"The ability to formulate an identity that allows comfortable movement between worlds will be at the very heart of achieving a truly global soul" (Suarez-Orozco, p. 221). This is the challenge that stands before us. As globalization progresses, so does the blending of cultures. With this blending, comes a loss of some of the original ingredients. For example, blending 100% blueberries with 100% raspberries makes a 50/50 blend. This means that the new product isn't as blueberry or raspberry-like as its predecessors and its' offspring has the potential to be even less-so. As people immigrate into a country, the country's original country is diluted and the immigrants' original culture is greatly diluted. With this slow loss of cultural identity, we need to begin looking at new definitions of identity. Carola Suarez-Orozco proposes the idea of a global soul, or an identity that transcends culture as we currently know it.
Clara E. Rodriguez discusses what it means to be Latino in the United States today. What make Latino culture different in her eyes is that there is flexibility in people's views. Rather than black and white, Latinos tend to have varying shades of tan, brown and caucasian colored skin. These skin colors tend to be interpreted differently based on the context of whatever setting Clara was in. For example, her tan skin was considered beautiful and attractive in her neighborhood in Brooklyn; however, the same hue was considered different by others when in the business district of Manhattan. Similarly, the term Latino has a certain flexibility unto itself. The term refers to a broad array of nationalities that has become grouped together. Again, this is leading to a slight loss of culture as people who refer to themselves as Latino are essentially diluting their original culture.
John Tehranian writes about the history of the term Middle East and its' transformation over time. It has never referred to one definitive set of lands, rather it encompasses varying definitions and boundaries according to whoever is using the term. Unfortunately, the term itself has been identified as something having to do with concepts such as terrorism and war. Although these concepts are not exclusive to the term Middle Eastern, they are certainly widely recognized as related. With this relation comes a grouping. The people who are classified under this broad umbrella must live with the accompanying thoughts, even if they aren't relative to their lives. For example, people may identify themselves as Middle Eastern because they are from Egypt. When walking down the street, someone yells a racist remark to them because they're Middle Eastern and that person is upset about something that happened in Morocco. The disparity is that this person must suffer because of the broad title they've been assigned, even though they've done nothing and don't even belong to the specific nation the person was angry at!
These three articles all reference a similar idea: we're slowly losing our purest sense of cultural identities as we progress through time. It makes me wonder what the world will be like 100 years from now. Will there be any ethnicities that are still pure? Will new blended ethnicities become the new standards? I believe Suarez-Orozco had the right idea when discussed the idea that we need to create a new type of ethnicity, more of a global ethnicity. We've been using the term human race for centuries now, but maybe now is the time to change what that means and begin taking it literally. If we can switch over to the idea of a human race, then we can celebrate differences rather than letting them define us.
No comments:
Post a Comment