# Educated Bigotry by Tom Condon



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

_Some food for thought:_

*Educated Bigotry*
People who object to the whole idea of personality typing often say that they dislike being labeled because it makes them feel trapped in a one-dimensional box. The irony is that the Enneagram aims to show you how you are already boxed. But it’s true that the system’s labels and categories can induce a mindset that is potentially limiting.
Part of the problem is words. We use language to describe our experience, but words tend to diminish and reduce. Among languages, English is more noun-based than verb-driven. It’s easy in English to talk about active, living, subjective processes – like people – as frozen, objective things. To some extent, this “thingifying” is inevitable, but it creates a distorting lens.
When you call a person by a number or a name that is related to a role – a “Three,” a “Performer” or an “Achiever” – you are talking about a thing rather than a person. It’s different to describe a Three as “someone who feels driven to perform and achieve.”
In a way, all generalizing about personality is akin to bigotry. Psychotherapists are paid to employ a professional form of bigotry each time they meet a new client – it’s called diagnosis. A therapist has to assess the client both as a stand-alone individual and as an example of selected generalizations drawn from various schools of psychology. Fortunately, therapists are carefully trained to discern a person from a type. If a client says, “I’m a Christian,” a therapist wonders what the statement means to the person. The therapist doesn’t immediately think, “Christian, oh sure, I know what that is.” “Christian” is instead taken as important information about the client’s identity and map of the world.
Even if the client believes he’s like everyone else, the therapist doesn’t. Instead, she tries to understand why it’s important for the client to see himself that way; how the belief is, paradoxically, an expression of his uniqueness. The therapist tries to see the client without comparing him to anyone else; she wants to know who the client is and who the client is trying to become. She compares the client to himself.
The advantage of diagnosis is that the therapist can generalize usefully and better decide how to work with a unique individual. An American therapist with a Japanese client would be crazy to ignore the cultural conditioning of Japan. Yet the therapist’s first job is to comprehend her client’s core individuality, and then factor in the significance of the client’s being Japanese.
Try to imagine instead a therapist who describes his current group of clients this way: “I have two Germans, a Kenyan, a Chinese, not to mention the Vietnamese couple. It’s good; I always get along with Germans, and Kenyans are easy to change, too. Chinese baffle me, of course, but at least I don’t have any French clients – God, those people get on my nerves! Next week I start working with an Egyptian. Now that should be a challenge.”
Strange as it sounds, I have heard people familiar with the Enneagram talk in the same way, saying things like: “Twos drive me crazy, they’re always invading me. I can’t stand Eights either – they’re so pushy. Fives are my kind of people, though; always so sweet and so shy. Of course, everybody loves Sevens.” I’ve met Enneagram enthusiasts who asked for my Enneagram number before they ever asked for my name.
There is a way to use the Enneagram that is much like bigotry. The two most important ingredients of common bigotry are seeing the other person’s identifying characteristic first and then continuing to see it in a way that eclipses the rest of them – mistaking a part of the person for the whole.
In Enneagram bigotry you look at someone, see their number first and then reframe all their behavior to fit your knowledge of their style. A complex individual then seems like a caricature, rather than a real person with a skewed point of view. His personality style becomes the most outstanding thing about him.
The Enneagram describes how we make ourselves one-dimensional, but it’s possible to see what the system describes in a one-dimensional way. If you don’t keep reminding yourself of the difference between a type and a person, then you will be deluded by the material. You’ll think you have people in a nutshell, but all you’ll have are nutshells.
If I’m white and I see a “Black person” first before I see my friend Roma, then I’m practicing a form of bigotry. Roma happens to be a Nine so I could also see a Black Nine. If, instead, I try to see Roma first, then her “Blackness” and her “Nineness” become significant parts of who she is that emerge in the way she expresses herself as an individual. It’s partly a matter of sequence, but mostly a matter of trying.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Disclaimer: I own up to bigotry. To me, it's an attempt to over-simplify the world, because fuck complexity, which results in dehumanizing people into things, ego-objectification-style. Interestingly enough, eights are often described as "thinking in cartoons" or caricatures, and external observers in my life have confirmed this about me before I discovered the enneagram. However, this is *not* exclusively an eight thing, and through the property "everyone has all nine types within them", this is a pretty universal phenomenon, if not through point eight, then also by point three (and therefore, by extension, the image center).

Why am I bigoted? Because most of the time, I'm a callous piece of shit who dislikes people. They bring problems and disturb my inner peace. But I do like things, so thing-ifying people makes the world more comfortable, predictable, and controllable. 

It's also the minimum it takes for me to care about people at all. Otherwise, I would erase their existence by either assuming that they're just like me (via projection) or ignoring them altogether.

So the order goes: recognize that other people exist and they're different from me -> have a caricature of others -> then add details to differentiate and/or find commonality.



That being said, in my opinion, one of the biggest flaws of enneatype descriptions is that they almost never specify the relevant cultural context (language, geography, urban/suburban/rural, etc), followed by a date of when those descriptions were written (because cultures change over time). The lack of those kinds of metadata makes adjusting biases very difficult.

