Yeah, I think you're making a good point. When you have a character of a different race/ethnicity/sexuality, you should show how things are different for them and the different ways that they think and act because of it. Otherwise, you're just writing a White character with a permanent tan, and that- well, I suppose it's better than having no characters of other cultures, but it's not much of a step forward.

The problem I have with the idea that the culture of the character has to be the focus (and maybe childofatlantis feels the same way, though I don't want to speak for her) is that it reduces the Other character to a token figure. You know: "this is the Black guy, he does Black things". No one would write a straight character and focus their characterization entirely on his/her straightness, but you do see that happen to gay and bisexual characters. When I see characters from non-dominant cultures, I want them to be three-dimensional, human; just like a white character would be expected to have lots of interests and habits that are unique and not stereotypically "white", so should the non-dominant characters. It is important to deal with how their culture affects them, but it shouldn't be the whole of their characterization. That's when I have a problem with it.

Did that make sense?