"multiculturals"?

[Gori the Grey]

Are the three largest non-white ethnicities of the US a group that one can call, collectively, “multiculturals”? USA Today today has an article that reports on how “multicultural” music listeners compare to white music listeners (how much they spend, which sources of music they prefer, etc.). It struck me as odd to see blacks, Hispanics and Asian-Americans lumped together as a group called “multiculturals.” The article at one point also calls them “the poly-ethnic segment.”

I know that the US is a multicultural society. I understand the value of multiculturalism, respect for and celebration of the various cultures that make up the country. I understand that “non-white” could be regarded as a problematic name for the group tracked by this article. I understand the demographics by which, by 2043, whites will no longer be a majority in the US. But for all of that, calling African American, Hispanic American and Asian Americans, as a group, “multiculturals” (or “poly-ethnic”) strikes me as possibly more problematic than referring to them as “non-white.”

Here’s the opening of the article, so you can see the terms as used.

The monochromatic music shopper is going the way of the mono LP.

Multicultural consumers — blacks, Hispanics andAsian-Americans — make up the new mainstream determining music's trends, impact and earnings, according to a Nielsen report out Tuesday.

"Listen Up: Music and the Multicultural Consumer" analyzes spending habits, preferences and means of access in that rapidly growing U.S. demographic.

Since 1990, the slice of the U.S. population that identifies itself as black, Asian-American or Hispanic has jumped to 37% from 24%. Among millennials (18-34), 40% are multicultural. By 2043, the poly-ethnic segment is expected to be the majority. For those under 18, the shift will take place in four years.

"Modern music is being shaped by confident multicultural consumers," says Mónica Gil, Nielsen's senior vice president/multicultural growth and strategy. "These are trailblazers and they know it. As the country faces a demographic shift, this population is poised to influence the growth of music companies.”

Multiculturals have given rise to greater diversity and cross-pollination, resulting in such unexpected collaborations as Psy, Pitbull and Jay Z, she says.

Setting aside the question of whether whites should count as one of the ethnicities in a multi-cultural America, in 2043 will “poly-ethnics” be the majority? Is that the right way to say it? Or will there simply be no ethnic majority? If you say poly-ethnics will be the majority, isn’t that suggesting that their non-whiteness in itself confers on them a collective cultural identity, and will do so even when whites are no longer the majority?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think there's something off in the analysis here. Apply the word 'multi-cultural' to the music not the purchasers and it makes better sense. Especially because it then has exactly the same effect when you add the white people back in.

Despite desegregation happening when I was young, there was certainly still 'black music'. When I reached adulthood there were absolutely clubs I did not go to. I could, but I didn't. Not 'my kind of music' anyway. My black friends tell me I have no rhythm and maybe no soul, which I should probably work on. Listen to the radio and flip stations. In my part of the country you will definitely find (pardon the expression) a mexican station. I laugh about it with my Hispanic friends, and it's always a race to see who says 'hey tuba players deserve a chance to be rock stars as much as anybody else' first. Of course they can tell me when the tuba is about to kick in, because they know the song, while I'm still trying to figure out if there really is a need for tuba playing rock stars. We all get along, and race isn't a big issue in my world, but we don't really have the same taste in music.

The thing is that my kids listen mostly to multi-cultural music. So do their friends, of whatever ethnic background. For all of them ethnic is very much in the background. Waaaaaay in the background. Which I consider a good thing.

 

[Narz]

Mainstream America has no culture (well July 4th and TV) so it makes sense that people who has access to actual cultural heritage would be influencing things more than everyone else (suburban whites who have no ethnic identity or connection with their roots or comrade with their "people").

 

[warpus]

Setting aside the question of whether whites should count as one of the ethnicities in a multi-cultural America,

They should definitely not count as just one ethnicity. There are Portugese whites, Polish whites, Russian whites, Finnish whites, Turkish whites, Icelandic whites, and so on.. a whole bunch of different ethnicities.

If you're going to do it by ethnicity, then you're going to have a whole bunch of ethnicities.

And if you're going to do it by "race", which technically doesn't really exist, but whatever, neither does ethnicity, then you can only go with 3 categories: caucasian, and so on..

I suppose you can just do whatever you want and categorize people by whatever standards that tickle your fancy on that particular day, but that doesn't seem like a very good way to go about it either.

