Asked but not Answered: Multiculti debate continues ft. Sarcastro

This is getting to be like rap answer records. I wonder who is the Roxanne Shante’ in all of this? Sarcastro responded to me in his blog. I provide excerpts for clarification (Fair Use in E-F-F-E-C-T boyee) The whole idea of labelling people based on their ethnicity is divisive and dangerous. Just repeating yourself, mate. We’re asking, why is this so? How have you arrived at this conclusion? Dangerous to whom? Did you get a paper cut? Multiculturalism is moral relevancy.  The definition of multiculturalism stresses tolerance and mutual respect for cultural differences within a country's borders.  Bollocks! How does a tolerance and mutual respect for cultural differences require that we accept practices such as clitorectomies? Hey, don’t you watch Star Trek? How many times did the various captains have to deal with the Prime Directive vis a vis morality? This one’s pretty simple. Some culture specific conduct, such as eating sushi, is low in relation to matters of morality. Some conduct, such as stoning, is high. As the relation to matters of morality increases, the more difficult it is to simply “accept.” We aren’t in the Federation. We don’t have to worry about the Prime Directive. We don’t have to accept clitorectomies. America accepts the death penalty as a legitimate form of punishment for its society. (Something we apparently share culturally with Jihadists). If another culture is opposed to it, would you call their acceptance of the death penalty moral relevance? Here's the deal.  If you create a label for your  ethnic group, no matter what it is, and define yourself according to that hyphenated label, you make your group an easy target for those with pejorative intent to slander your ethnicity as a group.  This is silly. This is why you oppose hyphenated labels? Because you have “our” best interest at heart? Oh, well, thanks. I didn’t know you cared. How about doing me a favor and ask those with pejorative intent NOT TO FREAKIN SLANDER these groups? Seems a lot easier than arguing that a group should not be able to recognize their origins. Let's start in on the African-Americans.  How do you take a continent with numerous ethnic groups, cultures, and differing experiences and lump them all in as a lazy way out to describe skin color without being offensive.  Schooling. The descendents of African slaves in this country chose the broader “African” American because most do not know the sending country/region, having had that knowledge taken away by the kindly slave masters. Moreover, so many today have said masters as ancestors. So, since Charlize Theron knows she’s from the Republic of South Africa, she can call herself a South African American if she chooses (if she is indeed a citizen). I’m guessing she’s just fine with being “white” though. You may be trying (hard) to suggest it’s simply political and not “scientific.” Well, the notion of race is itself a political construct based on faulty science. Don’t blame the victims. *”Black,” a nomenclature which had a slight militant tone in the 60’s, a reclamation of “negro,” fails to adequately describe what unifies people who are descendents of African slaves. It isn’t about being lazy.* As for immigrants from African nations, many I know don’t use hyphens. However, they don’t use “American” either. Maybe the 2nd generation kids do. I know someone pretty well for whom nationality is a life or death matter. This person is likely to refer to herself as Japanese until she keels over, no matter how long she lives here or whether she becomes a citizen. Why do people always bring up Tiger Woods with me? (It’s a joke, you’ll get it if you get it). After all this back and forth, Sarcastro, neither you nor those who agree with you have ever explained how it is “divisive” for ethnicities to use a hyphenated term to describe themselves. You’ve done a fine job of telling us why you don’t like it. You haven’t explained why they shouldn’t do it.