strangers into their home and their willingness to share what little they had with those in need. Motivated, not by a conscious sense of charity, but rather by an inherited trait of hospitality, Cajuns opened their homes to all who graced their doorsteps. Continuation of the strong family ties among the Cajun communities, the second positive quality of Cajun culture, survived through the institution of marriage. Cajun youth often married among their own kind. Women of Cajun descent usually married men of similar heritage; however, if a young Cajun woman decided to marry a German or Creole, the family ties, although slightly altered, still remained strong within her own family. According to most historians of this culture, the Cajun culture continued to flourish mainly because of the female population and the roles mothers played in childrearing and in the preserving of family customs and traditions. Cajun women reared their children while the men worked, and if the woman was Cajun, she reared her children to appreciate and respect their Cajun traditions and heritage.
Hebert describes how the expansion of railroads reduced the isolation of the Cajuns, and increased the trend toward cultural homogenization. However, those Cajuns who did not choose the urban lifestyle became the keepers of Cajun culture in their rural small communities.
Huey P. Long, the governor of Louisiana from 1928-1932 (and later Senator), also did his part in discouraging the isolation of the Cajuns by means of his road improvements.
Those influenced by these improvements most likely did not realize the extent to which these improvements functioned as infiltrators of their isolationism and their ethnic culture. Despite all the necessary changes brought by the Long administration, one piece of legislation issued a substantial blow to the Cajun ethnic identity: the Louisiana Constitution of 1921. Through this document, the legislature denied public schools the right to instruct children in both French and English. Most Cajun rural folk and children were monolingual and able to speak very few words of English. Louisiana legislators through this law in essence denied Cajun children the right to education in their primary language forcing them either to learn English or remain illiterate.[...]
As the ethnic ties of the community as a whole continued to unravel, the negative stereotype in regards to French speakers remained a constant on the Louisiana social landscape. Through all of this, rural Cajun culture survived almost untouched, and observers of these decades described the rural Cajuns in much the same way as others had described them in previous decades:
"Their homes are always spotless, and there is always a welcome and a cup of black coffee for any caller, even though he be a stranger," a typical Cajun "lives in his own home, usually with several relatives, besides his immediate family. He keeps a cow, some chickens, and raises a few vegetables which he sometimes sells. Sometimes he helps keep a store in the nearby village," and "an unsophisticated agrarian people who have clung tenaciously to their old customs and traditions."
Because of their "geographic, occupation, and language isolation," the rural Cajuns achieved a social isolationism "greater than that of any other American ethnic group." People in the 1920s and 1930s identified this Cajun ethnicity and began to describe the Cajun culture based on its ethnic qualities. While the urban Cajun assimilated, the rural Cajun in his isolation preserved his cultural traditions.
Later on, World War II, which took many young Cajun men far from home and heritage, further encouraged their assimilation into the larger society. Following the war, the Rural Electrification Administration brought the 'modern world' into rural Acadiana, and the spread of television in the 1950s was a further blow to traditional Cajun ways.
Other modernizing trends took their toll:
With the advent of supermarkets, the need for boucheries deteriorated, and the variety of foods available in these markets expanded the Cajun palate which undermined the traditional cuisine. The bals de maisons found their replacements in the radio, the television set, and the movie theater. Cajun music came under attack, as well, and in the 1950s others called this music "Chanky-Chank" music "suggesting the simplicity of instrumentation and rhythm as well as the characteristically reiterative harmonic line." Modernization resulted in a definite decline in the rural Cajun ethnic culture.''
And then came the 1960s, which was the beginning of a wholesale tearing-down of traditional mores in general, including those of Cajun country. But one benefit of the 1960s and 70s was a new interest in ethnicity and roots. 'Folk music' enjoyed a wave of popularity. At first, most of the 'folk music' craze was a dilettantish dabbling by academics and college students looking for something quaint and different and 'authentic'. The result was manufactured 'folk music' like that of the Kingston Trio and the college 'Hootenanny' craze. However, it did eventually lead many people to explore genuine roots music and honest-to-goodness traditional music from many sources. Cajuns benefited from this, as Cajun music became respectable and respected again, rather than being disparaged as 'chanky-chank' music. And not only Cajun music, but Cajun history, culture, and the Cajun dialect of French gained new attention.
With all this, however, the Cajun people are unmistakably part of America. There is something quintessentially American about their character along with their distinctiveness as a people. They, to my mind, are an example of a healthy ethnic group which is nonetheless part of America. There is none of the chip-on-the-shoulder, outsider victimhood mentality among Cajuns, in my experience. There may be some individuals with such attitudes but I have not encountered them.
