Find Insurance Online

I once asked an official from a consulate office of the EU state of Britain about Turkey's possible accession into the EU as another state. He replied that it would be very disruptive—as much as if Mexico were to join the US as a state. The impact of another large state in union would be very significant, he observed. I was stunned that an official from a characteristically Euroskeptic state would make a reference that implies that the US and EU are on the same level. If his comparison is correct, then likening a Mexican state to a state in the US would evince a category mistake. That is to say, it would mean that a federal state could indeed apply to different scales of political organization, as Althusius had theorized in 1603.

Historically, Mexico was part of one colony of Spain called New Spain. For short-hand purposes, we could say that Mexico was a colony. So too was Virginia. While the latter joined a federative union with other colonies, and then sovereign (and then semi-sovereign) republics, Mexico remained as an independent state. At least by the beginning of the twenty-first century, a LAU (Latin American Union) had not formed. This does not mean, however, that Mexico is thereby a union in itself. Like many of the EU’s states, Mexico has provinces or regions, which in the American states would be intrastate regions or even counties. Some of the American states are sufficiently diverse that they would be good candidates for a federal system like that of Germany or Switzerland. Unfortunately, some of the intra-state officials in Europe and Latin America have been able to vaunt their status by calling themselves governors, as though their region were commensurate with France or Texas.

So in 2010 when all six Mexican border “governors” (six meaning that each is akin to a region say of Texas or Arizona and thus not equivalent with an American governor or a European head of state) wrote Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona to inform her that they were boycotting the 28th annual conference between “governors” of the border “states” because of Arizona’s new law to beef up enforcement of US immigration law, she could well have replied, “Well, I should really be meeting with your head of state anyway.” Just because the semi-sovereign American states do much in common through their federation does not mean that the states have somehow shrunk, such that France, a state in the EU, is now somehow equivalent to the US. That would be like saying that Virginia and the EU are equivalent. Europeans would be very offended. Yet Americans turn a blind eye to the convenient category mistakes that are made by others—and even ourselves—at our own expense.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07governors.html?_r=1

Here are to snapshots of modern American retail business:

1. “Are you a member of the store?”   Major bookstore chains, including Borders and Barnes & Nobels, refer to the customers who have registered for a discount card as “members of the store.”  Once while ordering a mocha at a Borders cafe, I was stunned when the clerk asked me if I was a member. "A member of what?" I asked. "Borders."  Stores have customers, not members, I thought to myself.  It seems presumptuous for retail sales clerks to think of customers as members, and elitist to distinguish members from non-members.  Moreover, it sounds fake to say that members shop; it is as if the people working in retail in are pretending that their store is somehow more than a store. It is the twisting of language here that is particularly of concern to me. As Borders faced bankrupcy and the closure of at least 200 of its stores in 2011, it occurred to me that part of the company's problem might be the way the stores were managed. For example, on another occasion while ordering a drink at a Borders cafe, the clerk asked me if I wanted a Borders reward card. I said "no thank you," but the clerk proceeded to ask me again, as if he had not already asked me.  He explained to me that the manager of the store had instructed the cafe employees not to take "no" for an answer until at least two. Ignoring the customers' answers if they are not what you want. Nice. So beyond the linguistic "creativity," I suspect that modern retail management, at least as evinced at Borders, has derailed into something rather toxic based on an excessive desire to manipulate not only language, but also human beings.

2. “Thinking outside the Box.”  The promotional statement going with the $4.99 cheeseburger and fries deal at Applebees.  If coming up with such a deal for a burger and fries represents thinking outside the box, I would hate to see what conventional business thinking is like.  I think it’s time that the blinders be returned to the horses.

Putting these two little case-studies of marketing mentality together, one might ask whether viewing customers as members represents thinking outside the seller-customer box.  Perhaps it does, but not by much and the box is pretty small. Moreover, supervening the club or social organization paradigm onto an impersonal store context seems contrived and ill-fitting.  That the seller ignores the contrivance just adds to the fakeness and underlying sordid character. Either it doesn’t represent thinking outside the box because it is a case of “overreaching” instead, or it must be admitted that thinking outside the box is not in itself a laudable quality.  Were I ever to be asked by a store’s clerk whether I am a member, I would reply, “no, I am a customer.”  Of course, I would probably then be asked whether I want an “upgrade.”  I understand that at Starbucks clerks refer to ordering a larger cup of coffee as an upgrade.  I suppose a window-seat is not included.  Anyway, I don’t think that pretentiousness makes for good selling, but that won’t stop the overreaching any time soon.  It is perhaps engrained in the modern sales psyche.

The 2010, the U.S. census reignited the question of racial identity among multi-racial residents.  “I can’t fit in a single box on the census form” was the typical refrain among the fastest growing segment of the US population.  According to The New York Times in February, 2011, "when it comes to keeping racial statistics, the nation is in transition, moving, often without uniformity, from the old “mark one box” limit to allowing citizens to check as many boxes as their backgrounds demand." The number of mixed-race Americans was at the time rising rapidly, largely on account of increases in immigration and intermarriage. In 2010, for example, one in seven new marriages was interracial. Yet it is not as simple as counting people as "multi-racial." Politically, the use of a catch-all category was believed by some racial interest groups to marginalize particular minority races. As a result, the Census Bureau created 63 categories of possible racial combinations (a typical bureaucratic solution to a political problem). Regardless of how the U.S. Goverment slices the deck, the reality on the ground is that the United States was finally turning the corner in the beginning of the twenty-first century--having gone from states outlawing miscegenation (the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, cohabitation, sexual relations) as late as the 1960s to the multiracial segment being the fastest growing, such that America would undoubtedly look rather different in even a few generations.  Life is a fluid thing, and the world today will undoubtedly be morphed by life's forces into another world tomorrow. Governmental restrictions in the face of natural forces are ultimately like sandcastles facing a rising tide.

That the multiracial “category” is the fastest growing is, I believe, the natural solution to the racial problems that have plagued North America since the time of the colonies.  Whereas New Spain quickly mixed the Indian, black and caucasian races, the British colonies kept the three distinct.  The United States followed the British tradition until into the second half of the twentieth century. That tradition has resulted in some mistakes in how race is labeled because the tradition held that some races are better than others.
Cheryl Contee, for example, writes in a CNN opinion piece, “When I look in the mirror each morning, my face epitomizes the American melting pot. I can’t ignore the pale skin of my white forebears, the slanted eyes of my Indian relatives nor the full lips and curly hair of my African blood.”  However, because there are many white Africans (e.g., in South Africa), her distinction of “white” and “African” is a false dichotomy.  She is treating two different categories as though they were one.  Better stated, Cheryl has white, black and Indian ancestors, hence she is multi-racial.  Better stated still, “caucasian” should be substited for “white” and “negroid” would be used for “black,” but Americans are not fond of technical terms even in polite conversation.  “White” and “Black” are at least of the same category, namely race, even if the explosion in interracial births will render "white" and "black" obsolete as primary descriptors. Instead, there will be a bell curve with "white" and "black" fading out to the ends. As Cheryl writes, “When I look in the mirror each morning, my face epitomizes the American melting pot.”  Her melting pot constitution is something for her to be proud of, as instantiates the natural (rather than governmental) solution to what has been an intractable  problem.  Her great grandchildren will likely look at old pictures of Blacks and Whites as strange book-ends.
Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/30/contee.who.am.i/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/us/10count.html?pagewanted=2&hpw