Now because I'm white I've never suffered many social problems on the racial aspect (East Yorkshire is a bit of a racial vaccum) - so what I would like to know is:

If you're classed as an Ethnic Minority [skin colour or religion] - does that cause you any problems socially?
Have you ever felt left out or talked down to because of it?

Great question. I'll respond at length later.

Short answer--yes it has been a problem socially, although most of the time, it's more of a complication than a "problem."

In the whole skin colour/religion can i count hair style, in which case I've definately been talked down to because of that!

Wingfoot

Well, my "minoritiy" status is a bit of an odd one. I'm half white and half mexican. So I'm normally not in a minoritiy wherever I am, but when faced overwhelmingly with one side or the other, such as my old town with huge amount of white people, one's identity can really stand out.

As for being a problem for me, I'm not sure that it is so much of a problem, as just a difference. Though those can oft be mixed, not in my case really. It provides a nice identity, and though I don't have any control over it, it is still somthing that I am proud of.

Actually, I think I had more problamatic issues presented to be when I had long hair (as wingfoot can atest to those issues) then I did being a "minoritiy" in a 99% white town.

Exactly, it's funny how people are these days more accepting of other peoples backgrounds and cultures and yet are willing to pass judgement about trivial things like that

You should see my mop of hair...when I was younger other kids would take the mick. Calling me tranny and other such names - it was very off-putting.

I just want to speak briefly about two common "problems" that arise with Asian-Americans, first because I'm Asian American and second because when issues of race come up, Asian racial issues aren't often brought up. These two problems are explained at length by Frank Wu in the book "Yellow."

1. The "Model Minority Myth." You know it. Asians--they're good at math, well-behaved, obedient, quiet, hard-workers. What's wrong with such a "good" stereotype? Aside from the fact that it is a stereotype (and thus does not always apply to individuals--in fact increasingly so), it also serves to alienate Asian-Americans. It can create resentment among other races, when people see (or think) that they are getting the best grades or "taking our jobs." Also, "obedient" and "quiet" can quickly turn into "permissive" or "submissive." In fact, Asian-Americans are often passed over for promotion because of this very stereotype.

2. The "Perpetual Foreigner." If someone asks me where I'm from, and I say "Baltimore," I am often followed up with the question "No where are you REALLY from." As if either 1. I'm lying or 2. I can't be REALLY from Baltimore--as in--I don't really BELONG as if I'm from Baltimore. Growing up, I often heard "Why don't you go back to your own country," to which I could only reply "but I'm already there." This profoundly affects how Asians are viewed in terms of patriotism. You may remember Wen Ho Lee, the Asian American accused of leaking sensitive data to the Chinese. Well, it turned out he was completely innocent, and in fact the New York Times even reported that much of the accusations against him came from anti-Asian bias. Of course, this was reported on September 10th, 2001, so it never really got talked about. All this also has an effect on how Asian-Americans view themselves. What is their "true" home? What is their "true" identity?

I had a discussion with a Pakistani American.

He says that he's one of the good races, that Indians and Pakistani's similar to asians have positive stereotypes associated with them. (Note that Indians and Pakistani's look different from Arabs.) They're part of the "solution" of minorities not the "problem"

He said he's one of the success stories so when people ask him about what it's like to be an e.m. they're really asking why can't blacks and hispanics succeed like Pakistani's and Indians seem to be doing. But at the same time he had to deal with a lot of the same crap Psycholopher did, more so because he himself emigrated so he has something of an accent, though he speaks more languages than I ever will.

The other thing I'd add is that this question presumes a western bias. Granted we're all in Western nations so if you're not caucasian then you're an ethnic minority.

However, Asians (China and India, granted two very distinct ethncities, India and China for that matter are home to numerous different ethnicities within that geographic area, alone account for 1/2 of the worlds population) are the most populous ethnicities, making Europeans and Americans ethnic minorities themselves.

True - but you tend to forget here is that whilst Asians as a whole do account for 1/2 of the world's population - they rarely have a say on what happens to them in countries where they are singled out on a social basis. Asia itself has very little say in political matters of the present.

