General Diversity
Questions 31-40
Feel free to browse the following questions, some of which may
still await answers. You can then post an answer or counter an answer
that has already been posted. Please read the
guidelines for answering questions
before making a posting.
Previous 10 this topic
area 
Next 10 this topic area
THE
QUESTION:
GD40: What do other cultures feel about whether death, the big
sleep, is the best way to forget our pain?
POSTED OCT. 20, 1998
H. Teixeira , 18, male
<ugu@yahoomail.com>,
Peso Da Régua, Portugal
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
GD39: I am interested in finding out if other adopted people
want to know who their biological parents are. I am torn on whether
to do the research to locate my real parents. I was adopted at two
weeks old. My parents who raised me were great parents, but I know
nothing about the circumstances of my adoption. The courts sealed the
proceedings. Should I brave the system and find out this information?
Anyone who has put a child up for adoption can answer, too. Let me
know what you think about these reunions.
POSTED OCT. 14, 1998
Steve S., 32, married white male, CA
ANSWER 1:
My son was adopted at birth about 34 years ago. I was
badly parented and felt no bonds or ties with him; didn't know how
families were supposed to work. He found his mother about three years
ago and she contacted me. (We had kept in touch though we both had
married twice since). It took me 18 months to be ready to meet him,
though we wrote one letter each way. I was so impressed when I met
him. His adopting parents had done a brilliant job in raising a great
boy/man. I could not have done it as well. I am working on
re-parenting myself, and friends who have a 12-year-old boy who loves
me unconditionally (scary but great; my parents "didn't do"
unconditional love) let me borrow him to practice on. I realize this
is more about me than about adoption - sorry. If you need to ask the
question - ask it and good luck! Be ready for anything from "Sorry;
busy; doesn't fit my current lifestyle/family" to "Hi, son! Great to
hear from you!"
POSTED OCT. 19, 1998
Steve Hill, 53, white male, twice divorced
<steve.hill@stevehil.globalnet.co.uk>,
Leeds, Yorkshire, United Kingdom
FURTHER NOTICE:
I think the the urge to know something about your
biological parents is a very natural one, and certainly shows no
disrespect for the people who actually reared you. However, if you
are successful in locating one or both of your biological parents,
you should understand in advance that their reaction may not be
entirely positive. I was adopted shortly after my birth, and was
about your present age when I decided to try locating my biological
parents back in 1979. Court records were not available so I used a
private investigative firm. I was never able to locate my mother, but
I did find and contact my father. He had been only 17 when he
fathered me, and knew of my existence but had never tried to contact
me. He was, by 1979, a very successful entrepeneur living and working
in a nearby city. When I contacted him, his reaction was, "You know,
people can get into lots of trouble in life without going looking for
it." End of conversation. So, all that I'm saying is that if you
decide to make the search and are successful in your endeavor, you
should understand that the results may not necessarily be to your
liking. Good luck!
POSTED OCT. 19, 1998
Robert, 52, Phoenix, AZ
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I am a mother who gave up a child 20 years ago. Through an
almost miraculous set of circumstances, we were able to be in contact
again when he was 14, and have now met each other and maintain
contact. I would say do it, for your own sake, and for the sake of
the woman who longs to know what became of you - but do it, if at all
possible, with the support and consent of your real parents, who
raised you and sacrificed for you. Make sure that searching for your
biological relatives does not diminish your relationship with them. I
do not know how I would survive if I had to continually wonder what
had become of that child.
POSTED OCT. 19, 1998
A mother
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Steve, I am adopted myself and understand how you feel. I
was adopted along with my biological brother and sister. We never
knew our parents, and growing up, we were filled with questions. When
I turned 18 I contacted my biological parents and finally got the
closure I was looking for. My recommendation to you would be to go
for it. You'll forever wonder if you don't. Although I no longer
correspond with my biological parents (since we never knew each
other, there was nothing in common) at least I no longer have to
wonder.
POSTED OCT. 19, 1998
Ken, 27
<artnik@snowhill.com>,
AL
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I was adopted at three weeks old. My parents too asked me
the question, do you want to find out who your birth parents are, and
I said "no." I have had a good life. My father, a mill worker, and my
mother, a housewife, gave my everything I could ever have wanted.
They are all I know. My extended family, aunts, uncles and cousins
also never treated my any differently from the others in my family. I
am truly blessed. I guess the only question I would like to know is
about my medical backround. However, it doesn't bother me not
knowing. What I guess I want to say is, if you have questions that
are eating you up, find out. If not, enjoy the family you have.