Do I contradict myself? I now and then rail about unassimilable ethnic groups who have a stand-offish, us-vs.-them attitude towards the rest of us. I remember a discussion at Free Republic a few years ago involving Cajuns and their language, and somebody made a snarky comparison between Cajuns and Mexican immigrants who speak Spanish. The comparison incensed me; the attitudes of Cajuns and Mexicans are not comparable. At all. Cajuns love Louisiana, and they love America. Cajuns carry no residual allegiance to France or to Canada, their original home in the New World. This country, specifically Louisiana, is their home. They have no centuries-old grudge against Anglo-Americans as have Latinos. I remember no hostility in school between kids of Cajun descent and those of Anglo or other descent. Everybody got along famously; the Cajun kids were the most accepting and agreeable of all the classmates I had during my school years, despite my 'Texan' origin. There was a kind of jocular rivalry with Texans at that time, but no animosity. (And maybe it helped that I had a surname that, despite its non-French origin, was a surname borne by some Cajun families in the area.)
And somehow, along with their distinctiveness, Cajuns seem to be very much a part of the South. Their ways, although identifiably 'Cajun' are also part and parcel of the South. There is a compatibility there. There is no sense of disharmony or cultural clash between south Louisiana and, say, Texas. They differ, but there are commonalities. They are part of a larger whole: America, and the South specifically.
But the thought that crosses my mind most often these days in connection with the Cajuns is that they represent a group of people who might have disappeared centuries ago, but who have survived, despite being a small and rather vulnerable group of people, who were displaced and harried by historical events. Yet they have maintained their identity while still becoming part of the United States of America. It proves to me that if the sense of belonging to a group, and a pride in that group, is strong enough, the people and their culture can survive even if greatly outnumbered. That may be a lesson we will have to take from the Cajuns, we or our children and grandchildren, as they become an outnumbered and displaced group of people in the new 'America' or whatever takes its place.
From the website of the wonderful Cajun band, Balfa Toujours, this passage seems apposite:
Today the Cajun people are standing tall. After 400 years of almost constant pressure to conform to the larger cultures surrounding them, they have proven that their identity is too strong to be eradicated. This challenge has been increased greatly by the developments of this century, which have taken their toll on many subcultures. It appears that these challenges have largely been met in Louisiana, with many young people now taking pride in their heritage. A clear example of this is with the language. In the 1950's and 1960's, many people were punished in school for speaking French. Today, there are French immersion schools in which all classes are taught in a language that was considered shameful only a few decades ago.
This cultural revival has brought the Cajun people a lot of attention. While this is good for the Cajuns, certainly, it is perhaps not enough. It was Dewey Balfa's sincere hope that the further effect of his work would be to inspire other cultures as well. He hoped that others would see his pride and begin to feel it more strongly about their own heritage. If the story of the Cajuns can help to accomplish this, it will truly have done something marvelous.''
We who are the sons and daughters of Anglo-America can learn from the Cajuns a pride in their heritage, their people, and culture. If we can regain that, we will have half-won the battle.
However, one advantage the Cajuns had which is denied us in our 21st century America is isolation and freedom of association. They were able to have their own little area of South Louisiana in which their culture could persist and thrive, and they had the strength of community and kinship ties to sustain their culture. Our mass Tower of Babel culture does not afford us this luxury, as our communities are being purposely broken up.
Can we Americans survive as a distinct people, possibly even a minority people, in the face of the forcible multiculturalizing of our country, and despite the attempt to discredit our history and our culture? I think it will be an uphill journey unless we return to a more manageable, decentralized way of life with local control, and regain our freedom of association. Think small'; think local. Remember how destructive the mass media can be, and re-create a genuine way of life apart from the pernicious effects of television and mass pop culture.
Forum comments are here.
Labels: American Culture, American History, Assimilation, Cajuns, Ethnicity, Freedom Of Association
0 comment Wednesday, September 3, 2014 | admin
Here is another one of those silly stories about the family trees of the various candidates, with the spin being that we are all, again, just cousins. Pay no attention to the fact that Obama has Kenyan ancestry; he is the cousin of many prominent white folks, past and present, including even some movie idols. Isn't that wonderful? Yes, we are all one big, happy family, and the differences are only skin deep.
''Clinton is related to [Brad] Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.
Researchers at the New England Historic Genealogical Society found some remarkable family connections for the three presidential candidates � Democratic rivals Obama and Clinton, and Republican John McCain.
