If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
upset at nanny -- vent
Bruce and Jeanne wrote:
Ah -point taken. I hadn't realized that Anita spoke Chinese fluently, and certainly wouldn't have guessed from her name. I also just assumed that she was posting from the US, and therefore was relatively unlikely to speak Chinese. You may be making too many assumptions. You would be surprised how many people speak Chinese in the U.S. - I am. I keep running into them :*(. I'm Chinese-American (with an Angelized name). In the 90s, in Northern Virginia while trying to get a VA drivers license, the clerk (white man) behind the counter spoke fluent Chinese. I don't. Turns out he spent 10 years in Taiwan teaching English. At my 10th year high school reunion, a man (white) I've known since elementary school came up to me and asked if I spoke Chinese. No. Turns out he was now (then) fluent in Mandarin and Cantonese and had lived in Hong Kong. In school, he was just a really nice Jewish boy who was class president in 6th grade. Who knew? And I should perhaps know better, since I do that to people with Japanese (I'm white) having lived there for a year. But then, the vast majority of USians are woefully monolingual. -- Emily mom to Toby 5/1/02 #2 EDD 7/19/04 |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Cultural differences
PattyMomVA wrote:
lol. Nope, not me. My entire family has brown hair. Ha. Is this an over-developed sense of *what?* color-blindness? respect of personhood? I don't know. -Patty I know where you're coming from. I used to drive my parents nuts by describing everything about people except their ethnicity, even in contexts like trying to point a person standing somewhere. It just seems to me that there are so many stereotypes attached to skin color (& hair color, at least in the case of blond hair), that if you describe someone that way, without any other information, you risk pulling in all of the stereotypes inadvertently. An overdeveloped sense of political correctness, perhaps... -- Emily mom to Toby 5/1/02 #2 EDD 7/19/04 |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Cultural differences
Circe wrote:
Taniwha grrrl wrote: "Circe" wrote in message I'd say black is a broader term for all people of the darker sorts of skin tone that originate in Africa and might apply equally well to some Pacific Islanders (e.g. Papua New Guineans Not here in New Zealand, if you called a Maori or an Islander black your likely to get your head kicked in. It's a pretty offensive term. You're referred to according to your culture, Maori, Islander, Somali or Asian rather than your skin tone. I'm just saying that if I saw someone I'd never met before who was Papuan or possibly Maori, I might well describe that person as "black" if asked. I don't claim to be able to intuit people's cultural affiliations from their skin color, and I think it's a bad idea to try, since you can very easily be misled. Again, citing my favorite example, Sammy Sosa of baseball fame is black, but he's Hispanic rather than African-American. I guess I don't completely understand why we impute so much meaning to words that are really just intended to describe relative skin tones. Black as a description for skin tone isn't, strictly speaking, any more accurate than white, but it's a word we all understand as describing a certain range of skin tones. I'm white, my husband is brown, my kids are brown, my Zulu au pair was black, and my "colored" South African au pair was also black because her skin tone fit into the range of skin tones we Americans describe with the word "black". Colin Powell, IMO, is not black. I'm not saying he's not African-American, because of course, he is. It's just that black doesn't really correctly describe his skin tone--he's more in the range I'd consider brown. Incidentally, my brown husband of Mexican descent is often mistaken for being either Greek or Hindi by people who meet him. People who are also of Mexican descent easily recognize him as "one of them", but his features and skin tone are in a range that could have a lot of potential cultural affiliations. And because there are a lot of people like this in the States, it would be pretty dangerous to try to describe a person physically purely by cultural reference, since that can't necessarily be determined by appearances. Hear, hear (or is it here, here?). MIL/FIL are from southern India. My heritage is Eastern-European Jew (mosly Ukranian). I'm not observant, but I consider myself culturally Jewish. DS is therefore both Jewish (Jewish law says, I belive, you're Jewish if your mom is) and Indian (he certainly looks Indian, although considerably lighter skineed than his dad & grandparents). We're trying to stay away from any "half and half" talk. He has an equal claim to both heritages. Although probably only the Indian one would be apparent to most strangers, and many might mistake him for a different heritage, say Latino, if they didn't have many Indian acquaintances. That said, I don't like describing anyone in terms of colors, as I mentioned in a different post. Another issue that comes up for us is the overloading of the term Indian in this country. I tend to refer to Native Americans as, well, Native Americans, and have been called on it by other folks (not Native Americans) who said, "I think they prefer to be called Indians these days" or some such. Well, my husband is Indian (Indian American, no less), and I prefer to reserve that term for folks from the South Asian subcontinent. -- Emily mom to Toby 5/1/02 #2 EDD 7/19/04 |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