POSTED OCT. 19, 1998
Brian D., 30
<dutting@hotmail.com>,
Jacksonville, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I would think that in this day and age where the medical
profession has made such great strides in the research and cure of
hereditary dieases, the background knowledge of one's birth parents'
medical history would be almost paramount.
POSTED OCT. 19, 1998
John J., Port St. Joe, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
I am a 36-year-old white female adopted at nine weeks of
age. My adoptive parents were supportive, loving and everything a
child could ask for. I am college educated now and financially
comfortable. I found my natural family five years ago, including
three siblings. There are many drug and alcohol problems in the
family, and no one has near my education. This has caused friction
when my biological mother compares me with my siblings. Do I regret
my choice? No. They are also loving, kind people who have opened my
eyes to a greater diversity. However, it took some time to get over
our differences, and some of it was uncomfortable. During my getting
to know them I lost my "real" (adoptive) mother, for whom I am still
grieving. I think I know now who my real family always was. If you
want to do this, go for it, but go in with eyes wide open and be
prepared for anything.
POSTED OCT. 20, 1998
Katherine, 36
<Curioddity@aol.com>,
Jacksonville Beach, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 7:
My husband was adopted as an infant, and I asked him once
whether he ever wanted to find his birth parents. He said no, because
as far as he was concerned his parents are the ones who raised
him.
POSTED OCT. 20, 1998
Hanofer
<pwoodhouse@helsell.com>,
Seattle, WA
FURTHER NOTICE 8:
I, too, gave up my son when he was born almost three years
ago. It was the hardest thing I have ever done, or ever will do. I
cannot speak for all birth mothers, but I pray for the day that my
son is old enough to find me, and I pray that he will want to. We
have an open adoption, so he will be raised with some information on
me, and if he does want to find me, it will not be difficult. I hope
his adoptive parents support him in this. Rest assured that your
birth mother did what she did out of love. Good luck.
POSTED OCT. 22, 1998
The other mother, 23, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 9:
Thousands of people - adoptees, birth parents and adoptive
parents who want to help their adult children - are searching for
each other using the same medium as Y?. The Internet has brought an
explosion of reunions. To search or not is both a personal and a
political decision. For some, the desire to know a biological
heritage becomes overwhelming, and in order to do so they have to
circumvent a system that is designed to keep them from doing so.
Research shows there is no correlation between the desire to search
and how close or connected adoptees feel to their adoptive parents.
It is not a choice between parents. It's seen as supplementing
information about the self. Research also shows that while reunions
vary as much as people do, there are some commonalities. First, most
birth parents agree to at least some level of contact. After contact
is made, there is generally a giddy, honeymoon period where
information is exchanged and the parties are drunk with knowledge of
each other. Then lives settle down to normal for everyone, except the
biological relatives now know each other.
POSTED MARCH 11, 1999
P. Wentz, 35, adoptee
<wentz@teleport.com>,
Portland , OR
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
GD38: What are some common traits used to define a culture?
Can people from the same biological family be associated with
different cultural groups? How does a culture maintain its identity?
How are cultural norms of behavior established, taught and
enforced?
POSTED OCT. 13, 1998
Ronn S. , 46
<rons@onenet.com>,
Cincinnati, OH
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
GD37: How did acupuncture start? I have been told it started
more than 5,000 years ago.
POSTED OCT. 12, 1998
D. Bernaiche
<dbernaiche@juno.com>,
Sarasota, FL
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
GD36: I have many friends and family members who say they
would do "anything" for their children: Die for them, kill for them,
etc., because their love was so great. These same people subject
their children to deliberate, potential harm every day by not putting
their children in car seats or seat belts, or forcing the children to
inhale their second-hand smoke. To parents who engage in these acts:
Do you see yourself as selfish for exposing your children to harm
(i.e. smoke), or do you just not realize what you are doing?
POSTED OCT. 9, 1998
Mel, mom of three
<BSMSKSJSAS@aol.com>,
Sand Springs, OK
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
GD35: When a man gets married, why does his wife and mother
not get along very well? I have been married 7 1/2 years, and my
mother-in-law and I are just now doing things together. Is it a
resentment or jealousy thing?
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
J.A., female in her thirties, East Tennessee, TN
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
GD34: I'm clueless: What is an aborigine?
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
Doreen
<rdcs1020@monmouth.com
>, Long Branch, NJ
ANSWER 1:
Aborigine is a term usually used to refer to "Native
Australians." I think the word can be used to refer to any indigenous
(native) people. I am not sure what the "weight" of this word is in
Australia, i.e. if it is positively or negatively charged. I prefer
to use the term "indigenous people." I would appreciate hearing from
native peoples as to which phrase is least insulting.
