I really wasn't sure if it would happen, but I finally warmed up to Naomi Zack during this reading. However, one of the passages assigned didn't seem quite right to me.

On page 40 of Thinking About Race, Zack writes, "Why should the values and styles of the social, economic, political, and educational elites be definitive of ethnicity in America? Perhaps the ethnicity of those on the bottoms and margins of society-- those who are poor and undereducated; those whose lives take alternative forms due to disabilities, special talents, nontraditional family structures; those who are not heterosexual, who are in prison, are illiterate, are here illegally, have AIDs, or are homeless-- perhaps they and their ethnic groups deserve to be as definitive of a distinct American ethnicity as members of the privileged American elite."

Parts of this passage resound profoundly with the way I would reform/create an American ethnicity. For example, in reworking the current American ethnicity I would call for the celebration of the lifestyles, differences, and traditions of non-heterosexuals, those with nontraditional family structures, those with disabilities, and those with special talents (to name a few). Embracing these groups of people could serve to eliminate prejudice and social discomfort due to unfamiliarity.

However, the fact that Zack tries to associate those things with ethnicity ("perhaps the ethnicities of those on the bottoms and margins of society...") troubles me. Of course, some ethnic groups may have a higher instance of people who fit any one of the above descriptions. However, I feel that its also fair to say that there are substantial numbers of almost every ethnic group that are non-heterosexual, have disabilities, are homeless, etc. etc. To try to definitively link these things to any specific ethnicity seems to undermine the point of the book.

Secondly, I take issue with some of the groups that Zack asserts that American ethnicity should recognize and revere. Zack asks why shouldn't the imprisoned be included in the American ethnicity. Well, Naomi, I feel that I can answer that question for you. It's because they've been convicted of crimes. And obviously, if an individual is in jail for any length of time the crime was generally serious. Not only that, but those in jail burden our society by sitting in a jail and using up tax dollars. I do not think we should offer those in prison recognition in our crowning national identity until they have paid their debt to society.

Also, those who are homeless are more often than not mentally ill and refusing treatment. Our reformed society should work to eradicate homelessness through the offering of psychiatric help, shelter, and care. However, it should not make any steps to make homelessness a main-stay in our culture.

Illiteracy also poses a problem for me in terms of its place in American society. According to the CIA World Fact B0ok (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html), 99 percent of the total population over the age of 15 can read and write. Clearly, effective institutions for literacy exist. Those who remain illiterate deserve respect and a real education. However, they should not be exalted in American for their choice to stay illiterate.

I wish I were more concisely and more eloquently verbalize my issues with her argument. However, I think that most of you will get the gist of what I'm saying. I'm interested to see how everyone else reacted to this passage.