During my freshman year of high school, I had the pleasure of taking American History with a teacher who has taught me much more than the facts on Roy Rogers, Teddy Roosevelt and the other men’s men that Ron Johnson at Logan High School in La Crosse liked to talk about. My favorite lesson learned from him concerned who we really are.

It was a simple exercise, really. Mr. Johnson went around the room from student to student, simply asking, “What are you?” Some in the room, already intimidated during their first few days of high school, declined to answer and sunk deeper in their chairs. Some answered with their own names, some with “a Ranger,” referring to the school’s mascot and then some others with their ethnicity, usually German or Norwegian.

Upon hearing these unsatisfactory answers from everyone in the room, he enlightened us as to the goal behind the exercise. “You’re Americans!” he exclaimed finally, leaving puzzled looks on all of our faces.

Ask that same question to students on campus. Some might answer with “a Badger” or their ethnicity, others with a hobby, a political affiliation, a philosophy, a religion or a group of Greek letters, some others with a smart-alecky retort. While I can’t say that “an American” would be the first thing from my lips, even in this period of wartime ultra-nationalism, all these answers seem unsatisfactory to me.

My perfect answer, in all of its unbridled optimism, would be “a human being.” Why is it so easy for us as humans to cling on to groups, to have a need to identify with a group in order to prove our worth? Most likely, the results of my little experiment would range in speed of answer and conviction of answers given from those most confident in the merit of their answer to those less confident. It might be a little easier now than last year to find “a Packer fan” respondent.

The trouble with identifying with a group and proclaiming it to be the very definition of one’s character is the feebleness of many of these groups and the ultimate worth that these groups should have in the grand scheme of life.

I guess there are worse things to identify with than a fraternity, but I don’t think I would ever answer the question of determining my definition with a nationwide group of men with a wide range of beliefs and ethics.

One can say the same thing with a sports team, but resting my own worth and my definition in the eyes of a stranger and myself on the fallible arm of Brett Favre wouldn’t be my choice.

So you may be asking, what, if not groups, hobbies and the like are we supposed to define ourselves by? Well, why not our own accomplishments? Our own ideas?

Instead of answering with our occupation and creating an inescapable stereotypical image, why not answer with a conversation, a quest to create more understanding about life in the other’s mind?

The media does nothing but contribute to this labeling phenomenon. Immediately upon seeing any congressperson’s name in the newspaper or on television, we are informed of his or her political party affiliation and state of service. Why? For identification purposes, naturally. But why not let the speaker’s words stand on his or her own feet rather than on a particular state or party?

Democrats differ, as Paul Wellstone and Joe Lieberman show, but whenever they show up on C-SPAN they are immediately thrown in the same group, when their politics differ so much and their entire speeches on the floor of the Senate are accompanied by their party and state connections.

Labeling happens in everyday conversations on campus, too. Here’s a scenario. A student walks into his or her favorite bar. Which one is it? Hmm, might be tough to figure that one out, given the selection of watering holes on campus and off. Add to the picture details like his or her religious beliefs, ethnicity, major, age or place of birth, and most of us would narrow the list down to a few bars.

Unfortunately, we are trained from an early age to examine the information available to us when confronted with a question and determine the appropriate response, creating it from the ingredients given. While this might be okay for mathematics, I believe it has no place in a sociological context.

The “You’re Americans!” answer that Mr. Johnson gave to us in American History is not the best answer to the question of personal definition. But then neither are the other answers that a large number of students would give, like “a Catholic,” “a Tri-Delt,” “a football player” or “a conservative.”

These definitions place too much restraint on our own capabilities and unconsciously steer us toward a mindset created by these groups and ultimately society as a whole.

While these answers are the most convenient, these labels are dangerous ways that the masses are controlled by each other. May the light inside all HUMANS ignite and may we all gain the strength to cast aside these labels in favor of the destruction of prejudice.