Ironically, the people who insist on "bias-free" descriptions fail to recognize how that in-itself is a set of bias. There's an emotional evaluation that bias is "bad" or "wrong" that they haven't recognized or worked out. Bias can be acknowledged and addressed in a neutral manner, and a knee-jerk rejection of it is not neutral.

Many people shallowly read enneatype descriptions, complain about them being "very wrong" or "inaccurate", and then completely disregard everything that is written by those sources. For example, in my opinion, R&H have flaws, and they themselves admit to the existence of errors in later revisions of their works, which I do appreciate, but I think they're mostly outdated rather than "wrong". However, that doesn't mean _every_thing they wrote is inaccurate or irrelevant either. Perhaps there are some generalities that still remain valid today. There's not enough recognition that without their work, all of the other descending enneagram literature might not exist.

Then, to the people who think particular enneatype descriptions are spot-on, fail to recognize how their biases are in play. Perhaps the author and the reader share the same cultural background? Or perhaps they process the world in a similar manner? Then they treat those descriptions as something that is "set in stone" rather than a foundation that could be expanded upon and revised over time. 

God forbid if I dare do something _creative_ and create a new interpretation, synthesize information from an unusual combination of sources, or apply information differently. Head types People criticize, of dubious helpfulness or constructiveness, about how the connections I'm proposing or suggesting "aren't really there", as they proceed to engage in an argument with me over semantics. I propose something as "food for thought", ideas that are "fun to think about", ideas meant to entertain, and they force it into some strange, high-stakes debate about whether what I propose can be objectively proven to exist.

It's interesting and strange that head types people can be so threatened by suspension of disbelief, by entertaining _ideas_. The underlying assumption is if my interpretation makes no sense to them, if they can't see/understand what I'm taking about, then what I propose isn't possible or it can't exist. Because people presume whether things make sense or not is a passive matter rather than an active matter, followed by an inability to disentangle _their_ personal subjective perspective (biases) from *my* personal subjective perspective (biases), followed by an inability to differentiate and disentangle subjectivity from objectivity. 

It's so binary: things either make sense or they don't. There's not enough thought on _making_ (a verb) those senses.

So yeah, in my opinion, much of the stuff that is written is outdated, too many people think those descriptions are prescriptive rather than descriptive, not enough people are expanding on those foundations, and people who do _will_ face resistance, with a decent possibility of an argument over semantics _especially_ if the topic matter concerns gut instincts. 

Yes, it's a problem that people stereotype in terms of caricatures, and that problem compounds further when people don't even update their caricatures. Time is literally another dimension.



In the 2016 American political climate, it's hard to use the word "discriminate" in a neutral context, because many people will automatically assume it means "bigotry" rather than "being able to tell things apart". When people have some unconscious biases at play, rather than be temporarily uncomfortable with themselves and investigate their own biases, their automatic reflex is "I don't see race/gender/whatever", because that's the socially-acceptable thing to do. There are false dichotomies, and then there are false equivalencies and false compromises. Rather than willingness to have an in-depth discussion out of fear of offending people, (or, I suspect, out of fear of being forced to face their own ignorance and be confronted with their own prejudices,) they resort to an easy answer of trying to be "bias-free".

"Discrimination", when it refers to bigoted behavior, isn't a desirable thing. But "discrimination" is also how people discern differences and make distinctions. It's as if they they try _too_ hard to be "anti-discrimination" to the point where they become unconsciously racist. When people, in trying to be politically correct "bias-free" in their interpretations, fail to consider the influences of cultural/environmental factors, it ironically makes them politically incorrect. Interpretations necessarily have subjective components to them, and people ignore the existence of subjective bias when they try to brute-force interpretation into something purely "objective". Because obviously, ignoring things makes the problems go away.

For example, as an Asian-American, when white people ask me "where are you from?", they regularly reject my answer of my home state. They go "no no, where are you _really_ from?" Biases/ignorance that they should face/address: 

the assumption that all Asians in the US are immigrants
ignorance of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born within US territory
an Asian born on US-soil is an American citizen
therefore, my answer of a US state *is* the correct answer, politically or not
Bonus: If they follow up with "you know what I mean", then I go, "the onus is on you to correctly phrase the question you want the answer to. I'm not going to entertain your desire to not appear racist." If it's the _first_ time we've met, immediately probing into my ethnic background after introductions is, if not racist, then rude and unnecessarily invasive, _especially_ if that kind of information is completely irrelevant to our interaction. Following up with ambiguously coded language, like "where are you _really_ from?" or "you know what I mean":

*is hostile*
demonstrates their prejudice by refusing to accept my answer
is an attempt to defer personal responsibility for clear communication
is an intent to fault me for their indignation
is deceptive in its intent to be invasive
and betrays a sense of entitlement to information that is none of their business
Could I be nicer and more polite about it? I could, but it's more satisfying to force people to confront their inner racist. (The US stereotype of Asian women in particular is submissively pliant.) On the other hand, the people who don't react so indignantly would ask, "Where are your parents from?"


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

cir said:


> Many people shallowly read enneatype descriptions, complain about them being "very wrong" or "inaccurate", and then completely disregard everything that is written by those sources. For example, in my opinion, R&H have flaws, and they themselves admit to the existence of errors in later revisions of their works, which I do appreciate, but I think they're mostly outdated rather than "wrong". However, that doesn't mean _every_thing they wrote is inaccurate or irrelevant either. Perhaps there are some generalities that still remain valid today.