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
Iteki, 22, Irish lesbian
<iteki@chickmail.com>,
Stockholm, Sweden
FURTHER NOTICE:
The word "aborigine" comes from the Latin phrase "ab
origine," which means "from the origin." When applied to people, it
means those people are one of the original native inhabitants of the
region. Native Americans (or American Indians) are considered
aboriginal people in the New World. The misnomer "Indian" was applied
by Columbus, who at first thought he had landed in India instead of a
new continent. The name stuck. When Europeans came to Australia, they
correctly called the natives there "aborigines," meaning that they
were the original people on the continent. But, just as in the case
of the American Indians, the name stuck, and now the native people of
Australia are known as Aborigines.
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
Stephen S., San Antonio , TX
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
"Ab origine" is a Latin expression meaning "from the
beginning." It's most commonly used to refer to the native tribesmen
who inhabited Australia before English colonists arrived, but you'll
occasionally see native, indigenous peoples of other countries
referred to as "aboriginal."
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
Astorian, Austin, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
Some people use the term only when referring to the
original people of Australia. More correctly, it can mean any
indigenous people. For example, the American Indian veterans' groups
of Canada call themselves the Aboriginal Veterans Association.
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
A.C.C., Mexican and American Indian, San Antonio , TX
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
Aborigines are the true owners of the land now known as
Australia. There are like the Native Americans, in that they are the
owners or first habitants of the land. They are very dark (like the
regular Africans), but they have broader noses and thick, curly hair.
Do not get carried away with television and think that Aborigines
still live in caves. They are regular people who wear clothes and
live in houses, go to school, etc.
POSTED OCT. 8, 1998
Ify
<ifebigh77@hotmail.com>,
Miami, FL
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
I live in Darwin, Australia, which has the highest
indigenous population in Australia. The terms "aboriginal" and
"indigenous" are used by the Aboriginal people to refer to themselves
and their organizations regulary, hence it is not offensive to these
people. I believe artwork, dreamtime beliefs and other cultural
information is available on the net.
POSTED OCT. 19, 1998
Jason, 27, Australian
<soder7@ozemail.com.au>,
Darwin, Australia
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
I wish to correct Ify's misconception that all Aborigines
are black and have broad noses and dark, curly hair. There was a
governmental policy of "assimmilation" put into place in Australia
whereby children where taken from their families because the
government at the time believed they could "breed the black out" and
thus destroy our culture. This is known as the "Stolen Generation." A
peoples' culture can never be destroyed unless the whole race is
destroyed through an act of genocide. In Australia, an Aborigine can
have blonde hair, blue eyes and white skin. It is a matter of
identity. Australian Aboriginal is always spelled with a capital A,
and we were not recognized as people in our own country until 1968,
when we were given the right to vote through an overwhelming majority
referendum.
POSTED JAN. 14, 1999
Vikki, 47, Aboriginal female
<macallev@mpx.com.au>,
Lismore, New South Wales, Australia
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
GD33: What things beyond personal appearance, like behavior,
might be related to or even cause racism?
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
John, 36, white male
<john.dunn@fh-duesseldorf.de>,
Duesseldorf, Germany
ANSWER 1:
Racism is not a universal or "natural" thing. There was no
such thing as racism among the Romans, for example (a quarter of
Roman emperors were of North African descent). It was actually
formally invented in the 18th century by a man named de Gobineau as a
system for justifying colonialism and empire-building by Europeans.
Racism is in place to justify bad treatment of one group by another.
The behavior and appearance of that group is just an excuse, just
blamimg the victim.
POSTED OCT. 12, 1998
A.C.C., Mexican and American Indian, San Antonio, TX
FURTHER NOTICE:
I have never heard of de Gobineau, and he may have been a
racist, but I think A.C.C.'s assertion that one man invented racism
may be a little hasty. The term "racism" may have been coined at the
time, but the concept of fearing, distrusting or hating a set of
people different from one's own people based solely on that people's
appearance or racial background has been around for thousands of
years. The enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians is an example
of this, as is the way in which the Celtic people were steadily
forced from the body of Europe to its outskirts by invading and
dominating peoples. Sadly, racism exists in all parts of the world,
and it will probably be around for a long time still. I think it is
based on an "us vs. them" mentality that stems from basic human
conflict (it is easier to justify destroying your enemy in a war if
you believe you and your position to be superior). As to whether the
hatred came first and then the conflict or vice versa, I just don't
know. I don't think anyone can pin down why racism exists. Like all
bad things that happen in our world, it is something we just have to
contend with in the courses of our lives.