As for the Blacks having more problems gaining racial equality than Indians; well fact is (and I will try to say this in the most tactful way possible) is that Blacks have a more well-known history of slavery behind them than that of Indians. And rather unfortuneatly African Americans of the past had adopted a very western style of approach to gain rights. You know, the usual - one side is the peaceful movement, and the other basically is the flame and torches movement. Such a split in a movement can damage the chances and the progress of Blacks more so than that of the rights of other minorities.

There are of course different factors for the different successes of various civil rights groups of different minorities. Attitudes, methods, the general concensus of opinion of these groups towards getting their race accepted is a major factor. Technically there should not be any difference, however the successes of these various races depend on their history and stereotypes.

As for you Psyhco - I feel very angry over what those people said to you (you wouldn't happen to live in the south/west of USA do you?). Here are these all American whites (or otherwise) questioning you about your true nationality! I sorry but that is completely below the belt and I really do feel sorry for what happened to you.

Well, to be honest, the question is usually asked quite innocently. And I understand why. Frankly, only about 3-4% of the US population is Asian (I actually live in the East coast, but where grew up I was frequently the only Asian-American in my classes, etc.), so there are very few Asian Americans to break up stereotypes to begin with. Secondly, the vast majority of Asian-Americans who are here either immigrated or had parents who immigrated in the last 30-40 years (a huge opening in immigration laws allowed for this). As a result, most middle-aged Americans, if they knew any Asians when they were younger, most likely knew an Asian that was born in another country.

The American-born Asian is a FAIRLY recent development, and so I understand why people would ask me what they ask me. But yes, it is something complicated and at times difficult to handle.

The question may be innocent but it is presumptuous and rude and to question how you view yourself. I am sorry second and succeeding American generations face that. I think dual citizenship aggravates relations among citizens as it calls into question commitment to each other. The fact that you identify yourself with Baltimore should be enough if it's known that you're a citizen.

For myself I grew up in Queens, New York city. My neighborhood was predominantly white but a mix of nationalities at first. Namely Irish, German, Greek, and Russian. Religions were even more varied. There were a few blacks, but they were well educated with either businesses or professional careers, not fitting the economic standard of their minority so they blended in, at least to a child's viewpoint.

I remember a definite resentment of the sale of homes by my neighbors to blacks of lower economic means, complaints of they're slumming the neighborhood so to speak. Oddly, this opinion was held by the lowest of middle-class whites in the neighborhood. I guess they wanted preference in status as whites and viewed them as threat to stature in the neighborhood some how. They usually shared catholic or christian faith on the whole, so I don't think the problem was religion.

I remember as a female early adolescent, the dismay over the growing number of Hispanic girls in the neighborhood. It had absolutely nothing to do with nationality or culture. It had to do the fact that so many of these Hispanic girls were so very much advanced in physical development. Imagine I and my friends dismay as we hung out with and talked to the boys whom we liked, as they remarked "God Damn" as Puerto Rican and Guatemalan girls walked past who had bodies of 25 year olds. God, how we hated them.

Hispanic amore wasn't exactly pleasing to white boys either as they vied for their sisters attentions, versus their friends of whom they had greater influence. Most were raised with the notion, protect your sister.

There was some culture shock too. The majority of the families on the block had fathers who were either businessmen, cops, or firemen. In any case, everyone was in bed by 10:30PM because meals revolved around Daddy's schedule. Then this one puerto rican family moved on the block straight from the island. They built a hen house in their yard. They had family and friends over every weekend and sometimes during the week. They'd be out in their yard well past 1AM playing loud foreign music and loud foreign conversation. And the appall remarked by the other mothers of how even the children of the family were still out & not in bed. These things just were not done and they were disruptive. All it took was a cock to crow in the morning to start a daily diatribe of rebuke in our homes. The children heard all of this. It'd come up in conversation among adult neighbors too. We heard that too. The majority of drinking wasn't done at home by white parents but rather it was done in one of the numerous bars in the neighborhood away from the eyes of the children. Oh the appall!!