Personally, my problem with most Ennegram material is being forced to discover for myself what's accurate and what's inaccurate. I'm not buying a book from an "expert" in order to have to do that work for myself. I've long resented that and have mostly given up reading any "new" books on the Enneagram (IMO, most are simply a rehash of what's already been written anyway).



cir said:


> There's not enough recognition that without their work, all of the other descending enneagram literature might not exist.


The credit I give to the early authors is making the material available to a wider audience than a few pockets around Esalen in California and Loyola and the Jesuit community. They brought the material mainstream (though that does have it's own pros and cons).



cir said:


> God forbid if I dare do something _creative_ and create a new interpretation, synthesize information from an unusual combination of sources, or apply information differently. Head types People criticize, of dubious helpfulness or constructiveness, about how the connections I'm proposing or suggesting "aren't really there", as they proceed to engage in an argument with me over semantics. I propose something as "food for thought", ideas that are "fun to think about", ideas meant to entertain, and they force it into some strange, high-stakes debate about whether what I propose can be objectively proven to exist.
> 
> It's interesting and strange that head types people can be so threatened by suspension of disbelief, by entertaining _ideas_. The underlying assumption is if my interpretation makes no sense to them, if they can't see/understand what I'm taking about, then what I propose isn't possible or it can't exist. Because people presume whether things make sense or not is a passive matter rather than an active matter, followed by an inability to disentangle _their_ personal subjective perspective (biases) from *my* personal subjective perspective (biases), followed by an inability to differentiate and disentangle subjectivity from objectivity.


I'm seeing a bias about head types that I don't agree with. I tend to agree more with this head type.










I can understand your frustration with cultural context not being factored in, but TBH, I think the descriptions need to be written where culture doesn't even come into play. Two people of the same Enneagram type don't necessarily have similar personality characteristics, they have something in common underneath personality driving it. Personality is unique for each person because everyone has different life experiences and influences. Enneagram type is simply another influence that cannot adequately describe personality on its own. The descriptions need to explore what that Enneagram type influence is instead of attempting to describe personality (how can you describe personality when you're only aware of a fraction of the influences determining it?).



cir said:


> "Discrimination", when it refers to bigoted behavior, isn't a desirable thing. But "discrimination" is also how people discern differences and make distinctions.


That's why I prefer the word "discernment" in this context. "Discrimination" just has too many other overtones to it.



cir said:


> For example, as an Asian-American, when white people ask me "where are you from?", they regularly reject my answer of my home state. They go "no no, where are you _really_ from?"


Yeah, doesn't seem to be much relevance to that line of questioning. I'll ask where a person is from if I hear a strange accent. The accent tells me there were some other influences in their life and maybe something about them. How they look may tell me something about their ancestry but not necessarily anything about them in particular (unless their family holds onto some cultural values associated with that ancestry).


----------



## compulsiverambler (Jan 7, 2010)

cir said:


> For example, as an Asian-American, when white people ask me "where are you from?", they regularly reject my answer of my home state. They go "no no, where are you really from?"


If that were me, I'd respond with "where are *you* really from?" to remind them that they are just as European as you are Asian.

Those are probably the same geniuses who insist that black British actors count as African American whether or not they've ever set foot in America :dry:


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

I don't get the 'where are you really from' thing at all...

[for the record I don't think this is a question I've asked Asian people, not since I heard this, now I'm terrified to ask people anything]

In most parts of the US the average person of Asian heritage you meet is going to be 1st or 2nd generation - not all of course - your average white or black person will have been in America for generations, unless of course they have an accent or a very culturally specific name, you can assume that the story's about the same. To me the question "Where are you from" implies friendly interest in someone's cultural background, not 'you don't belong here'. Like if you meet someone named "Diarmuid O'Riley" you might ask "Are you Irish?" to which 4th-generation Diarmuid might reply "Yeah", or "I'm Irish-American" to clarify _I'm not personally from Ireland_ or "Actually just my name; I was raised speaking Filipino". Within America the question doesn't imply "Are you Irish OR American" unless that's specifically what's being clarified. 

Or, I have a speech disorder that sounds like an accent so I get asked a lot "Where are you from" and sometimes as follow-up "No, where are you really from" and I don't take it offensively; people are just observing something about me [I don't sound like I'm from Arizona"] and applying that to reality ["I bet she is from somewhere where people do sound like that"], which happens to be false but is still just observation and logic.

I don't get why it is different for race. I mean I would see it as a rude and bizzare question to ask black people because the answer to their heritage is generally tragically uniform [and lost to history], but most white people I don't think would be offended by this; most white Americans imo love talking about their heritage all day; find me a white American who doesn't brighten up when they get to tell you that their great-grandmother was actually from Naples, etc. I think most white Americans would see it as a form of politeness to ask where your family's from, as showing interest in someone's background. I imagine that most people would like to share their culture. Most Asians I know are people who do speak the language of their country of origin, and whose parents are immigrants. To me that's very interesting. When I meet someone it is something I want to hear more about. I don't get why it is rude to ask about :/ 

Not Enneagram related
I'm just always confused about this

I typed the phrase 'white American' way too much
don't know how else to put it to clarify 

edit: to be clear open to having this explained, this sounded more like an impassioned rant than I meant it


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I don't get the 'where are you really from' thing at all...
> 
> [for the record I don't think this is a question I've asked Asian people, not since I heard this, now I'm terrified to ask people anything]
> 
> ...


