U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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 10-20-2008, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, NY
110 posts, read 279,452 times
Reputation: 46

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
I understand it is different, and I understand that he has (or it was chosen for him) chosen to be African American likely since he was a child. My issue is about TODAY. TODAY he is a grown man and free to be biracial without the stigma, he is able to embrace both sides, yet he still chooses to "be" african american..
IMO not only was Obama considered African American as a child, but also as an adult too, until now. I'm sure before he became the Obama we know and love today, he was still considered black. Now that he may become the next president, he is no longer black, he's now considered biracial. Growing up his whole life as black, why would he now consider himself anything different. The whole world knows he's biracial and not simply African American. I don't think he considers himself black because it's politically correct, I think it's because that's what he considered himself his whole life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2008, 04:54 PM
 
3,368 posts, read 10,273,527 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miles View Post
I understand where you're distinguishing between race and ethnicity even though ofttimes they are intertwined. There is a distinction. I however disagree that those of mixed blood should be forced into one of the race classifications. There should be an OTHER/MIXED RACE box also.
In response to this, let me copy and past something that I said earlier in this thread that answers your worry perfectly:

"Everyone on earth is either Caucasoid ("Caucasian," of which "whites" are part), Mongoloid (East "Asian"), Negroid ("black"), or a mix of any or all of those races. Mixed people should indicate their mix, simple as that. Ethnicity (this is where Hispanic/Latino comes in) and culture are different questions alltogether. It's silly to create false racial categories for people who are mixed when the easiest and least confusing thing to do is just to encourage people to accurately represent their racial heritage instead of checking "other" to avoid doing so."

Mixed people already have the opportunity to indicate their racial mix on the census. You aren't told to check just one box if you're mixed; in fact, you are encouraged to check all that apply. I don't see any problem with this whatsoever; "other" states nothing and is not helpful to demographers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 05:03 PM
 
3,368 posts, read 10,273,527 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
I believe there is a mixed and other race category now....however alot of Hispanic people are choosing the mixed category (which is for those who are biracial), when they should be choosing a race and ethnicity. Yes everyone in this country can technically choose "mixed" because there is no such purity...but reason dictates that you are more one thing over another. Technically I could choose mixed, as everyone can, but I used to choose Hispanic as the race and Hispanic as the Ethnicity...but now that they have eliminated the Hispanic as a race...and I must choose white, black, asian, or mixed, it makes things more confusing. What should I pick? I am not black or asian, so I must be white by process of elimination? Why not mixed? It is now very confusing and will skew the census.
You know very well that "Hispanic" is not a race, so why is it "confusing" that it is not a racial choice on the census? For reasons of privacy I'm not going to tell you publically what you should mark, but your race is visually apparent and if you actually do identify as a mixed-race individual, the census gives you ample opportunity to express that. No one is limiting you to one box except yourself (and I'm just saying that in general, not necessarily to you as a person) The people skewing the census are those who choose "other." I commend biracial individuals for having the self-respect to express that instead of pretending that their race is "Hispanic/Latino" or "other." The census has it right and no changes need to be made except moving Indians/Pakistanis to the Caucasian category.*

*The census recognizes that Indians/Pakistanis and people of Indian/Pakistani origin are racially Caucasian but includes them in the "Asian" tabulation for reasons of geography. This is confusing because the United States Census asks specifically about RACE (and later asks about ethnicity and ancestral origin). The "race" questions has nothing to do with geography.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 05:16 PM
 
3,225 posts, read 7,491,996 times
Reputation: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisp444 View Post
In response to this, let me copy and past something that I said earlier in this thread that answers your worry perfectly:

"Everyone on earth is either Caucasoid ("Caucasian," of which "whites" are part), Mongoloid (East "Asian"), Negroid ("black"), or a mix of any or all of those races. Mixed people should indicate their mix, simple as that. Ethnicity (this is where Hispanic/Latino comes in) and culture are different questions alltogether. It's silly to create false racial categories for people who are mixed when the easiest and least confusing thing to do is just to encourage people to accurately represent their racial heritage instead of checking "other" to avoid doing so."

Mixed people already have the opportunity to indicate their racial mix on the census. You aren't told to check just one box if you're mixed; in fact, you are encouraged to check all that apply. I don't see any problem with this whatsoever; "other" states nothing and is not helpful to demographers.
Let me clarify your worries. I understand that you are a law student but before venturing to give authoritative advice, might I point out to you that many times census takers and others to whom forms are submitted reject such forms when SEVERAL BOXES are checked? In many cases, the system is not set up for a single applicant to check more than one box.

Thus I repeat my mantra - let there be a box for OTHER or MIXED. It does serve a useful purpose as it is accurate rather than to have someone check the wrong box as if one were not mixed or to check several boxes and get the form rejected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Chicago metro
3,375 posts, read 7,044,203 times
Reputation: 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisp444 View Post
You know very well that "Hispanic" is not a race, so why is it "confusing" that it is not a racial choice on the census? For reasons of privacy I'm not going to tell you publically what you should mark, but your race is visually apparent and if you actually do identify as a mixed-race individual, the census gives you ample opportunity to express that. No one is limiting you to one box except yourself (and I'm just saying that in general, not necessarily to you as a person) The people skewing the census are those who choose "other." I commend biracial individuals for having the self-respect to express that instead of pretending that their race is "Hispanic/Latino" or "other." The census has it right and no changes need to be made except moving Indians/Pakistanis to the Caucasian category.*