There would be fights among the boy groups in the neighborhood. Both opposing groups would be mixed however so they weren't really about racial tensions among them. Usually it was the loud mouth of one group told off the loud mouth of another, dragging their friends into the issue.

Now there are more Asians and Filipino and Haitian in my neighborhood. I like that my children have had the opportunity to grow up in such a diverse neighborhood. Children are not naturally racist and enjoy learning different ways of communicating, play, and celebration. Its not exposure to other ways or ideals that make them turn from their parents traditions. Its the hypocrisies they cite of the tradition or their parents with on which they disagree.

are you ginger. i have ginger hair. i personally don't like it but people aren't mean or anything. people may use it as a bit of banter but i love banter so i throw it back. aso in britain there is big rivalry between home nations so theres a welsh boy in my year who gets alot of stick for being welsh. eg. 'sheep shagger' but he just takes it on the chin. theres not much racism in my school but recently there has been alot of hostility towards jews. i think it's because our year is now learning about the holocaust and the first lesson was reasons why Britain and europe has along history of anti - semitism and it backfired because now people think they can use these reasons to fuel there hatred. I personally think racism is on the rise again. in britian anyway

What little I've looked up about reasons for antisemitism, I get the impression that there was or is a tendency of jews to dominate banking and/or business in points of history. But the reasons for this was because at certain parts of history they weren't allowed to own land. So what else could they do? Equal opportunity should prevent resentments in England.

I have to admit there are times I resent jews. I resent that there's a holocaust memorial in Washington D.C.. If the purpose is to prevent the past from repeating itself, there should be memorial and museums dedicated toward the genocides of all human or modern human history. I don't see why jews should be singled out as if they're the only ones who have survived & endured this. Yet there are holocaust museums & libraries on almost every college campus in America. Why? Who lobbied for it? I don't see it justified. The way blacks will sometimes play the race card in an arguement as a last ditch effort to win, jews will use the persecution card. Get over it & deal with the real issue at hand & form a fair compromise. Let everyone get on with their lives.

The Holocaust is remembered more than any other genocide because of the killing efficiency of the Germans. The German were the first and still only modernized nations to utilize industrial means to create factory-like complexes especially designed to kill people as fast and cheap as possible.

As for me, I'm a Russian Jew who lives in New Jersey, so I don't have much to deal with. I would like to think that I’m not a racist but, since I have never really got into a racial/religious conflict other then the casual internet debate, I can't fairly judge myself.

If we did that, we'd be repeating the same mistakes over, and over, and over again. Hell, we DO do that, and we DO repeat the same f**king mistakes over, and over, and over, and over.....

Any racial minority in America in some areas within America is a majority and certainly any American minority has majority status in some other nation. So its all relative. I certainly support the right of other races to "love their heritage" but don't think that right is exclusive to anyone, and I do believe that socities naturally tend to split amoung racial lines to a certain extent. But you aren't really "left out" if you are minoritiy, you have your own to stick to. Just look at a cafeteria in school, all the blacks will sit with each other, and whites usually on their own sit with each other. Of couse this is personal antecedants, but I'm telling you what the untrained eye has observed.

I really couldn't understand ethnic minorities well until I saw the movie "Blue Eyes" by Jane Elliot. Being white, it's hard to say anything about what others have experienced since you don't know and haven't lived that life.

I agree, but it applies to white people too. They don't know our life.

That is very true, and being half white and orginally come CT, then moving to Maryland, which is a majorty-minority state, I can fully understand where you are coming from.

However, generally we can obviously understand that one might be prone to being affected by racism if a minority and thus, on average be more adversly affected by soceity in that reguard than a white person.

Other than being called "white boy" a few times by black students while in high school, I haven't really experienced anything.

Oh my god. I don't normally bash jews. But you basically gave my setiments right there. I don't disagree that the holocaust happened, I don't think the exact number can be proven ever. But what about the gypsies?

Again this is not anti-Judaism, but a general resentment of "card-playing" on my part. Nobody is being hated for who they are here, but critized for how they are behaving.