But it's different if we speak about the same country. No one would assume you're not American and a part of American culture, and the same holds true for the Irish person you cited as an example. But Asians in America can be up to third or even fourth gen (lots of immigrants during the first portion of the 20th century). I'm Swedish and Asian and I get this question a lot too. It's offensive even though Sweden doesn't have a history of Asian immigration and I am a "first gen" adopted Asian. It questions your cultural heritage and where you should belong and suggests that you're not really American or Swedish or whatever, that your place of belonging is really elsewhere. That you don't see that issue as a white person using a white example is probably striking and a good example of privilege here. No one would ask an Irish person "where are you REALLY from" the same way someone would an Asian person. You're still white so still a part of Western culture and western culture is white. Big difference. That's why white people may "love discussing this" as you put it, because at the end of the day even if they say they're Irish or Polish no one is going to think they don't belong there. They will if you're of a different ethnicity that's not white.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Entropic said:


> But it's different if we speak about the same country. No one would assume you're not American and a part of American culture, and the same holds true for the Irish person you cited as an example. But Asians in America can be up to third or even fourth gen (lots of immigrants during the first portion of the 20th century). I'm Swedish and Asian and I get this question a lot too. It's offensive even though Sweden doesn't have a history of Asian immigration and I am a "first gen" adopted Asian. It questions your cultural heritage and where you should belong and suggests that you're not really American or Swedish or whatever, that your place of belonging is really elsewhere. That you don't see that issue as a white person using a white example is probably striking and a good example of privilege here. No one would ask an Irish person "where are you REALLY from" the same way someone would an Asian person. You're still white so still a part of Western culture and western culture is white. Big difference. That's why white people may "love discussing this" as you put it, because at the end of the day even if they say they're Irish or Polish no one is going to think they don't belong there. They will if you're of a different ethnicity that's not white.


I mean...

Obviously there are Asians who have been in America for many generations. I just...don't see how it is offensive to ask about this. To me the question of "Where are you really from?" is attempting to figure out someone's actual identity i.e. someone is clearly American from their accent but is their background for instance Chinese or Japanese. To me it seems that people's cultural background and roots are fairly meaningful to them, not in all cases of course, but that's part of who you are. It seems unlikely to me that someone's cultural identity is going to be just "I guess this human body I've been given has Asian genetic makeup but I am an American through and through; my culture is what I have learned in elementary school". To me it feels more rude to assume that someone is just going to want to fully take on American culture and that, say, Christmas has the same meaning to you as it does to them. And I mean like, no one thinks about America in a romantic way, it's not that kind of country, but I think people probably have feelings about...Thailand, I feel like this question means like "What country do you actually care about?" 

Obviously if the tone is a menacing one with an undertone of "Go back where you came from", I get why that's bad, obviously, but...

I mean I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just...

I don't know what it means to be 'part of American culture' for instance, I don't think people assume I am necessarily, they spend a lot of time trying to figure out where I'm from; of course they assume I'm _Western_ but I don't know what specific differences that would have from being Asian culturally; like they could guess I was Christian or at least familiar with Biblical allusions where you might guess an Asian person to know the main references but not everything...

Does it have to do with discrimination, like literal "You shall receive worse service due to your skin color" or assumptions made [which ones?] or just identity?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I mean...
> 
> Obviously there are Asians who have been in America for many generations. I just...don't see how it is offensive to ask about this. To me the question of "Where are you really from?" *is attempting to figure out someone's actual identity i.e. someone is clearly American from their accent but is their background for instance Chinese or Japanese.* To me it seems that people's cultural background and roots are fairly meaningful to them, not in all cases of course, but that's part of who you are. It seems unlikely to me that someone's cultural identity is going to be just "I guess this human body I've been given has Asian genetic makeup but I am an American through and through; my culture is what I have learned in elementary school". To me it feels more rude to assume that someone is just going to want to fully take on American culture and that, say, Christmas has the same meaning to you as it does to them. And I mean like, no one thinks about America in a romantic way, it's not that kind of country, but I think people probably have feelings about...Thailand, I feel like this question means like "What country do you actually care about?"
> 
> ...


But the bolded is _why_ it's offensive; you are positing that they actually are from somewhere else than America but maybe they do think they *are from* America. Yet you make the underlying assumption that they are from somewhere else, that they belong elsewhere. It's offensive for you to make assumptions about where you think people belong or don't belong to.

I'm Asian and I don't even consider myself Asian Swede, I am Asian, but I also consider myself Swede. Culturally speaking, because I've grown up in Sweden since I was 4 months old, I have no real cultural background with Asia. Culturally speaking, I am actually Swedish and would I go to Asia I'd find myself more of a foreigner than I would feel I relate. That's very typical for people who may have social ties to more than one part of the world. It's more complex than to assume they must necessarily only come from _one_ place. 