upset at nanny -- vent
Elizabeth Reid wrote:
Chookie wrote in message ... In article , (Elizabeth Reid) wrote: Is there also any kind of difference between whether the getting-things-done group and the other group about whether time spent with kids should be spent on 'kid' activities or spent doing work together and making it fun? [...] I don't know if it's a greater willingness to 'ignore' the kids in a benign way, or a greater ability to involve them in adult household activities, or maybe those activities are intrinsically more involving if they're obviously part of the pattern of life rather than just 'tasks', or what. I think you've hit it. I would guess that the more "together" families approach life like permaculturists, seeking multiple yields from each activity. An example from my own life would be that doing the washing includes DS helping with sorting, pushing the buttons on the machine and playing with the pegs. The yields are in our relationships, DS's learning of life skills (washing and cooperation), DS's being out of mischief, and our washing getting done. The alternative would be to set DS up with some activity while I get the washing done, which would (or *might*!) keep him out of mischief, but wouldn't build relationships or skills... and doing the washing on my own is a lot less fun without DS to talk to. See, I would love to do this, I just can't quite figure it out how to get it to happen. My son doesn't want to help sort laundry, or do any other activity with it which is remotely like the actual task. He wants certain specific activities; primarily, he wants to be read to. He *lives* to be read to. Now, I love reading to him, and it's a nice wholesome thing which hopefully will leave him hooked on books forever, and we have a great time, but it's not an activity which meshes well with getting anything done. Plus, a lot of the more urgent household tasks which I'm feeling like I'm neglecting are harder to involve a young toddler in, like making supper or washing dishes. The image that Dawn paints of the calm loving families with welcoming homes sounds SO wonderful to me. Living in the frazzled-and-harried camp sucks rocks. I just don't know how I could get there without being willing to listen to a lot of heartbroken wailing from my toddler, and something tells me that Dawn's Type 1 families aren't getting there via screaming. There's something here I'm missing. Beth Hi Beth, Jumping in before I finish reading this fascinating thread because I have some ideas. I think we're midway between Type 1 and Type 2 in my house. I WOH (as does DH), and so it seems like there's very little time to get household chores done. We also both enjoy "disconnected" time in the form of the internet (some of which is actually work for both of us). I've also been tired through this second pg, and am now on modified bedrest, so things are getting less and less organized. (Dawn -- are the happy, together households as happy and together if the mom has a hard pregnancy? Does the community help out in that case? What about with a newborn in the house? ... although actually I'm thinking that newborns have got to be easier than toddlers in many ways!) DS loves being read to, and looking at photos on google of whatever category he demands, and generally having us involved in his play. He also loves folding laundry ("big pile of laun-dry!") and will help me put clothes in the dryer from the washer and take them out of the dryer and try to hang up those that need to be hung. Sometimes when I need to be in the kitchen, he can be happy playing with other kitchen things, although not directly participating in what I'm doing. Kitchen toys include refridgerator magnets, the "noisy cupboard" with the baking sheets (rarely used ;-), and the tupperwares. (One of the messiest things about my house these days are those tupperwares... They're never truly clean because they're always being played with, but we just use them anyway. *sigh*) The other day I had a real breakthrough. I was trying to wash dishes, and he wanted to build with blocks, and have me do it with him. I suggested that he build something for me and then show it to me. That kept me involved in the process, but also left me free to do the dishes. As for trying to do laundry while DS wants to read books -- how about making up stories about the laundry? Might that make it similar enough? -- Emily mom to Toby 5/1/02 #2 EDD 7/19/04 |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