*The census recognizes that Indians/Pakistanis and people of Indian/Pakistani origin are racially Caucasian but includes them in the "Asian" tabulation for reasons of geography. This is confusing because the United States Census asks specifically about RACE (and later asks about ethnicity and ancestral origin). The "race" questions has nothing to do with geography.
Where did you get the idea and information about Indians/Pakistani people are Caucasion/white ? I have yet to see an Indian or Pakistani to identify with being Caucasion/white. I seen Indians that are alot darker than me and none of them consider themselves white. India and Pakistani is in Asia not Europe. Several years back, Arabs/Middle Easterns ask the U.S. census to give them their own category in the U.S., but the U.S. census somehow refuse to do that. The majority of Arabs and other Americans do not consider Arabs/Middle easterners white/caucasion. Look at the Presidential election, Alot of people are trying to say Barack Obama is Arab/Muslim( which he is not, he is Christian). Colin Powell ask one of the greatest question and he said '' What if Barack Obama was Muslim ''? The truth is there is alot of prejudice/racism against Arab/ Middle Eastern and Muslim people in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 09:13 PM
 
3,368 posts, read 10,273,527 times
Reputation: 1675
Caucasian isn't the same thing as "white." "White" means "light-skinned Caucasian" and includes people of European, (disputably) North African, (disputably) Middle Eastern, and (disputably) West Asian origin. Almost no one would consider Pakistanis/Indians to be white, but they are indisputably Caucasian.

To recap:

Caucasian = an objective, racial label that can be demonstrated by DNA; a term descriptive of those of the Caucasoid race (as opposed to the other two races: Negroid and Mongoloid)

"White" = a social/color label that is highly subjective. Though virtually every person of European origin with whom I have ever come into contact considers him/herself to be "white," I have gotten conflicting views from Persians, Armenians, Moroccans, and other non-Europeans who general fit the "light-skinned Caucasian" description. A Pakistani guy I knew in college - undoubtedly Caucasian - was the first South Asian I have ever met to describe himself as "white." I have only met one other South Asian person who has describes herself as "white" since.

There are plenty of people out there who are Caucasian but who do not consider themselves to be white. As a general rule, Indians and Pakistanis fall into this group.

Again, skin color doesn't matter when speaking of race. It doesn't mean a thing that some Indians are as dark as Subsaharan Africans; skin color doesn't change that Indians are Caucasoid and Subsaharan Africans are Negroid. "White" - contrary to popular belief - is not a race, so it makes sense that there is dispute over which non-Europeans are "white." Race is objective; color descriptors (like "white"), religious affiliation ("Muslim", "Protestant," etc), and ethnic identity ("Hispanic," "Italian-American," etc) are highly subjective.

Once one understands the important distinction between race and ethnicity/culture/religion/self-identity, it becomes much easier to understand the original topic here: that Barack Obama is only HALF black but that he identifies with being an African-American.

Last edited by Marlin331; 10-20-2008 at 09:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 09:16 PM
DAS
 
2,530 posts, read 5,823,634 times
Reputation: 1086
He is just referring to the fact there are 3 major racial groups that are the basis of all other groups like the primary colors in the color spectrum. Scientist have classified Indians, Pakistanians and Arabs in the Caucasian race. You can google this in and search the reasons why. The prejudices concerning these people are usually due to cultural and religious reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 09:18 PM
DAS
 
2,530 posts, read 5,823,634 times
Reputation: 1086
^Sorry Crisp444 you didn't post when I started typing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 09:21 PM
 
3,368 posts, read 10,273,527 times
Reputation: 1675
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAS View Post
^Sorry Crisp444 you didn't post when I started typing.
No worries! Thanks for supporting me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Chicago metro
3,375 posts, read 7,044,203 times
Reputation: 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisp444 View Post
Caucasian isn't the same thing as "white." "White" means "light-skinned Caucasian" and includes people of European, (disputably) North African, (disputably) Middle Eastern, and (disputably) West Asian origin. Almost no one would consider Pakistanis/Indians to be white, but they are indisputably Caucasian.

To recap:

Caucasian = an objective, racial label that can be demonstrated by DNA; a term descriptive of those of the Caucasoid race (as opposed to the other two races: Negroid and Mongoloid)

"White" = a social/color label that is highly subjective. Though virtually every person of European origin with whom I have ever come into contact considers him/herself to be "white," I have gotten conflicting views from Persians, Armenians, Moroccans, and other non-Europeans who general fit the "light-skinned Caucasian" description. A Pakistani guy I knew in college - undoubtedly Caucasian - was the first South Asian I have ever met to describe himself as "white." I have only met one other South Asian person who has describes herself as "white" since.

There are plenty of people out there who are Caucasian but who do not consider themselves to be white. As a general rule, Indians and Pakistanis fall into this group.

Again, skin color doesn't matter when speaking of race. It doesn't mean a thing that some Indians are as dark as Subsaharan Africans; skin color doesn't change that Indians are Caucasoid and Subsaharan Africans are Negroid. "White" - contrary to popular belief - is not a race, so it makes sense that there is dispute over which non-Europeans are "white." Race is objective; color descriptors (like "white"), religious affiliation ("Muslim", "Protestant," etc), and ethnic identity ("Hispanic," "Italian-American," etc) are highly subjective.

Once one understands the important distinction between race and ethnicity/culture/religion/self-identity, it becomes much easier to understand the original topic here: that Barack Obama is only HALF black but that he identifies with being an African-American.
Alot of these terms you are using are outdated and most people don't go by the terms in today's society. I did a quick wikipedia and google search on Indians being Caucasion, and they(scientist) tried to label Indians as Caucasion many years ago, but they quickly drop the term and most Indians identify with Asian. Several years ago, Arabs were trying to get the U.S. census to get a category for Arab people but somehow the U.S census refuse to do so and Arabs are stuck as being consider white in America even though most Arabs(especially Muslims) don't consider themselves as white. The reality in today's society is the term Caucasion is mostly associated with people of European origin.
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 > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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