That's why your position speaks from a position of privilege, because it becomes very clear that you have never had your sense of place and belonging truly questioned in this way, that people assume that you come from "elsewhere" and that elsewhere cannot be "here", which was exactly the problem @cir was trying to suggest in her previous post. You simply aren't questioned like this if you are white because "elsewhere" is still situated within "here".

Christmas has exactly the same meaning to me as it does any other Swede, so why do you even assume it shouldn't? *I grew up here. * Why do you even assume otherwise? That's the real offense, that you make assumptions about my supposed cultural perceptions and experiences before you even ask me how I really perceive things. You assume a position of difference between us.

I really think you make this more complicated than it really is, and your rhetoric strikes me as similar of cispeople when it comes to transgender debates where cispeople are akin to something like, "I don't get this whole gender business, I don't experience any issues with gender or have any particular awareness of my gender identity, so why should you? Now stop make a fuss about it". It's a silencing technique. Of course you don't experience any issues because you are in the privileged position to not have your sense of identity constantly questioned with regards to your actually lived experiences.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

@Phoenix Virtue
I thought of this clip while reading the discussion about the Asian-American issue. Watch the 1st minute or so of this if you're still not quite seeing the issue being brought up.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Entropic said:


> But the bolded is _why_ it's offensive; you are positing that they actually are from somewhere else than America but maybe they do think they *are from* America. Yet you make the underlying assumption that they are from somewhere else, that they belong elsewhere. It's offensive for you to make assumptions about where you think people belong or don't belong to.


So then the answer to the question is, "I'm not really in touch with my ethnic heritage; I consider myself American". Or "Oh my family's Vietnamese but we've been in Texas for generations". No one except Native Americans are originally from America in an ethnic sense. I just don't see why it's a rude question. Isn't it more rude to assume that everyone wants to automatically assimilate into the presiding culture when they immigate? Like "You _were_ Chinese but now you're just American". It seems more polite to me, to ask about someone's culture, that way they can tell you. I don't see why the answer has to be "I'm Korean and I speak fluent Korean and I observe all the Korean holidays and I go back every summer". 



> I'm Asian and I don't even consider myself Asian Swede, I am Asian, but I also consider myself Swede. Culturally speaking, because I've grown up in Sweden since I was 4 months old, I have no real cultural background with Asia. Culturally speaking, I am actually Swedish and would I go to Asia I'd find myself more of a foreigner than I would feel I relate. That's very typical for people who may have social ties to more than one part of the world. It's more complex than to assume they must necessarily only come from _one_ place.


I don't assume that.
I don't think this question is trying to pin people down on some imaginary map. It seems like a 'getting to know you' question so I think people are waiting to hear the answer, so they can get to know the other person.



> Christmas has exactly the same meaning to me as it does any other Swede, so why do you even assume it shouldn't? *I grew up here. * Why do you even assume otherwise? That's the real offense, that you make assumptions about my supposed cultural perceptions and experiences before you even ask me how I really perceive things. You assume a position of difference between us.


First of all, I wasn't talking about you
Second of all, I think there are probably a lot of Asian-Americans [or in other European countries] who do not celebrate Christmas. As are there white people but it seems like it is more rude to say "Oh you must celebrate the exact same holidays as me". Most people inherit the holidays they celebrate from their parents, not the culture at large around them, so if Christmas is not a tradition in your [general your] family it's less likely to be a big deal in your life. Why would I assume that everyone celebrates Christmas the same? I assume that the Muslims in my area are going to celebrate Ramadan. Which is different from me who does not celebrate Ramadan. I haven't specifically asked them. Some maybe aren't, but I don't think it's a bad assumption any more than I think it's a bad assumption that my American friends are going to be celebrating Thanksgiving, and that my Russian-American friends probably won't be or Asian-American friends too. If I move to China I won't be surprised if people assume I won't be celebrating the Mid-Autumn Festival; same if I had children there. Or whatever. I don't see why assuming things about holidays is so bad.


> I really think you make this more complicated than it really is, and your rhetoric strikes me as similar of cispeople when it comes to transgender debates where cispeople are akin to something like, "I don't get this whole gender business, I don't experience any issues with gender or have any particular awareness of my gender identity, so why should you? Now stop make a fuss about it". It's a silencing technique. Of course you don't experience any issues because you are in the privileged position to not have your sense of identity constantly questioned with regards to your actually lived experiences.


I don't get how _asking a question_ is a _silencing technique._ The whole point of asking a question, is to hear an answer to the question. I think the question is asked to be polite. Most people are not mind-readers so I don't see how it is questioning someone's identity, before they have even stated what that is.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> @Phoenix Virtue
> I thought of this clip while reading the discussion about the Asian-American issue. Watch the 1st minute or so of this if you're still not quite seeing the issue being brought up.


"Where he comes from, that's punishable by death".
"I come from Sacramento". 

[says the Chinese man working in a Chinese restaurant and speaking Mandarin]

I mean what Sheldon said was definitely rude, as it was unnecessarily using a stereotype about China and making about the waiter. It was a rude thing to say about China and rude to use someone standing right there as a prop for it. I am not arguing that.