upset at nanny -- vent
Emily wrote: (Dawn -- are the happy, together households as happy and together if the mom has a hard pregnancy? Does the community help out in that case? What about with a newborn in the house? ... although actually I'm thinking that newborns have got to be easier than toddlers in many ways!) Community is always helping out. I've witnessed families with newborns, moves with tiny babies, funerals of elderly and one of a baby that died a couple of days old. I've heard about families with difficult pregnancies. Of course, those aren't all happy times, but they aren't frantic, dishevelled, hopeless times either. The homes are still orderly and clean, and the meals are still hot, although the main people involved will have help if they need it. For a newborn, because it's not an unexpected thing, there is somewhat less, because things are made ready prior to the birth, from what I have seen, and I've not noticed a dramatic decline in the tone of the home. There is support, though. Partly I think there is the order that follows on naturally from continued order....if that makes any sense. If you have always strived (striven?) for a pleasant, orderly household, and tend to the ongoing work of same in a timely way, and prepare for the future (canning, other preserving, freezing lots of things, etc) then things tend to run more smoothly when there are hiccups and bumps and outright disasters. If your laundry is done, and put away, you can find it in the dark (and, as I can relate from experience, it won't get damaged in a catastrophe at 3am involving deluges of smoke and water and a home evacuation), and your older children or DH can get their days started without frantic searches for matching socks. If your kitchen is orderly, preparing meals is less hectic and frazzle-inducing. If you tend your garden regularly and well, you won't have back-breaking hours of removing enormous weeds and recovering fallen or diseased plants. This is mostly JMO, based on what I see, and hear and thinking about things during the length of this thread (and at other times in the past) AND from my own experience. I'm continually shocked that so many people apparently (irl) find what I do to be anything other than ordinary, and I'm not nearly as tidy and calm as the Type 1 families, though I would say I tend more in that direction. And I've found that steady work towards that goal has made my life move in that direction in many ways. I don't feel that I've had to neglect my DS to do it, and in fact I am freer to be with him when there are less overwhelming and put-off things looming either physically or mentally. Since I had to deal with many tradespeople after above mentioned disaster a couple of years ago, I've noticed that in general, good workmanship, pride of a job done well and such are SORELY lacking in today's workforce. To have a worker show up on time, or nearly so, or call if they couldn't, and do a neat, efficient, quality job that would last was utterly unheard of, and impossible. And not one person seemed to feel that anything more was expected or required of them, even if obvious flaws and errors were pointed out. Somehow, the collective we have failed to retain the value of craftsmanship outside of various hobbies and "quaint" interests. We're willing to overlook or accept shoddy goods, poor food, and badly done tasks. I don't quite understand it, but I don't admire it. In a lot of ways, I think some of the differences between the types boils down to one group striving for simple quality in the things they do and use (and think and say), and the other group seeking some unattainable when or what to begin and ending up mired. Does this make ANY sense to anyone else? :-/ Dawn |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Cultural differences (was: upset at nanny -- vent)
Hillary Israeli wrote:
In BgyWb.39216$QJ3.8247@fed1read04, Circe wrote: *reason for it. (Of course, "white" is a ridiculous term to apply to people *of European ancestry, anyway, since we are quite clearly not white, but *varying shades of pinkish-tan.) Well, all of the black people I know are varying shades of brown, not actually black. Yeah, I actually said that in another post g. Black is absolutely no more accurate than white, but just as we have a pretty good idea of what skin tones qualify as "white", we have a pretty good idea of what skin tones qualify as "black". There are places where all the skin tones tend to overlap, though. -- Be well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [23 mos.] mom) This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign Mommy: I call you "baby" because I love you. Julian (age 4): Oh! All right, Mommy baby. All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Cultural differences (was: upset at nanny -- vent)