POSTED OCT. 14, 1998
Stephen S., 31, San Antonio , TX
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
Stephen, racism has not always been around or practiced by
all peoples. Race-based slavery was only practiced by Europeans,
their American descendants and Arabs. The Scandinavian countries are
remarkably free from racism. I urge everyone to read the remarkable
history of Denmark's efforts to save its Jewish people during World
War II. The Maldive Islands are also a multiracial society with no
trace of racism. The German-American and Quaker communities of the
19th century were also free of racism. Many cultures and peoples do
not meet racism with racism, such as American Indians, both today and
in the past. I have never met or heard of a fellow Indian who was
racist. Declaring falsely that "everyone does it" makes excuses for
it. When you declare it "inevitable," you tell others to throw up
their hands in despair.
POSTED OCT. 22, 1998
A.C.C., Mexican and American Indian, San Antonio, TX
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
GD32: How would one describe what might be called a "typical"
person from the dominant culture of the United States? What are their
attributes?
POSTED SEPT. 19, 1998
Barney, Appleton, WI
ANSWER 1:
With all of the risks attendant to universal
generalizations, I would describe the typical American from the
dominant culture as lacking in moderation or humility.
POSTED SEPT. 28, 1998
Al, dominant culture
<alarose@ncwc.edu>, Rocky
Mount, NC
FURTHER NOTICE:
Al, I think you nailed it.
POSTED OCT. 22, 1998
John D., Atlanta, GA
To respond
BACK TO TOP
THE QUESTION:
GD31: I am a vegetarian. When I share this with meat eaters, I
am often ridiculed or criticized. Why? I don't stand on a soapbox
trying to convert folks, nor do I criticize others for their dietary
habits.
POSTED SEPT. 4, 1998
Zawadi, 33, black female, Detroit, MI
ANSWER 1:
Take it as a compliment. People who feel threatened by
your vegetarianism are the ones who believe it is a morally superior
position, and feel defensive about their own lack of adherence to it.
(Though there may be an element of previous bad experiences with more
in-your-face vegetarians as well.)
POSTED SEPT. 9, 1998
Catherine, occasional carnivore
<tylik@eskimo.com>,
Woodinville, WA
FURTHER NOTICE:
I suppose it depends on why you are a vegetarian and
whether you share that with "meat eaters" (I prefer to consider
myself an omnivore). I have found that vegetarians who advertise
their dietary preference often do so for "soapbox" reasons, and it is
these types I find to be the most hypocritical. For example, more
than a few times I have listened to a soapbox vegetarian explain
his/her stance to be one against the killing of animals for our
convenience, often with contempt directed toward my own beliefs - and
then I looked at their feet. Nine times out of 10, these people have
been wearing leather shoes. I have no patience for such hypocrites.
On the other hand, if a person claims to be a vegetarian for health
reasons or for purely personal reasons - and leaves it at that - then
I can respect that person's stance and can be fairly sure that mine
will also be respected.
POSTED SEPT. 14, 1998
Stephen S., 31, omnivore , San Antonio , TX
FURTHER NOTICE 2:
I have a bit of residual wariness of vegetarians because
of experiences with soapbox vegetarians who did feel the need to
lecture me, often in a patronizing way. I've inspected abbatoirs
(slaughterhouses) as part of my work and am still quite happy to eat
meat. Left to my own devices, I'm moving to a more vegetarian diet
myself, but with frequent lapses toward a large medium rare New York
cut on occasion. Hey, I didn't struggle to the top of the food chain
to eat mung beans!
POSTED SEPT. 21, 1998
Ben S., 30, Caucasian male
<bscaro@hotmail.com>,
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
FURTHER NOTICE 3:
I am also a vegetarian and have found problems when
telling both meat eaters and other vegetarians. I have never preached
to other people about being vegetarian. There are occasions when I
have to tell other people, for example if I am going to someone's
house for dinner or to a restaurant. I do find that nearly all of the
meat eaters who have had a problem with my vegetarianism have never
spoken to a vegetarian before. They have certain ideas about how I am
going to act. I can usually change their opinions, as I did with my
partner, who is a meat eater. I have had more problems with other
vegetarians. The problems are mainly due to the fact that I have
recently started to eat fish for health reasons. It is seen as worse
to be half vegetarian than to be a complete meat eater!