[I'm not going to pretend I think this waiter was born and raised in Sacramento though or that he is not culturally Chinese on any level, because I'm not stupid. Obviously he speaks Chinese, works in a restaurant that serves Chinese food, I feel like we can use 'Chinese' as a descriptor for this man, as well as 'Californian' and so forth. If someone were to ask him where he were from I would assume it meant _where in China_]


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

I wasn't trying to argue anything, anyway

I'm not trying to sound racist but I also don't see how it's better to pretend Asian people aren't Asian or how it's rude to show interest in someone's cultural or ethnic background. I'm not saying every person with Asian genetics has to be culturally Asian, or relate to that, people are adopted, they've lived in the US for generations, etc. etc., everyone conceives of their cultural identity differently, I just find it to be confusing for it to be rude to ask.

But I don't, by the way. I waited for years for my Indian friend to bring up Bollywood movies so I could ask her for recommendations...:laughing:


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> "Where he comes from, that's punishable by death".
> "I come from Sacramento".
> 
> [says the Chinese man working in a Chinese restaurant and speaking Mandarin]
> ...


I think you're missing the point. It was rude of Sheldon to assume the man wasn't from the United States and to assign him a cultural background just because he looks of Asian ancestry. The waiter saying he's from Sacramento is another way of saying he's from the United States and doesn't identify with the culture being projected upon him by Sheldon. It's not a stereotype about China. It's a stereotype projected upon an Asian-American (that he has certain Chinese beliefs and cultural values when he's actually American).

An extreme example of this can be seen when Japanese-Americans were put in camps during WWII because the government feared they were not true Americans but were culturally tied to Japan. Donald Trump did this same thing when he equated a Mexican-American judge to being Mexican (he's simply an American with Mexican ancestry). Caucasians don't generally have this issue because they're not singled out because of a difference in skin color or facial features and because of this may not think it's a big deal. But experience may say otherwise for those who are singled out and I think it's just a considerate practice to be understanding and respectful of that possibility.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> So then the answer to the question is, "I'm not really in touch with my ethnic heritage; I consider myself American". Or "Oh my family's Vietnamese but we've been in Texas for generations". No one except Native Americans are originally from America in an ethnic sense. I just don't see why it's a rude question. Isn't it more rude to assume that everyone wants to automatically assimilate into the presiding culture when they immigate? Like "You _were_ Chinese but now you're just American". It seems more polite to me, to ask about someone's culture, that way they can tell you. I don't see why the answer has to be "I'm Korean and I speak fluent Korean and I observe all the Korean holidays and I go back every summer".
> 
> I don't assume that.
> I don't think this question is trying to pin people down on some imaginary map. It seems like a 'getting to know you' question so I think people are waiting to hear the answer, so they can get to know the other person.
> ...


First of all, let me say that I don't think most people ask this question intending to be racist or trying to exclude their conversation partner. Most of the time, the asker comes from a place of curiosity, and I can understand that no one is trying to be a bad person or a bitch here. However, it doesn't change that many people -- like immigrants, international students, mixed heritage individuals, and so on -- find that sort of question rather hurtful.

How do you define "being from" somewhere? That normally includes things like the culture you're a part of, the beliefs you hold, the way you think and speak, the customs and rituals you follow... and so on, and so forth. It's a very vast descriptor. Let me use the example of America. If a person acts and dresses like an American, thinks like an American, celebrates Christmas and Thanksgiving and the 4th of July just like an American, and is a big fan of the NBA and the Super Bowl and whatnot, isn't it MORE likely the person is going to identify as an American than any other culture, regardless of how they look or where their genetic pool comes from...? Of course, you don't know all this about someone when you just meet them, so isn't it better to get to know the individual first before assuming "well they look Chinese, and they admitted their parents are Chinese, so I'm gonna assume they follow X set of customs"? Is that really counted as being culturally sensitive?

It may not even be that the individual in question acts really American or anything, but maybe they've lived in America all their life despite identifying with their home's culture very strongly. So maybe if you ask this person that question, they might feel personally inclined to answer, "Oh, I'm from Chicago, but my family is actually Spanish!" or something. That way, you get to know what culture the individual has assimilated and personally follows, as opposed to trying to assume what their ethnicity says about them. There are also people who don't really feel like they belong in any of the cultures they are "from". What sort of answer would they want to give when pressed to answer where they "really" come from? 

Ultimately, all that one gets to know from "where are you really from" is what sort of country's people you look like and what _assumed_ set of social customs you follow. And why should that matter so much when getting to know someone? If you really wanted to know what social customs they follow, isn't it better to wait and find out by them revealing it? Isn't it better to ask people things you're confused about as opposed to assuming things? And if you're in a situation where it's impolite to ask, then why not treat them like everyone else in the situation? I've found that most people feel very excluded if they're treated different when all they wanted was to be treated normally. It's very rare that people _want _to be excluded and treated differently, like exotic imports.

I prefer knowing about someone's personal interests, quirks, beliefs, and character as opposed to what their various descriptors and labels say about them. The sort of information I get from deriving what ethnicity someone really is has never meant anything to me when striking up a friendship, except perhaps knowing the language they speak. Honestly, I've met TONS of different people and even within a specific culture and country, there are so many differences in beliefs, attitude, and communication that are the real deal-breakers. 

