Ok, M says that people are identified by the landbase of their origin. Ethiopians are from Ethiopia. Japanese are from Japan. Russians are from Russia.


My question, then, inspired by S's statement that people are identified by their bloodlines, not the landbase of their origins, is what about the Cherokee, for example, who identify themselves based in a tradition that doesn't believe in owning land, but rather being a part of it? Native Americans are identified by their landbase, but they are identified that way by the dominant group. So which are they?

I cannot get M to listen to what I have to say and give my opinion a chance to sink in before he dismisses it, so I'm posting here to get some discussion from people who have ACTUALLY heard what I have to say.

Land is parceled out and divided, sure, but not all groups of people have done that. Nomadic groups do not lay claim to land. They may be associated with land, but their system of identification is tied more to the people whom they consider family. Therefore, wouldn't it be better to say that people are identified by the landbase of their origin by the people who think land has boundaries, hmm? That would explain why their are Black people and White people in the United States ... they are (we are?) identified--and we identify ourselves--based upon the group coherency.

Also, when I said that Black people come from slavery, as do White people, M cursed at me (I don't like being cursed at by my professors, that makes me want to cry for some reason) but ... is that really so incorrect? He also says that nowhere else in the world are people referred to as Black and White, but didn't slavery exist in England? I thought that's where the United States got it.


Oh well. He said "I don't care if you think ___________________" when I tried to say these things. Can't learn from someone who doesn't care, can you?

~mQ