POSTED SEPT. 21, 1998
Liz, 24
<Elizabeth.Baines@bbsrc.ac.uk>,
Edinburgh, UK
FURTHER NOTICE 4:
I disagree that a vegetarian who does not eat meat because
he or she is opposed to the way in which our society treats animals
bred for food, but who also wears leather shoes, is necessarily a
hypocrite. First, it can be very difficult if not impossible to find
non-leather shoes, especially in hard-to-find sizes. Second, some
vegetarians are not so much opposed to using animals for food, but
rather are opposed to factory farming - the prevailing farming method
in which animals are treated as cogs in a mechanical process and are
subjected to torturous conditions before being killed. There are ways
of interacting with animals that are more respectful of them as
sentient beings, even if this interaction includes killing them for
food. For example, look at how Native American cultures have killed
animals only for food or clothing or shelter, without waste, without
unnecessary pain or exploitation, and without setting up huge
mechanical warehouses that do things like painfully de-beak chickens,
causing them to go into shock, run live animals through machines that
decapitate them and strip them apart, keep animals in cramped, filthy
enclosures for the bulk of their lives, and completely disregard
their animal natures. At least some vegetarians do not oppose the use
of animals for food per se, but rather abhor factory farming so much
that they refuse to be a part of it by eating meat that is
mass-produced.
POSTED SEPT. 23, 1998
S. White, Alexandria, VA
FURTHER NOTICE 5:
To Stephen: S. I clearly indicated that I don't preach or
condemn others. Typically, my diet comes up in a conversation about
food. Someone might ask what I like, and that is when I explain that
many of the foods being discussed are not a part of my diet. I must
admit I take offense to many who use the example you used about the
shoes. There is room on the continuum of any logic/philosophy. For
instance, you might be a Christian who eats meat, the result of an
animal being slaughtered, but I wouldn't wrongfully accuse you of
being a murderer or hypocrite because the commandments say "thou
shall not kill." Just as that statement is absurd, I feel your
argument about shoes is unfair. If you give most of us the benefit of
the doubt, you will find there is some room for tolerance and logic
to our beliefs regarding vegetarianism. I do not oppose the killing
per se of an animal for survival and nourishment. What I oppose is
how the animals are slaughtered in our culture, our lack of reverence
for life, the hunger crisis globally, and how taxing meat production
is on our resources. If I lived in a culture where meat was necessary
for my survival and animal byproducts sustained my species, I would
thank my creator for the gifts necessary to ensure my existence.
Check out Becoming vegetarian (I can't remember the authors).
It talks about the various reasons people adopt a vegetarian or
semi-vegetarian diet. I think you'll find it interesting. It doesn't
preach or condemn, it simply provides information and dietary
recommendations. I hope in sharing my motivations you find us veggies
more humane and tolerable. I am happy with my choice and I sincerely
respect yours. Peace
Zawadi, 33, black female, Detroit, MI
FURTHER NOTICE 6:
To Zawadi: Don't get me wrong, I was not implying that you
are one of the hypocrites I spoke about. From your question and the
response to my comments, I feel you are a person whose opinion I
could respect and with whom I could have an intelligent dialogue. The
hypocrites I mentioned are those who "advertise" their choice in a
soapbox manner that is meant to condemn the eating of meat (in no way
do I mean all vegetarians when I say this, only some of them). I have
run across several in my life, and I have been berated by them for
using animals for my convenience. These are the ones for which I have
no patience. They usually bring up the subject themselves (often
spurred by a meat dish on the table to give them a starting point)
and rarely give any consideration to a meat eater's point of view. I
know the different reasons people choose vegitarianism or some form
of it, and I know them because I take the time to listen in a
level-headed conversation that allows for all views to be explored.
Zawadi, I hope you took no offense. I meant none and I respect your
choice. It is still my belief, however, that anyone so committed to a
cause as to attack meat eaters and not give their point of view any
credit can also put that much energy into finding and buying shoes,
belts and purses not made of leather. Such products do exist. It is
just not as convenient to find them. By the way, I still consider
myself an omnivore.
POSTED SEPT. 25, 1998
Stephen S., 31, omnivore, San Antonio, TX
FURTHER NOTICE 7:
I eat meat even though I know animals suffer. However, I
believe plants suffer, too, and I don't feel any better about that.
Do most vegetarians think about the suffering of plants? And about
the assumption that a living thing with two brown eyes is somehow
more worthy of being spared than a living thing with leaves?
POSTED OCT. 7, 1998
Frida, IL
FURTHER NOTICE 8:
I was a vegetarian for four years. I discovered that if
you say you eat no meat because you don't like the texture/taste of
it, meat-eaters don't have a problem. It's a useful thing to remember
because that way you don't have to eat meat and they don't get
upset.
POSTED APRIL 23, 1999
Flora, white bisexual ex-veggie, 19, female
<hert0759@sable.ox.ac.uk>,
Oxford, Britain
To respond
BACK TO TOP