By the way, I've actually tested offering different answers to this "where are you really from" question, and I've been treated differently and asked different questions. When I mention X place, I'm treated like someone kinda strange and "different", like an unknown quantity, like my culture needs to be examined beneath a microscope. When I mention Y place -- which is a glamorous place -- I'm treated with awe and exclamations of "holy shit, I wish I could go there" and "wow, I've heard it's so pretty... you're so lucky" and I'm put on a pedestal pretty much. Both X and Y are entirely correct answers btw, one is where I'm ethnically from and the other where I live.

I feel quite bad being treated like that. I feel bad that people assume so much about a person right from that question, and I don't even know why it has to be relevant in how I am as a person. The best friends I've had have always been people who have never really bothered to nitpick assumptions about me and treat me in generalizations -- they have always been interested in my character first and foremost and not really bothered about what labels I fit and circles I run in. 

So that's why it can be really hurtful and offensive to people. It's hurtful to assume things about their personality and attitudes without really getting to know them and their personal worldviews. Each of us is so different in that, even when we may belong to the SAME culture, so what does a "where are you _really_ from" question really say about someone at all? Isn't a "where are you from" enough -- if the question is necessary at all in the first place?

I mean, this statement --


> _"better to pretend Asian people aren't Asian"_


 -- feels like you're saying someone is always only really their ethnicity and nothing else, regardless of what they "relate" to and how they "conceive of their cultural identity". Is all of that just pretense? Of course not.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> I think you're missing the point. It was rude of Sheldon to assume the man wasn't from the United States and to assign him a cultural background just because he looks of Asian ancestry. The waiter saying he's from Sacramento is another way of saying he's from the United States and doesn't identify with the culture being projected upon him by Sheldon. It's not a stereotype about China. It's a stereotype projected upon an Asian-American (that he has certain Chinese beliefs and cultural values when he's actually American).


The man clearly had a strong accent.
Sheldon was rude, I agree, no question, but I don't think assuming the man wasn't from the US was the biggest problem there. If someone is not conjugating their verbs correctly it is safe to assume English wasn't their first language. barring dialectical differences etc which wasn't the case here.


> An extreme example of this can be seen when Japanese-Americans were put in camps during WWII because the government feared they were not true Americans but were culturally tied to Japan. Donald Trump did this same thing when he equated a Mexican-American judge to being Mexican (he's simply an American with Mexican ancestry). Caucasians don't generally have this issue because they're not singled out because of a difference in skin color or facial features and because of this may not think it's a big deal. But experience may say otherwise for those who are singled out and I think it's just a considerate practice to be understanding and respectful of that possibility.


Ah yes, "Where are you from?" is the same as "You shall be put in concentration camps because you might betray us". 

I mean, it's ALWAYS dangerous, though not always on such a large scale, to be living in a country when your country of origin goes to war with it. 

I'm not sure I get the connection between institutionalized, large-scale imprisonment in concentration camps during war time with friendly social inquiries. 

And Trump is a train wreck lol, I don't know the context of that but I am sure the context was terrible

I don't think that's always bad though, there are plenty of Mexicans in the US who have lived on currently-US soil since time immemorial but it would still be a clarifying and accurate thing to say, "You know Maria? She's the Mexican girl in our photoshop class". It's just a basic descriptor in this sense.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Night Huntress said:


> How do you define "being from" somewhere? That normally includes things like the culture you're a part of, the beliefs you hold, the way you think and speak, the customs and rituals you follow... and so on, and so forth. It's a very vast descriptor. Let me use the example of America. If a person acts and dresses like an American, thinks like an American, celebrates Christmas and Thanksgiving and the 4th of July just like an American, and is a big fan of the NBA and the Super Bowl and whatnot, isn't it MORE likely the person is going to identify as an American than any other culture, regardless of how they look or where their genetic pool comes from...? Of course, you don't know all this about someone when you just meet them, so isn't it better to get to know the individual first before assuming "well they look Chinese, and they admitted their parents are Chinese, so I'm gonna assume they follow X set of customs"? Is that really counted as being culturally sensitive?


Personally?
'Being from' somewhere is fluid imo, relative to where you are in the world and such, who you're talking to. I don't think it's just family origin, where you grew up, or where you moved when you were older, it's a combination, there's no need to just pick one...e
I don't see someone 'admitting' their parents are Chinese as meaning 'Oh! They must do X!'; I don't think the way I or most people meet people includes hearing two facts about someone and then never moving past those ever...

This is how I see a normal conversation going:

A: So where are you from?
B: I moved from Philadelphia last year. 
A: Oh, Philly's nice. I grew up in Pittsburgh.
B: Where are you from originally?
A: Oh, I was born in the States, but my family is Thai.
B: Oh, Thailand seems beautiful. Have you been?
A: Only once when I was nine. I don't really speak the language so it was terrifying.
B: Yes, I know what that's like; my mom's family is actually German so whenever we visit there I'm completely lost. I wanted to take a class in high school but they only had French and Spanish.
A: Which did you take?
B: Spanish. They said it was going to be useful but then I ended up majoring in fashion. French would have helped me more. What's your major?

...etc...


> Ultimately, all that one gets to know from "where are you really from" is what sort of country's people you look like and what _assumed_ set of social customs you follow.


Where is all this assuming coming from?



> And why should that matter so much when getting to know someone?


