« 778 | Main | Late to the Bandwagon »

Not In My Tribe

[Unlike most of what I print here, the piece below is based primarily on anecdotal experience, more essay than editorial. It should most definitely be taken in that vein, as your mileage may vary considerably.]

Over on Half the Sins of Mankind, PG has an interesting essay on a topic close to my heart: the desires of some members (particularly parents) of some ethnic groups to make sure that their children "marry within the fold":

Sadly, I have become so Americanized that I'm skeptical, not only of this prioritization of information, but even of the necessity of marrying an Indian guy. It would be nice to marry one, but sort of in the same way that it would be nice to marry someone who made enough money that I wouldn't have to produce income and could sit at home and write romance novels if I felt like it. (And if anyone can find me a guy who would respect that as a career, please forward his bio-data immediately.)...

I strongly suspect that many of the people who consciously seek out a spouse of the same ethnic or religious background do so because they know it matters to their parents. And certainly my parents would much prefer a beach-loving, country music-hating, BS in computer science-carrying Republican who was a Hindu Indian to anyone who otherwise fit my preferences perfectly but was not. Still, I've seen enough Indian kids marrying non-Indians to think that our parents are actually more tolerant and fonder of us than we think.

If you bring someone home and everyone says, "He's a nice guy, but he's not the right race/religion/whatever," then they'll probably get over that problem eventually. If everyone thinks he's an asshole, that might be a Sign. People can become honorary members of your group -- oh, the white people we have taught to eat with their hands! -- but asshole-ness is forever.


I can understand the sentiment, if only from the other side of the equation. When it comes to dating, a quick glance at my past history would give the impression that I'm dangerously close to Politically Correct. [1] Never having really had a "type," I certainly see no reason to stay within my race, ethnicity, or geographic affiliation when choosing a partner.

I've been fortunate in this: I have two parents who have had only one real concern when it comes to my dating habits. They'd like me to be happy with my partner. They've been really, seriously supportive in almost every relationship I've had, even with partners who I'm quite certain didn't fit their ideal conception of marriage material. (Let's put it this way: if you come from a family of staunch Republicans, imagine the fear of innumerable Christmas dinners with an outspoken Democrat in-law...) I've rarely been concerned that when bringing someone home they'd be treated with anything but respect.

On the other hand, I've been in relationships where I was the outsider. It's never comfortable, and I'll admit that I'm unlikely to do so seriously again. The difficulties are too severe for me anymore: no matter how strong the love between two people, blood runs thick. On the one side, there's always family pressure to "look at this good boy--he's a friend of the family, you should at least meet him, even if you are seeing X." On the other side, the knowledge that there's a perpetual fifth-column at the very least passively trying to undermine your relationship can foster a certain sense of paranoia. Perhaps other people manage it well, but it's not been pleasant in my experience.

But of course, our troubles are sometimes our best teachers, as are our scars. I know I'm sensitive to some things I probably shouldn't be. (I've been known to leave conversations where the term shiksa, which I find horribly offensive, was used by one or another party.) On the other hand, I'm ever more committed to the idea that all humanity really shares the same heart, a point best expressed by P. J. O'Rourke:

Finally, people are all exactly alike. There is no such thing as a race and barely such a thing as an ethnic group. If we were dogs, we'd be the same breed. George Bush and an Australian aborigine have fewer differences than a lhasa apso and a fox terrier. A Japanese raised in Riyadh would be an Arab. A Zulu raised in New Rochelle would be an orthodontist. I wish I could say I found this out by spending arctic nights on ice flows with Inuit elders and by sitting with tribal medicine men over fires made of human bones in Madagascar. But, actually, I found it out by sleeping around. People are all the same, though their circumstances differ terribly."

Which is, in actuality, the reason I throw my support behind these cross-cultural unions. A partnership based upon love can resonate beyond the two individuals involved, and be it through conflict or gradual acceptance, break down these clannish barriers. They're proof in flesh of the silliness of those insisting that love can be found only within one tribe, or that the happiness and blessing of the universe falls only upon those marked by birth.

But then, even the most staunch conservative believes in some tradition that's not worth keeping.

[1]: This is just one more example of my Bad Republicanism. As one English friend pointed out, I use public transport, my last car got over 35 miles to the gallon, I'm quite comfortable with premarital sex and interracial dating: the fellow is still seriously concerned that I'll get kicked out of the Party one day.

