This interview immediately triggers the idea of what an American actually means—not on a born in the United States or has gained citizenship matter. The fact that immediately the actress is referenced to by her ethnicity and not her nationality points to the idea that there is more it. While she was born in the country she was identified in a nominally appropriate way in the incorrect manner. This happens quite often in passing descriptions or meetings. This may seem overly politically correct, but one has to admit that this is worth noting. There may be a few people, who are truly able to not make generalizations or make conclusions of how to communicate with someone from their ethnicity. What is in question is if this is actually an acceptable tool to use when interacting or making assumptions about a person.
It may be a generalizing blanket statement, but due to appearance and background, many conclusions may be implied. To simplify this idea—if you are speaking to a coworker after work who is a Mexican woman and you are a Trump supporter, you probably do not want to engage in a conversation about politics. This may seem like a safe bet. However, you have no idea of her background to make a valid conclusion about her political ideals—perhaps she shares the same convictions, and has a copious amount of distaste for Hilary’s policies or character and genuinely likes Trump. Instantly you made a legitimate call to avoid confrontation—was this accurate? These assumptions have possibly avoided an argument. An individual can read this analogy and shake their head—however, is there an exact statistical figure that can be recalled to make this judgement call? We can remember hearing something in the news, from facebook or listening to some of the statements that the nominee made. Not an exact fact to make this generalization, which may not even be true in this circumstance. This is a simple analogy, but truthful. A more datable analogy would be the reasonability of drug testing for welfare or stop and frisk policies.
Another topic that was interesting was the idea that a country was founded around Longoria’s family’s town. When this occurred, was her town expected to assimilate to the majority culture and accept new ideals that are completely foreign? Would there be appropriation within the community’s culture to build connections or bonds? Generally speaking, following laws and ideals would be pertinent to maintain order and forward innovation. However, this area heavily populated with the same culture, so general ideals will not fit in the smaller society and possibly cause unrest. The perspective of some of both would encourage duality between the two cultures… but they generally don’t fit, or perhaps there isn’t enough integration to encourage this. This is constituted by the inventions of margaritas and Cinco Demayo. When the US is made of so many of these dissimilar pockets, how do we exact what a true American would be?