Ethnicity vs Culture

What dictates who a person is? In today's society we have such a mix of ethnicity. In 2000 census the new ethnic group 'mixed race' was added. This is due to the large mixing because there aren't as many ethnic barriers today as there were in past generations. It's no longer taboo for whites, blacks, Middle Easterners, Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Mexicans, Latinos, etc. to intermarry. Children from interracial marriages had a difficult time being accepted as they couldn't wholly identify or be accepted in any one ethnic group. So who says your black just because you look more black than white even though you're technically half white? It seems today that it's more about the culture that you belong to, or were raised in, more than the ethnicity that you genetically possess. In the 2005 New York Times article 'DNA Test Gives Students Ethnic Shocks' this issue was somewhat of an undercurrent in the article. Students were administered a voluntary DNA test and many were surprised to find that although they identified with a certain culture that they were actually ethnically more of another. To some this may cause confusion raising the question "Who Am I?" but in today's society ethnicity isn't nearly as important. This question should be answered more along cultural lines than ethnic ones. In many Latin American countries this is and has been the case for awhile now. You are not judged as much on the color of your skin than your clothes, occupation, language, and general attitude. This is how they identify native indigenous people, who are more commonly low class and dress in the same fashion as they have for many generations and held the occupation of farmer/trader for many centuries, with European, who are commonly middle or high class and possess business jobs in large cities. Many of the indigenous people who adopt European religion and dress are then no longer considered indigenous; they have in other words adopted a new culture. Now the idea of 'betraying' ones ethnicity may be detestable to some but as with many issues, it depends on the person. We are living in world where freedom of thought and expression is of the utmost importance. Who's to say what you can and cannot be? The one man in the article, who was raised by to black parents, found out he was 48 percent white. Does this mean he should automatically identify with the white ethnicity or culture? Well, he doesn't think so and I don't think so either because he was raised black and that's exactly where he wants to be. That's his personal freedom. That's who he is and I fully agree and support that freedom.


BB

Patenting Humans?

When I read 'Ultimate Therapy: Commercial eugenics in the 21st Century' By Jeremy Rifkin I became startled at learning one of the many interesting facts presented in the article. It could be one of the many facts, such as genetic engineering being discussed as inevitable. I became more focused on the fact that the author stated that most of the 30,000 genes in the human genome as well as most of our organs, tissues, and cell lines will become patented within ten years. These patents presumably being possessed by Scientific or pharmaceutical companies. Now what exactly does this mean? Does this mean that I cannot mention a gene or organ of my body without putting that pesky trademark (™)symbol next to it? Are words going to be nixed from my vocabulary based on the economic greed of companies and elite individuals? This seems to be as sad as Donald Trump trying to copyright the phrase "You're fired!"©

Infinite Monkey Theorem and Web 2.0

As I was reading through the selected articles where we had to choose one to blog about, I knew right away, as soon as I read it, which one i was going to choose. I had no exposure to the "infinite monkey theorem" before reading Andrew Keen's article "Introduction, The Cult of the Amateur" and it caught my eye as an interesting metaphor for Web 2.0 and it's seemingly limitless possibility for amateur creative content. I deduced that he must be using it as a metaphor rather than there being an actual direct link between the two after visiting the Wikipedia page describing the theorem in detail. Keen's article basically states that through the vastness and openness of the internet, the professional creative artist is eventually slowly being led to extinction by the amateur. The amateur, through the sheer mass of content they put out, is bound to come up with a couple masterpieces. Now the problem I have with this is that he seems to be suggesting that if a masterpiece would be created by an 'amateur' it would be a mistake and not worthy of merit. This thought, I think could not be more cynical or pessimistic. This profession is merely evolving. Our culture is simply expanding. A new niche has been created. The niche of the amateur and Keen had better get used to it because it's not going anywhere anytime soon. This new 'cult' as Keen so eloquently states is not a cult, but a mass of people creating and spreading their own virtual identity. As with all things some people's creations gain ground, get spread around, become viral in better words. It's the new, hot, hip, and surprisingly quick way to gain fame and infamy. Now just because one person is labeled as an amateur does not mean they do not have the intellectual creativity that any professional might posses. If nothing else they may posses a more truer version of creativity, one that is simply for the love of creating and not for financial or economic gain. So Andrew Keen, I'm not saying that I wholly disagree that this new age of content is destroying our culture, but like exercise; wherein the muscle must be destroyed before building itself back up, stronger and bigger than before, this destruction will make our culture richer and better off in the long run.

BB