Clinton, who is of French-Canadian descent on her mother's side, is also a distant cousin of singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette. Obama, the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, can call six U.S. presidents, including George W. Bush, his cousins. McCain is a sixth cousin of first lady Laura Bush.
[...]
Genealogist Christopher Child said that while the candidates often focus on pointing out differences between them, their ancestry shows they are more alike than they think.
"It shows that lots of different people can be related, people you wouldn't necessarily expect," Child said.
Obama has a prolific presidential lineage that features Democrats and Republicans. His distant cousins include President George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison. Other Obama cousins include Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill and Civil War General Robert E. Lee.''
[Emphasis mine]
Well, they've already claimed Jefferson Davis as one of Obama's kin, now Robert E. Lee himself is said to be just a cousin of Barack Hussein. Do you think there is any agenda at work here?
Personally I would like to see the actual family trees posted online, so that we can examine them and judge their accuracy for ourselves, or, in the case of people with genealogical experience, check the sources and the details of each lineage to see whether they line up with established facts. So far, it's just the word of a couple of genealogists whose credentials are unknown to the vast reading public.
I remember that during the last election, I read a similar article about how Bush and Kerry were kin, being distant cousins via their New England colonial ancestry. Not so coincidentally, considering my own Massachusetts colonial ancestry, I learned via that article that Kerry is one of my many distant cousins through our common Bulkeley ancestors. Another article established that Howard Dean was a distant cousin to both of them I believe, via the same ancestral line, and hence he too would be kin to me. But this is not surprising considering that there were something like 21,000 original Puritan settlers in New England and they formed the basis of the population of the New England states until the great wave of immigration in the mid-19th century. So most of those with colonial New England stock are related, however distantly. I suspect that some of you who have New England origins would also be related to me and of course to Kerry, Dean, et al.
Similarly, people throughout the South who have colonist ancestors are descended from the original Jamestown colonists in many cases, as well as to later waves of Huguenot settlers and Germanna colonists. One of my fellow bloggers, who is linked on my blogroll, has several family connections to me via these families. Many of us who have early roots in this country are kin to each other. Of course all of us have many thousands of living cousins, most of whom will never be known to us. Genealogy was one way in which I began to be aware of how connected I am, via blood, to many, many Americans. We are truly an extended family, not just in a metaphorical sense.
It was an odd feeling to learn that a distant cousin of mine with whom I became acquainted via sharing family history had lived very near to me in a West Coast city back in the 1960s for a brief time; we lived a few blocks apart and frequented some of the same places. We might well have met and never been aware of our family connection.
But back to the candidates' genealogy: I was morbidly curious to know whether Bill Richardson, (or Bill ''Call Me Lopez" Richardson, as Tanstaafl dubs him), was kin to me, based on his one-fourth New England Yankee ancestry, but I found no connection when I researched his family tree. I can't say I was disappointed to find no connection. Likewise I found no connection to Obama's Dunham ancestry among my own ancestors.
I have learned that John Edwards may be a distant cousin to me, based on his Dillard ancestry, according to this website. How accurate the information is on the site, I don't know.
Being as heritage and kin-oriented as I am, genealogy is an interest of mine and I've found it a fascinating way to learn more about history in a very specific way as I read through old documents: public records, wills, letters, and various bits of information. It makes history much more real and personal to learn about it via our ancestors' own life experiences.
I've found that in general, people become more interested in their ancestry later in life; many of us become more interested in the past, and in our own personal origins, as we age. But some never become interested, and I think this is an attitude that is especially common in our age, as people tend to denigrate the past, and to view it as one long dark age, with our generation emerging as the pinnacle of evolution and enlightenment.
Some of the people in my own family are indifferent at best to genealogy and their roots; 'what has that got to do with me?' seems to be the attitude. And then there are the genealogical agnostics, who say ''how can you even know if any of that stuff is true?" We can know it's true if we find records and sources; family legends are often fanciful and erroneous, and much of what is online is inaccurate and must be double-checked. Some of it is patently false and unfounded. Some of the family lore is quite accurate; my grandmother asserted she had a lot of Welsh ancestry, and research proved this true. Some of the older generations carefully preserved oral knowledge of our forebears, and there was a great deal of careful record-keeping which has come to light. So the agnostics are wrong to say that it's all just fable or conjecture.