"Circe" wrote in message I'm just saying that if I saw someone I'd never met before who was Papuan or possibly Maori, I might well describe that person as "black" if asked. I wasn't saying you are wrong, it is probably perfectly acceptable culturally in your country to do that. But as we are talking about cultural differences I thought I'd point out that here it's offensive. If you referred to a Maori as Black you incite all sorts of racial hoopla, it's not a nice term. Plus no one here is black, except the Somali's, they have pretty black skin tone, but it would still be very rude to refer to them as Blacks. Saying their skin tone is black is ok, but calling them blacks as a collective noun is very rude. I don't claim to be able to intuit people's cultural affiliations from their skin color, and I think it's a bad idea to try, since you can very easily be misled. I imagine it would be pretty hard in the US due to the reasons you mention further on, but with New Zealand being much smaller it's very easy to know who is Maori, who is Islander (even which Island they come from often, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa) and who is Asian. And those Cultural/Ethnic descriptions are used when referring to someone. Just pointing out the 'cultural' difference in terminology :-) Again, citing my favorite example, Sammy Sosa of baseball fame is black, but he's Hispanic rather than African-American. I don't know who that is so no comment..lol I guess I don't completely understand why we impute so much meaning to words that are really just intended to describe relative skin tones. Black as a description for skin tone isn't, strictly speaking, any more accurate than white, but it's a word we all understand as describing a certain range of skin tones. I think that would be fine here describing a skin tone as black if that is what it was, there aren't many actual black people here though. Maori and Islanders have a brown skin tone. But to 'name' someone black because of their skin tone isn't. -- Andrea If I can't be a good example, then I'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Cultural differences
"Emily" wrote in message Hear, hear (or is it here, here?). MIL/FIL are from southern India. My heritage is Eastern-European Jew (mosly Ukranian). I'm not observant, but I consider myself culturally Jewish. DS is therefore both Jewish (Jewish law says, I belive, you're Jewish if your mom is) and Indian (he certainly looks Indian, although considerably lighter skineed than his dad & grandparents). Well no one knows what your religion is by looking at you, but if you are white 'here in NZ' you would be known as Pakeha, you husband and probably your children would be known as Indian (also Pakeha but that term is almost always associated with white foreigners these days). No one would ever be called a Jew here as a description of who they are, that is like calling someone a Catholic, that is your religion not your ethnicity. How would anyone know that from looking at you. -- Andrea If I can't be a good example, then I'll just have to be a horrible warning. |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Cultural differences
Taniwha grrrl wrote:
Well no one knows what your religion is by looking at you, but if you are white 'here in NZ' you would be known as Pakeha, you husband and probably your children would be known as Indian (also Pakeha but that term is almost always associated with white foreigners these days). No one would ever be called a Jew here as a description of who they are, that is like calling someone a Catholic, that is your religion not your ethnicity. How would anyone know that from looking at you. From a Jewish point of view, it is an ethnicity (esp. among folks like me who identify as Jewish but aren't practicing, so it isn't really a religion for us). I know someone who was an egg donor for an Eastern-European Jewish couple, because the couple specifically wanted eggs from someone of the same ethnicity. (The irony there is that I think the mom of the egg donor was actually a convert to Judaism...) Just like folks can sometimes pick out Italians, etc., there are general patterns to what Eastern European Jews look like. Sure, you can't tell *religion* from looking at someone (unless their religion influences their clothing or other self-adornment), but in this ethnic sense, some people can tell. Looking like a relatively light-skinned Indian, as DS does, doesn't fit that pattern. But that was my original point. -- Emily mom to Toby 5/1/02 #2 EDD 7/19/04 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
nanny question | Stephanie Stowe | General | 2 | June 6th 04 07:49 AM |
"How to find a nanny" | Mike | General | 0 | May 4th 04 03:36 PM |
Toddler's way of telling us they are upset - what does your kid do? | Cathy Weeks | General | 12 | October 17th 03 03:33 PM |
sad about nanny | Andrea | Breastfeeding | 13 | August 30th 03 06:03 PM |
Nanny needs a wonderful family in MA. | It's always something | General | 0 | July 9th 03 03:58 PM |