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.
The USA government marks Hispanics and Latinos as racially WHITE by default. And Hispanics and Latinos that don't mark any racial category or don't fill out race category correctly, are AUTOMATICALLY listed as WHITES for numerical purposes.
Any person that fills out any of the census incorrectly or not at all will get marked as WHITE. "Others" get marked as white as well.
Que? Can you point me to that? I had no idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelismaticEchoes
I don't think this is a matter of assimilation or not. This is simply about race baiting and the fact that society tends to lump non AAs and their descendants with the AA paradigm perception. If Caribbeans had their own political clout or box in the Census we wouldn't even be having this very debate right now.
I don't see anyone challenging the flawed questionable Hispanic and Latino labels. If they don't have to be one dropped or ignored, then neither should groups like West Indians, Caribbeans, Louisiana Creoles, Cape Verdeans, Belizeans, Brazilians and their descendants that live in the USA.
Also did you ever come to consider intersectionality? There are black people in EVERY country in the globe, and we can't forget the unique space and cultural and ethnic identities and differences.
Even with Arabs, they can be of any race. Why would Arabs of African descent have to ignore their Arab cultural identity?
Culture is way more important than race, instead of some fueled politicized semantics.
Caribbean and AAs do not mean the same thing.
I believe that when it's NECESSARY, at times minorities and people of color should unite against the white power structure, but none have to give up their different and unique ethnic and cultural identities
Can't believe how this debate is still going on...
Afro-Caribbean (Black African)
Indo-Caribbean (Asian)
Other Caribbean
"Hispanic" Caribbean
^^^
Anyone have a problem with the categories?
West Indian as a ethnic group is a good idea but it means different things to different people.
In the UK we have Black British with a subgroup - African and Caribbean there's also a indo option don't get why it isn't the same for America...
The Caribbean population is very small here, and that is the main reason. The same goes for recent Africans. The U.S. government tends to refuse recognition to certain groups when it doesn't result in some sort of economic or political gain.
There is push back from some African-Americans because historically they have come together based on color/race. Many feel that you should assimilate, particularly into their culture and rid your yourself of your identity and cultural practices (basically same attitude that whites had toward them). Any type of ethnic/cultural affiliation such as what is done for Asians & Hispanics bothers many of them.
As stated, there is an option for Indo-Caribbean people to write in their ethnic background in the Asian box, but no actual Caribbean option. It would be nice to see the options for all Caribbean ethnicities.
It would be wonderful to see though. IMO, just having the ability to select your actual heritage is incentive to maintain ties with your roots.
Many Caribbeans tend to want to be a part of the African American community (or our organizations) when it is beneficial to them and then distance themselves in order to gain an advantage whenever possible. They are "black" when its convenient or they need the support of the African American community. Also, I seriously doubt that very many African Americans have an issue with Caribbean people maintaining their culture but the self-serving CaribID agenda is not lost on anyone.
As I've said before, there's no reason to have endless nomenclatures for people on forms and such. There should be only four options on census forms/job applications with the option to check multiple boxes: Asian/PI, Black, White, and Native American. The Hispanic thing needs to ditched completely. Ideally there would only be White and Minority(mainly for EEO reasons), but that would be too much of mind-**** for most folks.
As I've said before, there's no reason to have endless nomenclatures for people on forms and such. There should be only four options on census forms/job applications with the option to check multiple boxes: Asian/PI, Black, White, and Native American. The Hispanic thing needs to ditched completely. Ideally there would only be White and Minority(mainly for EEO reasons), but that would be too much of mind-**** for most folks.
As for that...why should two group be identified by color but others given the identities of the place from which they actually descend? If "whites" want to keep their color label, then let them as such broad classifications came from them. African/African descendant will do along with Asian/PI and Native American.
And yes on the census many times, if someone writes in other or their own write in without marking any of the provided boxes it just gets defaulted to WHITE.
As for the Hispanic thing, many Hispanics and Latinos as well as people who aren't of that group label, perceive Spanish speaking people as a race orbtheir own group so many don't even bother to fill out race or don't answer the race questions correctly so that gets defaulted to white.
There was a news segment on these matters and the Census has said this too.
The best thing though that would be better and matters more is whether we are HUMAN. I wish we could just check off human being ideally lol.
In addition I think social class and socioeconomics and able bodiedness and providing resources and fulfilling the needs of the citizens and peoples are more important instead of the government fighting over Democrats vs Republicans when they are both money hungry elites that are two sides of the same coin overall behind the scenes.
We need a revolution. I pray and hope we get to this stage in humanity and society one day. I still have a spark and ounce of hope.
The Caribbean population is very small here, and that is the main reason. The same goes for recent Africans. The U.S. government tends to refuse recognition to certain groups when it doesn't result in some sort of economic or political gain.
There is push back from some African-Americans because historically they have come together based on color/race. Many feel that you should assimilate, particularly into their culture and rid your yourself of your identity and cultural practices (basically same attitude that whites had toward them). Any type of ethnic/cultural affiliation such as what is done for Asians & Hispanics bothers many of them.
As stated, there is an option for Indo-Caribbean people to write in their ethnic background in the Asian box, but no actual Caribbean option. It would be nice to see the options for all Caribbean ethnicities.
It would be wonderful to see though. IMO, just having the ability to select your actual heritage is incentive to maintain ties with your roots.
Unites states has a bigger Caribbean population to the UK I think its around 1 million while the UK population is around 600,000.
So the population isn't small and under the radar a such.
US government seems ignorant not to include proper census groupings even the word "Hispanic" sounds backwards, why ain't they just called Latin Americans with the various subgroupings; black, multiracial, white, Amerindian etc sounds like because its easier for the American government who cares.