Because it's nice to know the basics. It's weird to know someone for a while and still not know their ethnicity. It's the kind of thing that has an expiration date on 'not awkward to ask after this point'.



> If you really wanted to know what social customs they follow, isn't it better to wait and find out by them revealing it?


Wait until...what?



> Isn't it better to ask people things you're confused about as opposed to assuming things?


...yes?...who was talking about assuming random things??



> And if you're in a situation where it's impolite to ask, then why not treat them like everyone else in the situation?


Who was talking about not treating people like everyone else? What situations are these?



> I prefer knowing about someone's personal interests, quirks, beliefs, and character as opposed to what their various descriptors and labels say about them.


I just...is this an either-or scenario?
Either I learn that this person's parents are from Beijing or I learn that they cried when they were watching The Polar Express?



> It's hurtful to assume things about their personality and attitudes without really getting to know them and their personal worldviews.


Who is assuming things?


> Each of us is so different in that, even when we may belong to the SAME culture, so what does a "where are you _really_ from" question really say about someone at all?


I wasn't suggesting a "I know you're Korean therefore I know your soul" sort of deal
When you're first meeting someone it could say a few things
Like...if you're really into K-pop or visited Korea or something perhaps that will give you a common touchstone
When you're first meeting someone most of beginning conversations are exchanges of facts that may not be desperately meaningful to the constitution of their personality, but either allow you to have conversations that will be more meaningful, or are just an exchange of facts because humans do that when talking to others


> I mean, this statement -- -- feels like you're saying someone is always only really their ethnicity and nothing else, regardless of what they "relate" to and how they "conceive of their cultural identity". Is all of that just pretense? Of course not.


Why _and nothing else_? Did I say that? I feel like it's a long journey from "you are Asian" to "you are Asian and that's it"


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I'm not sure I get the connection between institutionalized, large-scale imprisonment in concentration camps during war time with friendly social inquiries.


That's the point. You wouldn't get that because you've never been subjected to it. Thankfully, no one has to this degree in a long time (at least not in this country). But to a lesser extreme people are often subjected to profiling, stereotyping, ostracizing, exclusion, scapegoating, etc. for nothing more than looking different. It's not really about how you intend it. It's about how it makes the other person feel and you can't really know that unless you've had the same experiences about it. It just makes more sense to me to not risk subjecting people to something painful, hurtful, insulting, etc. because of my ignorance of how they experience that line of questioning. I guess I'm just surprised that when people tell you they don't like it (as in this post) that you just don't take that at face value and don't ask questions they don't like being asked. Maybe it's a type 2 thing (they supposedly can have a hard time drawing the line on being too intrusive). I don't know.

BTW, I offered up the video in case you were confusing what you do with what was being discussed but you seemed to either completely have missed what I was pointing out or went into defensive posturing.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

call me crazy, but the whole idea of "being put in a box" has never been something I've been paranoid about. I don't see how being put in a general category and putting other people in general categories are offensive in any way. it's just efficient. no educated person is expecting you to fit 100% of a type profile, or that 100% of your behavior can be predicted from that profile.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> That's the point. You wouldn't get that because you've never been subjected to it. Thankfully, no one has to this degree in a long time (at least not in this country). But to a lesser extreme people are often subjected to profiling, stereotyping, ostracizing, exclusion, scapegoating, etc. for nothing more than looking different. It's not really about how you intend it. It's about how it makes the other person feel and you can't really know that unless you've had the same experiences about it. It just makes more sense to me to not risk subjecting people to something painful, hurtful, insulting, etc. because of my ignorance of how they experience that line of questioning. I guess I'm just surprised that when people tell you they don't like it (as in this post) that you just don't take that at face value and don't ask questions they don't like being asked. Maybe it's a type 2 thing (they supposedly can have a hard time drawing the line on being too intrusive). I don't know.


But I mean let's be real people are still going to look different if it is not mentioned socially or if it is
If we go to war with China and the government starts putting Chinese people in concentration camps, God forbid, that's going to happen whether or not people bring it up at cocktail parties or not??
I thought everyone agreed like five-ten years ago not to be 'colorblind' anymore?? and not to awkwardly avoid discussing race or ethnicity? It's so much weirder and to me I would think potentially more dangerous as a taboo subject than a normal one

And I'm not asking anyone questions they don't like being asked
I'm not asking anyone on this thread about their ethnicity or whatever
Nor in real life
I'm not sure what has happened in this conversation
I just think that the people who ask this question are being misinterpreted; this is obviously a clumsy way of asking about someone's ethnicity without literally asking 'So what's your ethnicity?' which is weird


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> call me crazy, but the whole idea of "being put in a box" has never been something I've been paranoid about. I don't see how being put in a general category and putting other people in general categories are offensive in any way. it's just efficient. no educated person is expecting you to fit 100% of a type profile, or that 100% of your behavior can be predicted from that profile.


Well, there have been a number of people who were put into boxes as a child, teenager, or adult by professional diagnoses that have really created problems in their lives (e.g, medications, psychological treatment, learning disabilities, etc.). So, I can see where many people would have a problem with this sort of thing. Thankfully, most of the boxes I've been put in didn't have a negative impact on my life. Then again, some people also put themselves in the boxes and create their own problems (the Enneagram types can do a good job helping people do that).


----------

