U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2013, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Liminal Space
1,018 posts, read 1,236,867 times
Reputation: 1294

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Please come correct the next time you decide to debate me. Just some words of advice.

Information on Race
I stand corrected on the Census part. Ironically, there is certainly far less genetic cross-fertilization across the Himalayas than across the Sahara...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-21-2013, 07:29 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,448 posts, read 11,951,877 times
Reputation: 10561
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentobox34 View Post
I stand corrected on the Census part. Ironically, there is certainly far less genetic cross-fertilization across the Himalayas than across the Sahara...
This was a very recent change the census made. South Asians used to be considered white. A lot of South Asians are not happy with the new classification system, and would like it to go back to the old way, or have their own race on the next census.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Maryland
18,624 posts, read 16,448,083 times
Reputation: 6348
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
This was a very recent change the census made. South Asians used to be considered white. A lot of South Asians are not happy with the new classification system, and would like it to go back to the old way, or have their own race on the next census.
Here's a SCOTUS case that will baffle those uninitiated in some of the mental contortions used to develop American racial classifications over the years.

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, who was an Indian Sikh, settled in Oregon, could not be a naturalized citizen of the United States, because he was not a "white person" in the sense intended in the relevant 1790 statute governing naturalization. Although Thind argued that as an Indian he belonged to the Aryan and therefore the Caucasian race, the Court found that "the Aryan theory, as a racial basis, seems to be discredited by most, if not all, modern writers on the subject of ethnology," and noted that "the Caucasic division of the human family is 'in point of fact the most debatable field in the whole range of anthropological studies.'" The Court found that the authors of the 1790 statute probably ascribed to "the Adamite theory of creation" and understood "white people" in its popular, and not scientific sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,336,032 times
Reputation: 36088
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Please come correct the next time you decide to debate me. Just some words of advice.

Information on Race
For the first time ever, your facts are correct. Don't let that go to your head and dissuade you from following your own advice.

The fact that the US Census Bureau doesn't know or care about the difference doesn't mean there is no difference, nor that the Asian people don't know or care.
unchallenged.

Last edited by jtur88; 06-22-2013 at 10:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Hyrule
65 posts, read 76,016 times
Reputation: 104
It's just a geographic label. OP has a chip on his shoulder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,480,113 times
Reputation: 5401
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
For the first time ever, your facts are correct. Don't let that go to your head and dissuade you from following your own advice.

The fact that the US Census Bureau doesn't know or care about the difference doesn't mean there is no difference, nor that the Asian people don't know or care.
unchallenged.
What makes this statement even more hilariously is that it's coming from you of all people. lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,480,113 times
Reputation: 5401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Bastard View Post
It's just a geographic label. OP has a chip on his shoulder.
I think the OP is a female.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2013, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Not where you ever lived
11,544 posts, read 26,025,022 times
Reputation: 6248
In theory the U.S. Census is used to note popopulation change. IE: Where we live, work, go to school, and shop. From this data emerges the Metropolitan Statistical Area - which does not take into account the American 'Breadbasket" = the farming and ranching areas that have great land mass and low population. So even though we may shop and attend schools in X, we are not included in the X MSA. I personally think it is a exercise in futility except for establishing where capital cities, county/parish seats, and cities of size, are located. Demographics are so impossibly politically correct the information is useless for any practical use. In short it is GIGO.



Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Sorry, just one more point.

The U.S. census also considers "Asian" to be a race. "Asian" does exclude the Middle East, and Central Asia (people from there are just considered white by the census, like people from North Africa). The arbitrary line is between Afghanistan and Pakistan. A Pashtun from Afghanistan is "white" while one from Pakistan is "Asian"

Obviously this is ridiculous. Hell, talking about Asian as a race in general on these terms is ridiculous, since South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc) neither share genetic ancestry with East Asians, nor consider themselves part of the same race.

If the use of "Asian-American" in the U.S. context isn't proper, why should we accept "African-American"? It's a less precise term than just saying black - even if we throw out the obvious case of what do you call someone who was born in the U.S. to white South African parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2013, 07:57 PM
pdw
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
1,473 posts, read 1,966,922 times
Reputation: 857
I can only think of one group of people that typically identifies more with a continent/race than an ancestral nationality (eg I am European, born in Canada vs I am German, born in Canada). Due to historic reasons, the descendants of West African slaves in the English-speaking Americas typically identify as such. These people were enslaved and brutalised for hundreds of years, robbed of their language, their religion, their nationality, their culture, everything. After hundreds of years of segregation, racism and slavery, would you identify with your country of birth? Unable to trace their lineage to a specific country, Pan-Africanism rose as a result of desperation to find the sense of belonging they could not in the racist countries they lived in. Despite the independence of former colonies, the American civil rights movement and the clear and present advancement of black people in Western society, Pan-Africanist sentiments persist today. Many in countries in Latin America, the Amerindian majority and Afro-Caribbeans/Afro-South Americans did not segregate each other to nearly the extent that occurred with the white majority in the English-speaking Americas. As a result, most countries in Latin America are where we should aim in terms of racial equality. Despite racism being existent there to a certain extent, the vast majority of the population identifies with the country they live in, and are some of the most patriotic people on Earth despite being mosaic nations.

Last edited by pdw; 06-24-2013 at 08:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2013, 09:44 PM
 
5,305 posts, read 2,702,850 times
Reputation: 3543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy74 View Post
Seems like something Europeans made up to cause division. Why not just say Africa, and leave it at that.
Well, what's wrong with sub saharan?

A. Africa is a huge continent that is already divided up with the most countries of any continent already.

B. The sahara is the largest desert in the world. It's already a natural border.

C. The people in north africa are mostly arabs and berbers and those south are mostly blacks. So there are different races to boot.

There are probably other reasons why but those are some of the main ones. I've been to Morocco too. It's a beautiful country. I'm sure lots much of Africa is amazing also.The sahara is just such a huge area that already divides the landscape and even the peoples there that its easy to see why the term is in use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top