However, I suspect much of this business about how Obama is a cousin to many presidents and celebrities is a further effort to make him seem all-American and well-connected. And considering that there is an obvious political agenda at work, I take these 'facts' about his ancestry with a copious helping of salt.
And speaking of ancestry, I have noticed a very common complaint among 'conservatives' about Obama is that he identifies as black. They keep asking why he doesn't consider himself white, considering his white mother. I find this a curious question: if any of us saw Obama on the street, and he was a stranger to us, would we consider him white, or would we judge him as black or ''African-American'' at a glance? I would say the latter. We might think he had some non-African ancestry but then again so do many blacks in this country, and they are not any the less black, as far as their identification is concerned. They tend to identify as black and we identify them as such.
So why are all the 'conservatives' distressed because Obama does not call himself white, or mixed?
I've heard the same lament from the 'colorblind conservatives' about actress Halle Berry; ''why does she call herself black, when she's got white blood'?
I say it's because the black genes tend to be dominant, both in the phenotype, the outward appearance, and in the behavior. I think the 'colorblind conservatives' are being disingenuous to complain because Obama or Halle Berry call themselves black. I've known people much lighter in complexion and much less African in appearance who called themselves African-American. Obama is black, in appearance and in attitude. It does not matter that he 'sounds' white or speaks standard American English like an educated man. He seems to consider himself black and that is what matters. Obviously, like most half-and-half people, he considers himself as belonging to the minority half, and not to the white side. This is just the dynamic of our minority-obsessed society. There are benefits that accrue to people of minority heritage, especially to blacks, who are the elite among victim groups. Hispanics will soon give them a run for their money, literally, as Hispanics are now more numerous and are becoming seen as the 'new and improved' minority group for the 21st century; they are growing in numbers and in clout, and the business interests and politicians are greedy for the favor of Hispanics. In any case, nobody of mixed parentage sees much advantage in identifying with whitey; it's so much cooler and so much more chic and so much more profitable to be one of the exalted 'oppressed' people.
So no, regardless of who is related to whom, Obama is identified the exotic 'other', and not just another member of the big old American family.
''Clinton is related to [Brad] Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.
Researchers at the New England Historic Genealogical Society found some remarkable family connections for the three presidential candidates � Democratic rivals Obama and Clinton, and Republican John McCain.
Clinton, who is of French-Canadian descent on her mother's side, is also a distant cousin of singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette. Obama, the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, can call six U.S. presidents, including George W. Bush, his cousins. McCain is a sixth cousin of first lady Laura Bush.
[...]
Genealogist Christopher Child said that while the candidates often focus on pointing out differences between them, their ancestry shows they are more alike than they think.
"It shows that lots of different people can be related, people you wouldn't necessarily expect," Child said.
Obama has a prolific presidential lineage that features Democrats and Republicans. His distant cousins include President George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison. Other Obama cousins include Vice President Dick Cheney, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill and Civil War General Robert E. Lee.''
[Emphasis mine]
Well, they've already claimed Jefferson Davis as one of Obama's kin, now Robert E. Lee himself is said to be just a cousin of Barack Hussein. Do you think there is any agenda at work here?
Personally I would like to see the actual family trees posted online, so that we can examine them and judge their accuracy for ourselves, or, in the case of people with genealogical experience, check the sources and the details of each lineage to see whether they line up with established facts. So far, it's just the word of a couple of genealogists whose credentials are unknown to the vast reading public.
I remember that during the last election, I read a similar article about how Bush and Kerry were kin, being distant cousins via their New England colonial ancestry. Not so coincidentally, considering my own Massachusetts colonial ancestry, I learned via that article that Kerry is one of my many distant cousins through our common Bulkeley ancestors. Another article established that Howard Dean was a distant cousin to both of them I believe, via the same ancestral line, and hence he too would be kin to me. But this is not surprising considering that there were something like 21,000 original Puritan settlers in New England and they formed the basis of the population of the New England states until the great wave of immigration in the mid-19th century. So most of those with colonial New England stock are related, however distantly. I suspect that some of you who have New England origins would also be related to me and of course to Kerry, Dean, et al.
Similarly, people throughout the South who have colonist ancestors are descended from the original Jamestown colonists in many cases, as well as to later waves of Huguenot settlers and Germanna colonists. One of my fellow bloggers, who is linked on my blogroll, has several family connections to me via these families. Many of us who have early roots in this country are kin to each other. Of course all of us have many thousands of living cousins, most of whom will never be known to us. Genealogy was one way in which I began to be aware of how connected I am, via blood, to many, many Americans. We are truly an extended family, not just in a metaphorical sense.