 

[Mise]

I think classifying ostensibly non-Whites as "multicultural" requires some justification. I assumed that the article was referring to the mixture of e.g. Hispanic culture with WASP culture, as distinct from previous incarnations of Hispanic culture which were less WASP influenced (and vice versa). But to refer to Hispanics as "multicultural", ostensibly in opposition to "monocultural" white people, seems quite jarring. But then again, I know literally nothing about any of this. I'm not even from the same country.

I think the idea of ethnicities is a red herring. I think culture is the thing. I think Hispanic culture, for example, is no more or less special than goth culture, or biker culture, or Catholic culture. They're all as valid as cultural entities as one another, and we should respect and accept them for what they are. That being said, the ethnic (or religious, etc) element has more or less power, depending on the collective experiences of those who share that culture. So Jewish culture has woven into it the historical oppression of Jews in Europe; people with black skin face common problems that people without black skin don't, thus contributing to the nature and qualities of "black culture"; etc etc. So some cultures have more significance to members of that culture, whether their membership is voluntary or forced upon them by the prejudices of others, by virtue of the strength of their common experiences. To outsiders, this may seem weird, but it's important to understand the experience of others through their eyes, not just ours. Also I usually say at some point that identity is plural: you can be a Hispanic biker and identify strongly with both cultures, share common experiences of both, etc etc.

So, in short, I reject the idea of ethnicity as something independent of culture, but rather encompass ethnicity as a factor in the common experiences of people with a particular cultural identity.

 

[Borachio]

I find it equally bizarre to talk of "white" people; as if there is any such magical group of people.

I do know there are people who self-identify as such. But I find them indistinguishable from nutters, myself.

Well, to be fair, maybe some of them are just not very reflective individuals.

(Or, hey, maybe they're right after all! What do I know? I can only state what I think is true at any particular moment. Don't shoot me!)

edit: I have heard it said that there are only two true races/ethnicities: blacks and white supremacists. Multiculturals and whites, if you really must.

(Must you? Really? What does anyone hope to gain from this?)

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Cultures are mutually exclusive. One entity can not be of multiple cultures. It is either in a deep merge when there's no proper or distinct features of a specific culture, or it is a group of smaller independent entities representing different cultures, or it is of one culture while declaring otherwise.

A culture can not sustain only on a merged entity (or entities). There must be bearers of that specific culture only and no other for it to exist.

Multiculturalism is an excuse to erase proper cultures and impose one global culture pretending to be many.

 

[Kyriakos]

This business of playing groups vs groups (and not just musical ones ) will soon lead the US to even worse problems.

 

[Tahuti]

They should definitely not count as just one ethnicity. There are Portugese whites, Polish whites, Russian whites, Finnish whites, Turkish whites, Icelandic whites, and so on.. a whole bunch of different ethnicities.

Well, in a US context, people of European descent tend to assimilate into WASP culture. So a Russian-American who isn't even Protestant or of Anglo-Saxon descent becomes WASP just as much an English-American is.

Cultures are mutually exclusive. One entity can not be of multiple cultures. It is either in a deep merge when there's no proper or distinct features of a specific culture, or it is a group of smaller independent entities representing different cultures, or it is of one culture while declaring otherwise.

I partially agree. A person has a primary culture to which he is raised - or has immersed himself in to such a point his previous culture is lost - though one can have multiple cultures in the same way a person can have multiple types of glasses. A person can be of only one culture as a matter of custom, though can be of multiple cultures as a matter of cognition.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd wager that there's a lot of people in Boston, Chicago or New York who would contest that quite strongly.

 

[Kyriakos]

Post ww2 western countries have eroded their culture to the already eroded/non-defined US 'culture' which is based on popular entertainment. Most films, computer games, music etc come from there.

That said, the main defining element of culture is Language. Shared history is second to that, due to being (among other things) optional to learn.

 

[Tahuti]

I'd wager that there's a lot of people in Boston, Chicago or New York who would contest that quite strongly.

There are definitely exception, though St. Patrick's day is hardly exclusive to Irish Americans nowadays.

That said, the main defining element of culture is Language.

That's strongly dependent by culture. There are hardly linguistic differences between English as spoken in Scotland and English as spoken in England, so I doubt language is what makes Scottish identity.

 

[warpus]

Well, in a US context, people of European descent tend to assimilate into WASP culture. So a Russian-American who isn't even Protestant or of Anglo-Saxon descent becomes WASP just as much an English-American is.

I'm sorry, but I have been to various white neighbourhoods in North America, and there can be huge differences between them, almost as large as the differences between the various Asian cultures.

