2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Hello revsantoslyons.
I do not think emphasizing our humanity, what connects everyone, in any way minimizes our whole selves. Understanding and embracing our varied identities is an integral part to be being fully human. I think the problem is when we overemphasize one identity and fail to see ourselves in a bigger way--in a way that connects with people beyond our specific "identity."

I think you misunderstood what I said as far as "tapping into" a certain part of your identity. Different people bring out different parts of our selves. If I am with a group of Indians, I do not consciously think--I am with Indians, let me talk about all things Indian. The connection is organic, not strained, contrived, or strategic.

Of course context is important. I went to an all white university in the south--I was never as interested in my cultural and religious roots as I was then. I think this is natural when you are a minority and you want to ensure that certain parts of you do not wash out. It is "simply human" to care about ALL of yourself.
I realize this might sound esoteric and annoying...anyways much respecct for keeping it real in O!

posted 5 years ago
view in context

It really wasn't until I began my liberal arts education that I actually thought about the concept of "identity" and my responsibility to different identities. I used to be type of person who was constantly trying to understand my multiple identities---Muslim, Pakistani, Indian, Kashmiri, American--were (and still are) all parts of me that I felt a duty to express. I even wrote my entire thesis on this. Looking back, I think this was just a healthy part of my education---multiple identities were like a tool that helped me understand myself and the world. I don't really think of myself as "Asian American" or "Muslim American" or "South Asian." Sure, these are all a part of me. But as cheezy as it sounds, I'm a human first--and sometimes I'll tap into one of these identities just to connect with someone who I feel connects with this part of me. Connections between humans are important.

A term like "Asian American" I suppose is relevant if a lot of people connect to it and if it brings people together. As a whole though, you do not see the type of unity within the "Asian American community" as you do with other minorities such as blacks or hispanics. I think this is largely because Asian Americans tend to be relatively affluent and comfortable. A lot of times what brings people together is shared suffering, a shared struggle. Asian-Americans seem to be lacking that in the conventional sense. The term might become more relevant if there is a threat to this entire community and they need to unite in order to protect themselves from it. They'll tap into that connection as a means of survival...that doesn't seem to be the case right now.

posted 5 years ago
view in context