It was an odd feeling to learn that a distant cousin of mine with whom I became acquainted via sharing family history had lived very near to me in a West Coast city back in the 1960s for a brief time; we lived a few blocks apart and frequented some of the same places. We might well have met and never been aware of our family connection.
But back to the candidates' genealogy: I was morbidly curious to know whether Bill Richardson, (or Bill ''Call Me Lopez" Richardson, as Tanstaafl dubs him), was kin to me, based on his one-fourth New England Yankee ancestry, but I found no connection when I researched his family tree. I can't say I was disappointed to find no connection. Likewise I found no connection to Obama's Dunham ancestry among my own ancestors.
I have learned that John Edwards may be a distant cousin to me, based on his Dillard ancestry, according to this website. How accurate the information is on the site, I don't know.
Being as heritage and kin-oriented as I am, genealogy is an interest of mine and I've found it a fascinating way to learn more about history in a very specific way as I read through old documents: public records, wills, letters, and various bits of information. It makes history much more real and personal to learn about it via our ancestors' own life experiences.
I've found that in general, people become more interested in their ancestry later in life; many of us become more interested in the past, and in our own personal origins, as we age. But some never become interested, and I think this is an attitude that is especially common in our age, as people tend to denigrate the past, and to view it as one long dark age, with our generation emerging as the pinnacle of evolution and enlightenment.
Some of the people in my own family are indifferent at best to genealogy and their roots; 'what has that got to do with me?' seems to be the attitude. And then there are the genealogical agnostics, who say ''how can you even know if any of that stuff is true?" We can know it's true if we find records and sources; family legends are often fanciful and erroneous, and much of what is online is inaccurate and must be double-checked. Some of it is patently false and unfounded. Some of the family lore is quite accurate; my grandmother asserted she had a lot of Welsh ancestry, and research proved this true. Some of the older generations carefully preserved oral knowledge of our forebears, and there was a great deal of careful record-keeping which has come to light. So the agnostics are wrong to say that it's all just fable or conjecture.
However, I suspect much of this business about how Obama is a cousin to many presidents and celebrities is a further effort to make him seem all-American and well-connected. And considering that there is an obvious political agenda at work, I take these 'facts' about his ancestry with a copious helping of salt.
And speaking of ancestry, I have noticed a very common complaint among 'conservatives' about Obama is that he identifies as black. They keep asking why he doesn't consider himself white, considering his white mother. I find this a curious question: if any of us saw Obama on the street, and he was a stranger to us, would we consider him white, or would we judge him as black or ''African-American'' at a glance? I would say the latter. We might think he had some non-African ancestry but then again so do many blacks in this country, and they are not any the less black, as far as their identification is concerned. They tend to identify as black and we identify them as such.
So why are all the 'conservatives' distressed because Obama does not call himself white, or mixed?
I've heard the same lament from the 'colorblind conservatives' about actress Halle Berry; ''why does she call herself black, when she's got white blood'?
I say it's because the black genes tend to be dominant, both in the phenotype, the outward appearance, and in the behavior. I think the 'colorblind conservatives' are being disingenuous to complain because Obama or Halle Berry call themselves black. I've known people much lighter in complexion and much less African in appearance who called themselves African-American. Obama is black, in appearance and in attitude. It does not matter that he 'sounds' white or speaks standard American English like an educated man. He seems to consider himself black and that is what matters. Obviously, like most half-and-half people, he considers himself as belonging to the minority half, and not to the white side. This is just the dynamic of our minority-obsessed society. There are benefits that accrue to people of minority heritage, especially to blacks, who are the elite among victim groups. Hispanics will soon give them a run for their money, literally, as Hispanics are now more numerous and are becoming seen as the 'new and improved' minority group for the 21st century; they are growing in numbers and in clout, and the business interests and politicians are greedy for the favor of Hispanics. In any case, nobody of mixed parentage sees much advantage in identifying with whitey; it's so much cooler and so much more chic and so much more profitable to be one of the exalted 'oppressed' people.
So no, regardless of who is related to whom, Obama is identified the exotic 'other', and not just another member of the big old American family.
Labels: American History, Ethnicity, Genealogy, Political Correctness, Presidential Candidates
0 comment Sunday, July 27, 2014 | admin
Above is an interesting map. I would like to cite the source of it, but it's uncertain; I found it some time ago on another forum, and I believe it was credited to Valparaiso University in Indiana.