Yes, but the fact that until recent times, blacks were never quite numerous in any of the Central American countries and even in Puerto Rico and in the Dominican Republic, points to very low numbers of African slaves introduced to these places.
In the case of Panama, almost all of its black population was acquired to construct the Panama Canal and these were imported by Americans as free laborers mostly from Jamaica. Had that never happened, Panama wouldn't even have blacks right now and hardly any mixed black/white people.
In the case of the Dominican Republic, there are historical accounts written by American inspectors that arrived in the 1870s in attempt to drawn up a description of what the land and the people were like. In that time, the US was interested in annexing the Dominican Republic and the bulk of the population was described as mixed, but more to the white side, which is obviously not the case today. They are still mixed, but I wouldn't say the average Dominican is closer to the white side. In the late 1870s and early 1880s, the sugar plantations that today covers the eastern Dominican Republic were established mostly by American companies and they imported many blacks from the British Caribbean and in the process darkening the population base as people continue to mix. Also large numbers of Haitians have moved to the Dominican Republic starting in the 1980s/90s, changing and continuing to change the racial composition of the average person seen on Dominican streets. Dominican historians have been aware that for practically the entire colonial period and for many decades after independence the average Dominican was much more light skinned and European looking than today, despite being racially mixed. With time, the racially mixed sector darkened as more blacks were added to the gene pool and their blood spread through Dominican society, keeping the mixed character of the people, but now its more of a black-mulatto mixed rather than a white-mulatto, for the most part, judging by appearances.
My basic point is that except for the lowlands of Colombia and Venezuela, central Cuba, along the pacific coast of South America from Ecuador to Peru; in most other places of the former Spanish Empire where there are sizable number of blacks, its mostly due to relatively recent migration patterns of free black men and not necessarily due to the flows of African slaves in colonial times.
In Mexico, which received a large amount of African slaves, most of the blacks mixed with the indigenous and mestizo population and today the African blood is highly diluted.
In places like Uruguay and Argentina, where very few Africans were imported, after the massive migration of Europeans in the late 1800s and until the 1950s/60s, the small number of blacks were mainly absorbed with the few Afro-descended people there being mulattoes at various degrees of mixture and African immigrants and black immigrants from other parts of Latin America.
This contrasts sharply with most of the British and French colonies where slaves were introduced. To this very day, most of the population in these places are black (except in the US, but in the former slave-owning areas of the Southeast, there are significant numbers of blacks and even counties where blacks are a majority) and trace their heritage to the slave trade to the very islands in which they now live. Also, since the French and the British didn't quite mix with blacks as much as the Spanish did, this helped maintain an almost intact large segment of blacks within each society. In the Spanish areas, except for the relatively recent arrivals of blacks, the ex-slaves mixed with the non-slave population and given that everyone else was lighter skin, a lightening process followed.
Yes, but the fact that until recent times, blacks were never quite numerous in any of the Central American countries and even in Puerto Rico and in the Dominican Republic, points to very low numbers of African slaves introduced to these places.
In the case of Panama, almost all of its black population was acquired to construct the Panama Canal and these were imported by Americans as free laborers mostly from Jamaica. Had that never happened, Panama wouldn't even have blacks right now and hardly any mixed black/white people.
In the case of the Dominican Republic, there are historical accounts written by American inspectors that arrived in the 1870s in attempt to drawn up a description of what the land and the people were like. In that time, the US was interested in annexing the Dominican Republic and the bulk of the population was described as mixed, but more to the white side, which is obviously not the case today. They are still mixed, but I wouldn't say the average Dominican is closer to the white side. In the late 1870s and early 1880s, the sugar plantations that today covers the eastern Dominican Republic were established mostly by American companies and they imported many blacks from the British Caribbean and in the process darkening the population base as people continue to mix. Also large numbers of Haitians have moved to the Dominican Republic starting in the 1980s/90s, changing and continuing to change the racial composition of the average person seen on Dominican streets. Dominican historians have been aware that for practically the entire colonial period and for many decades after independence the average Dominican was much more light skinned and European looking than today, despite being racially mixed. With time, the racially mixed sector darkened as more blacks were added to the gene pool and their blood spread through Dominican society, keeping the mixed character of the people, but now its more of a black-mulatto mixed rather than a white-mulatto, for the most part, judging by appearances.
My basic point is that except for the lowlands of Colombia and Venezuela, central Cuba, along the pacific coast of South America from Ecuador to Peru; in most other places of the former Spanish Empire where there are sizable number of blacks, its mostly due to relatively recent migration patterns of free black men and not necessarily due to the flows of African slaves in colonial times.
In Mexico, which received a large amount of African slaves, most of the blacks mixed with the indigenous and mestizo population and today the African blood is highly diluted.
In places like Uruguay and Argentina, where very few Africans were imported, after the massive migration of Europeans in the late 1800s and until the 1950s/60s, the small number of blacks were mainly absorbed with the few Afro-descended people there being mulattoes at various degrees of mixture and African immigrants and black immigrants from other parts of Latin America.
This contrasts sharply with most of the British and French colonies where slaves were introduced. To this very day, most of the population in these places are black (except in the US, but in the former slave-owning areas of the Southeast, there are significant numbers of blacks and even counties where blacks are a majority) and trace their heritage to the slave trade to the very islands in which they now live. Also, since the French and the British didn't quite mix with blacks as much as the Spanish did, this helped maintain an almost intact large segment of blacks within each society. In the Spanish areas, except for the relatively recent arrivals of blacks, the ex-slaves mixed with the non-slave population and given that everyone else was lighter skin, a lightening process followed.
Race and Ethnicity in the formation of
Panamanian National Identity:
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.
