Ethnicity Defined

Wednesday, November 12, 1997

Ethnicity Defined

MINORITIES Term describes racial groups who have contributed to
nation but don’t comprise majority

By Michael McLaughlin

In MacLane Key’s Nov. 4 response in Letters to Natalie Stites
and Hugo Maldonado’s Oct. 29 ethnic studies article, his ignorance
clearly demonstrates why ethnic studies are needed.

First, "ethnic" is a term chosen by non-minority academics to
designate American racial minority groups, groups labeled and made
exceptions to in the areas of equal rights and privileges
throughout the course of American history, until very recently, by
Americans of European origin. These minorities would prefer to be
designated by the names they have for themselves; for example,
Native Americans’ names were established long before Columbus
stepped on these shores, a consideration no different that anyone
of English, French or German descent ask for themselves and receive
without question. The choice and use of the word ethnic was
determined by European Americans, not American racial
minorities.

Secondly, as we are on American soil (Chumash tribal land
originally, as far as the UCLA campus is concerned), the fact is
that these racial minorities have been participants who contributed
to, and were acted upon, in American history. If I were to attend
school or live in Poland, I would feel that acquiring knowledge of
Polish history would be mandatory, especially if I were to want to
call it home. To choose to ignore my adopted country’s history
would be the height of ignorance.

Third, who is race obsessed? Again, referring to the Polish
example, if someone were to point out that Germans, Russians and
Jews were also part of that country’s history that was largely
ignored in its educational curriculum, and that person happened to
be of German, Russian or Jewish descent, would that make them (as
he labels Stites and Maldonado) "paranoid, myopic, bitter, race
obsessed"? Fourth, where did Stites or Maldonado talk about
victimization? Why does a call for looking at the facts of American
social, political and economic history make people such as Key use
the term "victim"? To use such terminology indicates that Key and
those who think like him must have some preconceived ideas about
the facts of American history, and it is precisely these ideas,
misconceptions, and type of wishful thinking which need to be
brought out into the open. Inclusion of the facts of American
racial minorities’ histories alongside the history of European
Americans would be a start.

Apparently, to people like Key, only Americans of European
descent have any history on this continent. Perhaps he could
enlighten us on the facts of American history without reference to
America’s racial minorities in the first Thanksgiving, the
development of plantation economy and the Civil War, the building
of the railroads to the Pacific, and where the name of the city
which designate the last two words of this university come from. It
is my understanding that a core element of an educational
institution’s purpose is to present facts. To promote the
exclusion, as Key does, of any facts of American history, is the
height of myopia, or worse, an affront to the educational mission
of the university.