In any case, it shows a rather different picture of ethnic origins in North America, compared to the U.S. Census map I posted here in the past. The U.S. Census map showed virtually all of the South as being majority African descent.
I think this map, however, is fairly accurate based on what I know.
Notice that South Louisiana has a French-dominant area, and notice the yellow areas in South Central Texas, which does have a very visible German influence there; there are still some in those areas who speak a Texas German dialect, although it's apparently in danger of dying out.
I wonder if the numbers of Scandinavians are underrepresented on this map, however; some parts of the Northwest have large numbers of Scandinavian-descended people, though they don't show up on the map.
The map is not dated, and if it were up-to-date, I am sure there would be a great deal more lavender-tinted areas all over the country. The colors on a similar map a decade from now would look very different, unless things turn around soon.
Labels: Ancestry, Demographics, Ethnic Origins, Ethnicity, Immigration
0 comment Sunday, April 27, 2014 | admin
Over at Free Republic, the mostly 'colorblind' Freepers have been discussing this article, which addresses the question apparently posed by a reader named Richard Banbury:
Why do we call Obama black?
...If we are in the business of telling the truth, when a designation is necessary, Obama is most precisely identified as African American.
As Banbury pointed out, "If he chose to, Barack could have identified himself with his mother's heritage and referred to himself as a white candidate, and perhaps requested to be so identified.
"But I don't think the press would have referred to him in that manner. Equally so, he shouldn't be referred to as a black candidate. It's not a matter of race or group identification. It's simply a question of journalistic accuracy."
Banbury's question as well as headlines from Pennsylvania and West Virginia and from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright episode remind me that the press too easily paints events in black and white. It's time to raise our dialogue about race in America to a more progressive level.
Given its power, the press has an obligation to inform that dialogue as accurately as possible. Obama's candidacy is a rare and riveting opportunity exactly because it is forcing conversations about issues that have been easier to ignore for centuries.''
I leave the Free Republic discussion to my readers' judgment.
But what of the question posed above, and the answer provided?
The writer says that Obama's candidacy is ''forcing conversations" about race, which the writer seems to think is an issue that has been ''ignored for centuries."
Given that a war was fought, with many Americans killed, which at least tangentially had to do with race, I don't see how it can be said that the issue has been ''ignored'. And what was all that uproar in the 1960s about, with the freedom riders and the marches and the National Guard in the schools in Little Rock? Somehow I got the impression it was about race.
What the writer probably alludes to, when she says it has been 'easier to ignore race', is the fact that most white people (and possibly other non-blacks) are too uneasy speaking about race or anything remotely connected to it. Since at least the 1950s, the subject has been a minefield that it's much wiser to avoid than to try to venture across. We've seen good people become casualties, as they chose a wrong word or phrase or allusion, and found themselves exiled from polite society, out of work, and disgraced.
On the other side, it can hardly be said that blacks have 'ignored the subject', since it has been so profitable for them to speak about little else, and to interject the subject where it has no relevance, to insist that all difficulties and inconveniences they experience are a result of race.
We can 'discuss' race, but for all of us who are not black or of another 'special' group, our role in any such discussion is not to discuss, but to listen submissively while we are berated and accused for everything wrong we or our ancestors, however remote, were guilty of. Answering back in self-defense is not allowed, and if we attempt it, we are further denounced for 'racism' and 'hate speech.'
So maybe there are understandable reasons why there has been little real discussion, real give-and-take, on the issue.
But with Obama as a candidate, predictably the subject of race is ever-present, even if only implicitly, in any news story relating to Obama. As I said last year, his candidacy will mean there is no escaping the racial sermons and recriminations.
As to the question addressed in the article, "why do we call Obama black", does this not strike anyone as a bizarre question, which would not have been asked in the old days (pre-PC), a question which is really a strange product of our 'colorblind', politically correct age?
Is the question not at least implying that race is truly a "social construct", or that it's just a matter of personal choice, as we self-identify?
I think this idea began to gain traction back in the 1970s. In college I knew more than a few leftist whites who claimed some Indian ancestry and who then began to wear beads, fringe, and turquoise jewelry and join 'Native American Students' groups on campus. All this with only a tenuous connection to some remote Indian ancestry. However, it is less easy to shift back and forth between a black and white identity.
I've met my share of people of mixed black and white, or black and Indian ("Native American") parentage, who always identify as black. In one case, the woman in question did not look black; I never guessed she was anything but white, but I learned from our boss that the woman was 'African-American.' Unless she informed them, nobody would guess.
