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.
Something I find annoying also is that people think that West Indian and black and African are all the same, when they are NOT the same thing and do not mean the same thing. It's kind of annoying. People really need to travel and meet people from the respective cultures.
Trying to designate a separate category for "Caribbean" opens up a whole can of worms which is why such a request is a non starter. The data collected will be skewed as it will not be understood by people.
So if a Puerto Rican feels strongly that he is "Caribbean" because he doesnt see why he should be put in a box with Mexicans, and other feels Hispanic and sees the notion of being lumped with Jamaicans as ridiculous what will you get?
Then there is the whole issue of whether Guyana is a Caribbean or a South American nation.
And what of those of West Indian descent from Panama, etc?
In addition there is the whole issue with Indo vs Afro Caribbean people. The two usually are quite separate so it makes no sense to claim that they constitute and common ethnic identity.
Better to check "black" (if one of African Ancestry), and then write in the Caribbean country where the person is from, or identifies with. Asian Caribbean people are too small in number and to separate them will need to demands from just about every group.
People will be free to choose whatever they please. Such an option is certainly no less problematic than the options available now. Further, people will be able to choose ethnicity AND so-called race. No one is forcing any of the above to mark anything which which they do not feel comfortable. It's really not that difficult.
not according to Antonio who thinks the Caribbean islands are all European and Taino influence with very little African this guy must live under a rock
Here is the deal. Caribbean societies are colonial at their base. So we have two levels of culture. The institutional which was what was created by the colonial powers. And a folk culture which was how most non elites lived.
The institutional culture was the one which people were made to feel that they should aspire to. To be little English men, French, Spanish or what ever. The laws, formal educational systems, formal religions (Catholic, Anglican, etc).
The grass roots culture is a meeting of the African with the European, and encompassed (to varying degrees) the Indigenous (Taino/Carib, etc). In some countries one can also add more recent Asian influences as well. This describes the way that people ae, not what they are told that they should be.
So. On a Saturday afternoon in some island/country in the Caribbean a group of men are playing dominos loudly, slapping each on the table with great enthusiasm. They then eat a meal of stewed chicken, peas and rice (or rice and beans), fried plantain, African root vegetables. Of course loud base heavy music is playing.
Which Caribbean country is it? Could be any one.
So these who argue that we are French, Spanish, British, etc ought to take a long hike. All of these colonial powers have tremendously influenced the Caribbean and yet there is much that these various societies share. Clearly the core is a creole culture which evolved from the interaction of the African and the European. With other influences depending on the particular histories of the country.
People will be free to choose whatever they please. Such an option is certainly no less problematic than the options available now. Further, people will be able to choose ethnicity AND so-called race. No one is forcing any of the above to mark anything which which they do not feel comfortable. It's really not that difficult.
People ARE free to chose as they please. How ever the census has to define people in a way that makes sense. It makes no sense to define Puerto Ricans with Jamaicans and Haitians if most do not see it that way. It also makes no sense to pretend that the Indo and Afro descended populations from the English speaking Caribbean occupy the same identity space, merely by accident of being born in the same country.
It makes sense for PRs and DRs to continue to be defined as Hispanic with a space to identify their national origin. It also makes sense for the category "black/African American" to be amended to allow self definition as Caribbean and sub Saharan African in the same way as Hispanics and Asians are allowed se;lf definition according to national origin.
But a separate "Caribbean" category is a nonstarter because then the US census will have to capture every group who thinks that their origin ought to be recognized, such as the Garifuna being an additional category.
Something I find annoying also is that people think that West Indian and black and African are all the same, when they are NOT the same thing and do not mean the same thing. It's kind of annoying. People really need to travel and meet people from the respective cultures.
Do you have a similar problem with Dominicans being lumped in with indigenous people from Bolivia?
Lol. I don't get your point. Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Dominican Republic peoples are Caribbeans, and West Indians. In addition they also are Hispanic/Latino. In Spanish the terms "antillano" and "caribeño" exist which denotes PR, Cuba, and DR's ties and relations within the region and it's people. It's all in the Greater Antilles for goodness sakes.
And people from the Caribbean can be of any race or racial admixture combinations.
The US census collects data to allow analysis. It makes no sense to have the same category for Spanish Caribbean people, who usually self indentify with "Hispanic", and almost unanimously object to being called "black" with the vast majority of AfroCaribbean immigrants who do self indentify as "black" and who have a unique identity, but also share much with AAs,, largely because of how the larger society sees them. And please dont argue with me unless you can prove that it is obvious to you that Bill Thompson, and David Patterson are (part) Caribbean descended people.
Lumping all Caribbean people under one category is like lumping all Latin Americans under one category without allowing national origin to be identified. It makes no sense from s sociological point of view.
And there you go again which is why it makes no sense to pretend as if there is this one caribbean identity. Guyana is culturally part of the English speaking caribbean person. If a Guyanese entered the room you will not know that they were South American. Your question would be to ask which ISLAND they come from.
You see the Caribbean as a geographic region. Others see it as a cultural zone. Its way too hard to set boundaries around what is Caribbean to pretend as if it is one zone which can be identified for purposes of sociological analysis.
People ARE free to chose as they please. How ever the census has to define people in a way that makes sense. It makes no sense to define Puerto Ricans with Jamaicans and Haitians if most do not see it that way. It also makes no sense to pretend that the Indo and Afro descended populations from the English speaking Caribbean occupy the same identity space, merely by accident of being born in the same country.
It makes sense for PRs and DRs to continue to be defined as Hispanic with a space to identify their national origin. It also makes sense for the category "black/African American" to be amended to allow self definition as Caribbean and sub Saharan African in the same way as Hispanics and Asians are allowed se;lf definition according to national origin.
But a separate "Caribbean" category is a nonstarter because then the US census will have to capture every group who thinks that their origin ought to be recognized, such as the Garifuna being an additional category.
The bold is the key. Those Caribbean people who would like to identify together certainly will. Indo and Afro descended populations share plenty culture and generally have no issue being Caribbean/West Indian together while identifying their particular heritage. Now, if you personally take issue with marking a box that includes Caribbean people of a heritage different than yours, then you don't have to do it. However, plenty Caribbean people of African & Indian descent in my circles would have no problem with it.
The census does not have to capture every group but rather let those who identify as being Caribbean or West Indian mark it if they so choose.
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.
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.
this guy must live under a rock