Comments

On the other hand, I've been in relationships where I was the outsider. It's never comfortable, and I'll admit that I'm unlikely to do so seriously again. I've never been in a relationship which was cross-cultural, but I've had enough trouble with the ones where I didn't get on well (or, alternatively, think much of) my partner's parents. Of course, the part that matters is what the partner in question thinks my interactions should be with his parents. But I've certainly been in a relationship before where my partner's mother and his views on how I should relate to her have been among the largest reasons for why I ended it.
Just out of curiosity, if I'm not prying too much into personal matter, why the specific objection to "shiksa"? Not that it isn't offensive (particularly in origin), but I've never thought of it as any worse than all the other racial and religious slurs available, and not as bad as some. For example, I'd be far more shocked to hear someone call my S.O. a schvartze (yiddish word for "Black" but comarable to the N-word) than a shiksa. In my experience, the former is far more offensive than the latter. I imagine it's an issue of context and upbringing. In a Jewish househould, I heard "shiksa" a lot, but even now many of my non-Jewish friends bandy it about, as part of the whole retro-kitsch Jewish pop culture thing that's happening. Anyway, as I said, I'd be curious to hear your take.
Buddha: My particular specific objection to shiksa simply comes down to knowing folks who have been hurt by it (or shaygetz, which if my memory serves is the male equivalent). It's certainly not the only slur available, but--for what are obvious reasons--I've never been called a schvartze. That said, the first ever email conversation I ever had with Professor Volokh revolved around the acceptability of using the term shiksa, something he defended and I decried. My feeling is that although both terms are hurtful, shiksa is bandied about far more casually than schvartze--though that might easily be a misconception on my part.
You're absolutely right about shiksa being used more casually than schvartze. This raises a question, though. How does usage affect meaning and connotation? Part of the reason shiksa is used more casually is that many, if not most, of the people using it don't consider it offensive. They probably don't even know what it means, beyond "non-Jew." From the etymology, it is clear that the word was once derogatory. But can that change with usage? I don't know that I envision a world where it will be cool to call someone a "nigger" or "spic" or "kyke" simply because you don't mean harm. But words only have the meaning we give them, and there are certainly cases where that meaning has changed. I gather that your own experience -- or that of your friend's -- with shiksa involved someone intending the derogatory meaning and trying to hurt, which is unfortunate.
I have to admit that I've given up fighting this particular battle: as I said, if I don't like it, I simply leave. The Jewish world is not about to change for my sole benefit. Nevertheless, the most frequent use of shiksa (or shaygetz) that a non-Jew comes across is a usage in derogation of a relationship--quite often one that the non-Jew is in. And I've yet to hear a Jewish person say, "How wonderful: he's dating that really hot shiksa." Normally it means you're not of the blood, you're not of the tribe, and you're bloody well not wanted. So, frankly, how little meaning it's supposed to have in "casual use" means remarkably little to me.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

NOTICE TO SPAMMERS, COMMENT ROBOTS, TRACKBACK SPAMMERS AND OTHER NON-HUMAN VISITORS: No comment or trackback left via a robot is ever welcome at Three Years of Hell. Your interference imposes significant costs upon me and my legitimate users. The owner, user or affiliate who advertises using non-human visitors and leaves a comment or trackback on this site therefore agrees to the following: (a) they will pay fifty cents (US$0.50) to Anthony Rickey (hereinafter, the "Host") for every spam trackback or comment processed through any blogs hosted on threeyearsofhell.com, morgrave.com or housevirgo.com, irrespective of whether that comment or trackback is actually posted on the publicly-accessible site, such fees to cover Host's costs of hosting and bandwidth, time in tending to your comment or trackback and costs of enforcement; (b) if such comment or trackback is published on the publicly-accessible site, an additional fee of one dollar (US$1.00) per day per URL included in the comment or trackback for every day the comment or trackback remains publicly available, such fee to represent the value of publicity and search-engine placement advantages.

Giving The Devil His Due

And like that... he is gone (8)
Bateleur wrote: I tip my hat to you - not only for ... [more]

Law Firm Technology (5)
Len Cleavelin wrote: I find it extremely difficult to be... [more]

Post Exam Rant (9)
Tony the Pony wrote: Humbug. Allowing computers already... [more]

Symbols, Shame, and A Number of Reasons that Billy Idol is Wrong (11)
Adam wrote: Well, here's a spin on the theory o... [more]

I've Always Wanted to Say This: What Do You Want? (14)
gcr wrote: a nice cozy victorian in west phill... [more]

Choose Stylesheet

What I'm Reading

cover
D.C. Noir

My city. But darker.
cover
A Clockwork Orange

About time I read this...


Shopping

Projects I've Been Involved With

A Round-the-World Travel Blog: Devil May Care (A new round-the-world travel blog, co-written with my wife)
Parents for Inclusive Education (From my Clinic)

Syndicated from other sites

The Columbia Continuum
Other Blogs by CLS students