It seems an ironclad rule that people of mixed race choose the nonwhite heritage, regardless of their appearance. But if we met Barack Obama, not knowing of his white maternal ancestry, would any of us look at him and think 'white'? If he decided to identify as 'white' and asked to be considered such, would that be credible? Yet that's what many of the Freepers seem to think he should do. "He has a white mother, so he's equally white and black." But does it work that way?
Many whites seem obsessed with Tiger Woods, and cite him as an example of somebody who embraces both heritages (Asian and black). But is he either? Both?
Can anybody be truly half-and-half, neutral between the two poles, especially when the two heritages are so greatly at odds?
And why is it important for the social engineers, the 'colorblind' liberals (Republican and Democrat alike) to pretend that race is not a given, but a chosen thing?
I think the fact that you have so many self-described 'conservatives' adopting the colorblind ideology is what's troubling.
And why is it that the old terms describing people of mixed ancestry are now apparently banished from our vocabulary? Is the word 'mulatto' verboten, like so many old-fashioned descriptive words?
The idea of the 'one-drop rule', supposedly enforced by racist whites, is mentioned, disparagingly, in this connection. In my experience, it seems that people with any degree of black ancestry automatically are part of the ''black community'' simply based on appearance. And that seems to be their personal preference.
By embracing the notion that race is something we can 'choose' I think we are giving place to the liberal idea that all of us are, or can be, self-created individuals, not constrained by sex/gender, nationality, or even that very visible quality, race. This is the liberal's idea of freedom: to construct our own identity, free of any innate, fixed traits over which we have no control.
Are we all perhaps just suffering from a serious cognitive dissonance, given the paradoxical, contradictory messages regarding race which our society imposes on us? On the one hand, ''we are all the same. There's only one race: the human race. Race is only skin deep. Race is a social construct." And on and on.
On the other hand: race is everything, because we are constantly told that 'diversity' based on race is essential to every society. Homogeneity is a bad, unhealthy thing -- and yet aren't we "all the same?"
But how is diversity possible unless we truly are unlike each other in some important ways?
And if colorblindness is the ideal, and recognizing race is bad, why are non-whites constantly talking about race, as if it's the most important thing in their identity and in their life? Why is affirmative action a good thing if judging based on race is bad?
What we have is an impossible situation in which non-whites obtain considerable advantages from keeping race front and center, emphasizing it, focusing on it, using it. Most whites, on the other hand, would prefer to play the 'colorblind' game, seeing as how the issue of race leads to accusations, guilt, and demands for concessions of one sort or another. It's a losing game for the rest of us, but a useful one for blacks, who reap the benefits of being a victim group.
I don't know how we can find our way out of this maze, but it's obvious that we need to try some different path than the present one, which keeps leading us in circles.
Why do we call Obama black?
...If we are in the business of telling the truth, when a designation is necessary, Obama is most precisely identified as African American.
As Banbury pointed out, "If he chose to, Barack could have identified himself with his mother's heritage and referred to himself as a white candidate, and perhaps requested to be so identified.
"But I don't think the press would have referred to him in that manner. Equally so, he shouldn't be referred to as a black candidate. It's not a matter of race or group identification. It's simply a question of journalistic accuracy."
Banbury's question as well as headlines from Pennsylvania and West Virginia and from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright episode remind me that the press too easily paints events in black and white. It's time to raise our dialogue about race in America to a more progressive level.
Given its power, the press has an obligation to inform that dialogue as accurately as possible. Obama's candidacy is a rare and riveting opportunity exactly because it is forcing conversations about issues that have been easier to ignore for centuries.''
I leave the Free Republic discussion to my readers' judgment.
But what of the question posed above, and the answer provided?
The writer says that Obama's candidacy is ''forcing conversations" about race, which the writer seems to think is an issue that has been ''ignored for centuries."
Given that a war was fought, with many Americans killed, which at least tangentially had to do with race, I don't see how it can be said that the issue has been ''ignored'. And what was all that uproar in the 1960s about, with the freedom riders and the marches and the National Guard in the schools in Little Rock? Somehow I got the impression it was about race.
What the writer probably alludes to, when she says it has been 'easier to ignore race', is the fact that most white people (and possibly other non-blacks) are too uneasy speaking about race or anything remotely connected to it. Since at least the 1950s, the subject has been a minefield that it's much wiser to avoid than to try to venture across. We've seen good people become casualties, as they chose a wrong word or phrase or allusion, and found themselves exiled from polite society, out of work, and disgraced.