You are right that a majority of white people in the U.S. identify as Anglo-saxon protestant, or whatever, but they are not the only white people in the country. There is a Polish neighbourhood there, a Portugese neighbourhood over there, some Italians here, Greeks there, there are white Latinos, even white central asians.

That whites tend to assimilate into one type of cultural group (or whatever you want to call it) does not mean that other groups do not exist. You can't just ignore them. I for one hate being grouped into the whole Anglo-saxon protestant hodge-podge.. I definitely do not belong in it.. Yet people assume it, just because my skin is white and I dress nice to work. That's pretty racist thinking right there.

 

[Borachio]

That's strongly dependent by culture. There are hardly linguistic differences between English as spoken in Scotland and English as spoken in England, so I doubt language is what makes Scottish identity.

As far as I remember, there are major differences. One of the main ones being that English is an alien language in Scotland, maybe.

Perhaps you could say that there are hardly any linguistic differences between English as spoken in France and English as spoken in England, too. (I'd say there's fewer differences for France than for Scotland.) So that you might doubt that language is what makes French identity. I doubt many French people would agree.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Thank you for all of the responses so far, which have had the effect of reminding me that, yes, all of our schemas for categorizing race and ethnicity are untenable. So why not this one too?

No, there isn’t “white culture,” nor black, nor Hispanic, nor Asian. But then how much less are blacks, Hispanics and Asians collectively a “multicultural” culture? Does Jeremy Lin say, “I and my poly-ethnic friends Anderson Varejao and LeBron James really like R&B music but listen to it from CDs rather than sattelite radio”? So, Kyriakos, I was as interested in the cultures that this nomenclature lumps together as much as the ones it pits against one another.

This usage seems to work as warpus suggests: a categorization that tickles someone’s fancy on a particular day. Here, the fancy it seems to tickle is dramatizing the moment in which (those who identify as) whites will no longer be in the majority in the US. That fact comes through more strikingly if one claims there will be a new majority, rather than just no majority. So all other races/ethnicities are bundled into “poly-ethnic” to give the sense that there will be a new majority in 2043 (and earlier for younger age groups).

The phrasing just struck me as odd, is all. Does any single person think of himself as a "multicultural"?

 

[Borachio]

Does any single person think of himself as a "multicultural"?

I'm not sure. I don't see why they might not.

How about Anglo-Saxons? Aren't they dual cultural?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Should have spelled it out. Does any single black, Hispanic or Asian-American person think of himself as "multicultural" in the sense of being in some sort of shared culture with other blacks, Hispanics and Asian-Americans?

 

[Mise]

We're all "multicultural", in that we don't exist in just one single culture. Polish-Americans clearly belong to two different cultural groupings: Polish and American. They might also belong to Catholic culture, or have entered into baseball culture in some way. The idea that we're not all "multicultural" is crazy.

EDIT: xpost. Oh, well, yes I'm sure non-whites have a number similar enough life experiences that can be categorised as being particular to a common "non-white" culture of some sorts. Most non-whites or immigrants at least identify with racism directed at other races, for example. Perhaps, also, non-whites are disproportionately poor, whereas white culture is disproportionately dominated by the rich, and thus there might be shared experiences resulting from socioeconomic factors. Anyway I don't think it's as nonsensical as you do. It's nonsensical to me only insofar as it casts whites as "non-multicultural" or "monocultural". Which is crazy.

EDIT2: Perhaps non-whites are disproportionately urban and young, thus the contribution of urban young weighs more heavily in whatever cultural associations they hold, than white people, where rural whites might exert a greater influence. Who knows. Like I said in my first post, it needs a lot more explanation; you can't just take it for granted that non-whites can be grouped as such. But then again, you similarly can't assume that they can't.

 

[Borachio]

In the sense that they probably see themselves as "not-white", yes. They share non-whiteness. But it's probably not a defining characteristic most of the time.

I think people like to fall out with one another over the slightest excuse.

 

[Kyriakos]

There is also the question of having culture and some loose and very concurrent thing in a tautology. I mean current culture of most English people is not really their classic 19th century literature, or anything around that. Same goes for most Greek people. Same for African-Americans or what term is better to use there (cause iirc there is always some boring debate on that). Is rap really Afro-American culture? In my view it is likely a fleeting thing of this period. I would tend to suggest subsaharan religion as more of a theoretical background culture, although it is highly likely very few actively know much of it (same in the example about English or Greek people, and so on).

But language is always a core of culture. It seems pretty likely that a serious (whether conscious or not) reason why many Afro-Americans prefer an altered version of English is that they primarily identify it with a foreign culture to start with (and a former oppressor).