Yes, as minorities play the race card, jews play the pity card, and white christians play the guilt card. Any white christian that does not play the guilt card is a "white supremecist." Because that's exactly what happened when I pointed that out on the official Democratic blog way back. And I was banned fairly quickly, simply for pointing out that white people should also be reached out to by the democratic party, they reach out to everyone else, why not white people. Those who claim they fight for equality are often fighting to "put whitey in his place."

Check this out. Go to this site.

http://www.democrats.org
run your mouse over the "people" option on the top.

You'll see a menu scrolll down. It mentions almost everyone except white people and males. And you can say they don't mention whites because whites are the majority, but there are a heck of a lot of women out there and women are still mentioned as a group. Instead of white people, the group is "farmers and ranchers." Other can get group interests, but whites can't.

I believe that is a form of discrimination...

White people and males are the majority as far as representation in the United States poltical feild.

And there are white and males in:
Disabled People
Farmers and Ranchers
GLBT
Relgious People
Retired People
Small Business Owners
Union Workers
Veterns
Young People

"Unfortunatly" white men don't often find themselves singled out for descrimination. No, AA is not descrimation, get over it.

The reason that you were probably banned is that they get alot of hate mongers on their already. Prehaps not a good reason, but you can read their TOU and bring up with them. Add that all to the fact your observation is totally wrong, and yeah, no.

Also, please don't double post. Use the edit button. Thanks.

Funny thing is, look at the exit polls, and who doesn't vote democrat...white males. Maybe its due to the fact that the party has a reputation for marginalizing them in the last 30 years.

Umm, no? A great deal of white males vote democrat, sure, not as much as do vote Republican, the ideology that has a history of keeping white males dominante. So yeah, I hear this arguement of white males being subjects of racial discrimination (mostly by white males) but never see anything that actually backs it up. Yet the other side? I see tons of well documented information. Go figure.

Republicans are supposed to believe in a color-blind society, with no special privlages, no discrimination. Democrats believe in individually reaching out to groups. Why not reach out to every one individually, is it because whites aren't seen as the proliterian, might as well admit the marxist side of it then?

As for being banned, I don't care, as I disown both of those parties, but it shows that some people can act in the interest of their voting block and others can't. I would be continually banned (I would return with new names), while an obnoxious in your face complaining civil rights type would post under the name of Monica R, and because she was black, when we flamed against each other, she would never be banned. The democratic party is clealy anti-majoritiarian. You need to look no further than the 2004 election exit polls. In most states, Kerry took every ethnicity (including Asians who aren't as poor) except white males. Even in his own state, Kerry barely, I believe, won the white male vote. This is no opinion, the poles are there for you to read if you search for them.

And btw, you do declare victory a lot, its better to let the reader decide...something I've learned.

This is a good point, but there are a few things I'd like to say about this. First, it's not entirely true for many minorities. Many minorities grow up in white environments, go to white schools, date white people, think, dress, and speak like white people. And yes, they don't fully know what it is to be white, but they come to understand that world much better than most white people will be able to fully understand what it is to be a minority. Second, without delving into the reasons why this is the case, I think we can say rather confidently that the western world is a white man's world--specifically, an anglo-caucasian world. That is, it is anglo-caucasian culture and thought that has dominated the west for the past ceveral centuries (if not millenia, if you go back to the Greeks/Romans). So most minorities are inculturated into a way of living and thought, the foundation of which springs predominantly from anglo-caucasians. In this sense, minorities also have a greater understanding of white culture, than vice versa.

The idea of a color-blind idea is a nice idea, but a tragically mistaken one. Race is a sociological product, not solely (or even primarily) a biological one. And while one's sociological identity may not be as phenomenologically tangible, it is nonetheless real. You can't be "blind" to someone's race any more than you can be "blind" to someone's gender.

Exactly. The way I see it, humans are discriminatory by nature. If its not going to be about race or creed, it's going to be about something else. I totally emphasize with the long hair thing. I grew my hair but when I saw that others made such a big deal over it, I cut it. :D