RACIAL LABELING: OVERDUE RESPECT OR DEMEANING SUPREMACISM?

Now that the days of four restrooms, two drinking fountains, separate schools, and “whites only” signs adorning store and restaurant doors throughout the South, complemented by snide undercover slurs in the allegedly more liberal North, seem to be gone for good, we find entirely new racial relationship rules to have taken apparent effect. Are Thomas Jefferson’s words about all men being created equal finally being observed, after a couple centuries-plus of mere lip service to his Declaration of Independence decree? Well, yes, but mostly outwardly, and rather grudgingly, as we view the situation. Specifically speaking, we consider this business of attaching “respectful” labels to minority group members an exercise in deceit.

In the interest of offering a supposed retroactive apology for the hitherto universally acceptable mistreatment and insults, some clown a few years back decided it might be nice and peachy to replace the old standby terms like “colored”, “negro”, and the numerous corollary slurs with “African-American”. By the same token, “injuns”, “redskins”, “savages”, etc. promptly came to be called “Native Americans”. In this fellow’s eyes, such practice is superficial, pompous, and silly.

Whenever we hear or read either of these definitive expressions, we tend to wince, and solemnly resolve never to resort to their hypocritical use. Our so-called newly-tolerant white populace has established little more than a new way to continue looking down on its fellow races, but in a slightly more patronizing manner.

Obviously, the first person whose name crops up as an authentic African-American is President Obama. Born here, but with a Kenyan father, he fits the description in a purely technical sense. However, does logic dictate attaching the same label to so-called black race members whose parents were native to U.S. soil – like his wife Michelle, for example? What on earth is African about her?

Regarding the business whereby Indians are now recast as Native Americans, we’ve always been under the impression that such term applies to anyone born in the United States, irrespective of heritage. Why should we limit said designation to those people who owned the Americas before the white man arrived to give them a merciless undeserved drubbing?

As we all know, the word Indian is totally incorrect, thanks to our friend Chris Colombo’s misconception. The British label Red Indian fits better, but only a tad. Nevertheless, we still refuse to buy the Native American bit solely for this particular racial group.

Since we’re doing a magnificent job at kidding ourselves, through well-chosen wordings, into believing that white supremacist thinking no longer exists, why not relabel all locally-born Jews, who are and likely always will be subject to Christian prejudice, as Israeli-Americans? In turn, we might similarly honor Asian-Americans and Hispano-Americans, or else just attach any appropriate foreign country prefix, e.g. Franco-, Germano-, Russo-, Czecho-, or whatever. That would make looking down our noses at the entire lot much easier.

By way of conclusion, therefore, why can’t our terminology practices be boiled down to a single-word designation for any human being born or legally naturalized in this country? What would be so wrong, not to mention far more respectful, with simply calling everyone so qualified as a plain American?