"Ethnic" media, come again?!

Karim H. Karim's piece "Re-viewing the "National" in "International Communication": Through the Lens of Diaspora" discusses the growing importance of diasporic groups in communication. Increasingly, the idea of our world being structured as a web of nation-states is being challenged by different ethnic groups' migrations from one country to the next and the network that is subsequently created by these groups being in contact with each other through radio, Internet, and television.

I found the piece to be quite compelling and in many ways spot-on and very interesting as regards globalization and the availability of an increasing number of ways for people to identify (as citizens of a nation-state, as members of an ethnic or religious group, etc). I had one contention, however, which prompted me to write a questioning note in the margin. This is a bit of a departure from the article's subject matter and is perhaps harping on a detail, but it addresses an important distinction when we're discussing international and global communication. On page 400 of Daya Kishan Thussu's "International Communication: A Reader", Karim states "The role of ethnic media in global communication flows is steadily growing in importance; the transnational ethnic-based commercial broadcasting infrastructure is integral to the increasingly global ethnic economy."

My margin note? "What does he mean by 'ethnic'?" 

I understand that the overarching meaning Karim gives to ethnic is something along the lines of "relating to one ethnicity," and for further assistance, I turned to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary for a standard definition: "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves>"  However, the sentence above struck me as being meant to imply ethnic as non-white, or perhaps non-white American. This may be but a detail, but I think this kind of labeling is to be used with extreme care.

A blog from John McIntyre (at http://johnemcintyre.blogspot.com/2009/05/white-is-also-ethnicity.html) discusses this in the context of some commentary from former congressman Tom Tancredo regarding the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor (a short post, worth a quick look), and he says it as simply as this: "White is as much an ethnic marker as black or Hispanic."

While Hispanic is not the term I prefer, the point is nonetheless clear. White is an ethnic marker - it classes a group of people to a common racial background (thank you, Mr. Webster). This is not a good or a bad marker, just a marker like any other. Of course it comes with its stereotypes, as all markers do, but the important thing is this: if we let ourselves slip into thinking of white (or in some cases white American, as opposed to European) as the absence of color, ethnicity, or culture, we are granting hegemony to it as the "normal", making everything else "ethnic." This may seem like just semantics, but the words we use inform the way we think. And this kind of thinking is dangerous.

Again, I do understand what Karim was saying, but I think this is a vital point to remember as we discuss culture, and communication internationally. White may be the current dominant ethnicity or culture, but it is still just one of many.