On the other side, it can hardly be said that blacks have 'ignored the subject', since it has been so profitable for them to speak about little else, and to interject the subject where it has no relevance, to insist that all difficulties and inconveniences they experience are a result of race.
We can 'discuss' race, but for all of us who are not black or of another 'special' group, our role in any such discussion is not to discuss, but to listen submissively while we are berated and accused for everything wrong we or our ancestors, however remote, were guilty of. Answering back in self-defense is not allowed, and if we attempt it, we are further denounced for 'racism' and 'hate speech.'
So maybe there are understandable reasons why there has been little real discussion, real give-and-take, on the issue.
But with Obama as a candidate, predictably the subject of race is ever-present, even if only implicitly, in any news story relating to Obama. As I said last year, his candidacy will mean there is no escaping the racial sermons and recriminations.
As to the question addressed in the article, "why do we call Obama black", does this not strike anyone as a bizarre question, which would not have been asked in the old days (pre-PC), a question which is really a strange product of our 'colorblind', politically correct age?
Is the question not at least implying that race is truly a "social construct", or that it's just a matter of personal choice, as we self-identify?
I think this idea began to gain traction back in the 1970s. In college I knew more than a few leftist whites who claimed some Indian ancestry and who then began to wear beads, fringe, and turquoise jewelry and join 'Native American Students' groups on campus. All this with only a tenuous connection to some remote Indian ancestry. However, it is less easy to shift back and forth between a black and white identity.
I've met my share of people of mixed black and white, or black and Indian ("Native American") parentage, who always identify as black. In one case, the woman in question did not look black; I never guessed she was anything but white, but I learned from our boss that the woman was 'African-American.' Unless she informed them, nobody would guess.
It seems an ironclad rule that people of mixed race choose the nonwhite heritage, regardless of their appearance. But if we met Barack Obama, not knowing of his white maternal ancestry, would any of us look at him and think 'white'? If he decided to identify as 'white' and asked to be considered such, would that be credible? Yet that's what many of the Freepers seem to think he should do. "He has a white mother, so he's equally white and black." But does it work that way?
Many whites seem obsessed with Tiger Woods, and cite him as an example of somebody who embraces both heritages (Asian and black). But is he either? Both?
Can anybody be truly half-and-half, neutral between the two poles, especially when the two heritages are so greatly at odds?
And why is it important for the social engineers, the 'colorblind' liberals (Republican and Democrat alike) to pretend that race is not a given, but a chosen thing?
I think the fact that you have so many self-described 'conservatives' adopting the colorblind ideology is what's troubling.
And why is it that the old terms describing people of mixed ancestry are now apparently banished from our vocabulary? Is the word 'mulatto' verboten, like so many old-fashioned descriptive words?
The idea of the 'one-drop rule', supposedly enforced by racist whites, is mentioned, disparagingly, in this connection. In my experience, it seems that people with any degree of black ancestry automatically are part of the ''black community'' simply based on appearance. And that seems to be their personal preference.
By embracing the notion that race is something we can 'choose' I think we are giving place to the liberal idea that all of us are, or can be, self-created individuals, not constrained by sex/gender, nationality, or even that very visible quality, race. This is the liberal's idea of freedom: to construct our own identity, free of any innate, fixed traits over which we have no control.
Are we all perhaps just suffering from a serious cognitive dissonance, given the paradoxical, contradictory messages regarding race which our society imposes on us? On the one hand, ''we are all the same. There's only one race: the human race. Race is only skin deep. Race is a social construct." And on and on.
On the other hand: race is everything, because we are constantly told that 'diversity' based on race is essential to every society. Homogeneity is a bad, unhealthy thing -- and yet aren't we "all the same?"
But how is diversity possible unless we truly are unlike each other in some important ways?
And if colorblindness is the ideal, and recognizing race is bad, why are non-whites constantly talking about race, as if it's the most important thing in their identity and in their life? Why is affirmative action a good thing if judging based on race is bad?
What we have is an impossible situation in which non-whites obtain considerable advantages from keeping race front and center, emphasizing it, focusing on it, using it. Most whites, on the other hand, would prefer to play the 'colorblind' game, seeing as how the issue of race leads to accusations, guilt, and demands for concessions of one sort or another. It's a losing game for the rest of us, but a useful one for blacks, who reap the benefits of being a victim group.
I don't know how we can find our way out of this maze, but it's obvious that we need to try some different path than the present one, which keeps leading us in circles.
Labels: Diversity, Ethnicity, Identity Politics, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness