The Color-Line in America: Part III

The work of the Ethnic Studies Task Force focused on the portfolio of CSU programs under the broad rubric of Ethnic Studies:

                1. African American Studies/Africana Studies/Pan African Studies/Black Studies
                2. Asian American Studies
                3. Chicano Studies/Latina/o/x Studies
                4. Native American Studies/American Indian Studies/Indigenous Peoples Studies”

     I understand the importance of CSU (California State University) to mandate that “Ethnic Studies” emphasize the history and experience of the “four racialized groups” in the United States. It is important to point out the institutional discrimination that persists in our society.

     Indeed, every Cal State student should only graduate having taken at least one course on the subject. I don’t know if I would have described such specific intervention as “the broad rubric of Ethnic Studies,” but I must logically assume the “Task Force on the Advancement of Ethnic Studies” does not define “Ethnic Studies” per se, as an academic discipline that incorporates the global human panoply of ethnicities, but has in mind primarily, if not only, “the historical development and social significance of race and ethnicity in the United States.”

     One should point out, in the statement above, “race” and “ethnicity” are distinguished for some reason, perhaps, as the goal is for our students “to develop the skills and knowledge necessary for success in an increasingly diverse environment.”

     For example, where do you put Eastern Europe and Central Asia within the history and experience of the “four racialized groups” in the United States? Almost one billion people do not fit into this “broad rubric.” They also consist of numerous ethnicities in our global economy, with emigre communities and histories of their own, in many parts of the world, including North America.

     I do not suppose the CSU would exclude from its definition of “Ethnic Studies” the hundreds of millions of people who do not fit neatly into the category (or categories) of “the four racialized groups.” It must be, therefore, a matter of emphasis rather than exclusion, which stands in stark contrast to the High School Ethnic Studies Curriculum Proposal” in California that met with immense opposition this past summer. 

Hannukah & Christmas

Last year, on Christmas, I wrote the following on the student feed (SJSU Sammy):

“hmm…. a little food for thought. Hanukkah is not Jewish Christmas. Hannukah predates Christmas by 160 years. But is Christmas a Christian Hannukah? Let’s see. “Hannukah” from Hebrew meaning “dedication” (or, in the Jewish holiday sense, the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple, a kind of ritual homecoming, after it was made impure from Syrian Greek takeover – anyway, a long story). In Christianity, Jesus came to replace the Temple – be the new Temple… hmmmm.”

This year, Hannukah in the Hebrew calendar overlaps with Christmas, so I understand the confusion. In fact, in the comments section, one student wrote: “Christmas is also nonreligious in a way. for many people at least.” Another student wrote in response, “that only really works that way when you live in a country where Christianity is the dominant religion… Christian holidays are not the default for secular life…” The main take away from this exchange, I think, is the following: secular or religious, Christmas is the dominant frame of reference in American society for Hannukah. The holiday that was relatively minor in importance on the Jewish calendar became one of the more nationally commemorated Jewish holidays in the United States.

This year, history student, Paloma Urciouli, curated the small Hannukah exhibit next to my office.