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.
But Das, when it comes to race, what variables can there be besides the 3 races? Arab? Indian (from India)? Those are not races. As it stands now if you choose white you can technically be European, Indian, Arab, Jewish, Hispanic, to say the least. Is that "white."? Not as America defines it...but it would be caucasian. So it really skews the numbers and makes it seem like there are LOTS more "whites"...when the reality is there are much less....significantly less in fact. Is this done purposely? Are Americans not really prepared to know that the "white" population is far less than stated? Have we already passed the 50% mark and 'whites" (as defined by America) are already the minority group? This census keeps us from knowing...and purposelly I am sure.
The variables to me, and this just an opinion, is to check the boxes that you think you are racially, for most people this will be more than one, then writing in what that is specifically. If you consider yourself White and you are Arab, then check White, and write in Arab, or check other and write in Arab, if the American concept of White doesn't appeal to you.
To me the term Asian is so abstract, the continent of Asia is a huge place. Wouldn't my specific future descendants want to know where that was exactly? Especially when there is a good chance that they may be mixed with what we now call Black or White, and they may be ethnically mixed with Arab or Latin, and therefore won't look anything like me, the me, that may be the first generation Korean born here.
Maybe some people at this point in their lives are not interested in their family past, so it doesn't matter, right now to them. They cannot see past themselves right now, and this form, and they are getting hung up on this form.
But I think at some point, people become interested, in more than themselves, and they may search for some answers, as things stand right now, those answers are hard to find, even with DNA test you will come up with a lot of speculation. Like in the CNN article, the Dominican writer took a DNA test and found that she descends from people in North Africa on one side of her family. Did those people travel to Spain, and then traveled to the Dominican Republic centuries later and appear White like a Spaniard? Who knows.
It would be nice if people right now, would put down what they know right now, and put down what they feel they are right now. It doesn't matter what someone else says you are, what matters is what you think.
Also if the variables don't matter to you, and Caucasion is fine for you, then that is fine also. Whatever works for you. But just remember that your future generations may just see a White man in their minds, and not the Latino, that lives in the South Bronx. You may appear as one of the first gentrifiers in their minds, until they search back. Do you know how your parents identified you on past census when you were a child?
Sometimes races of people change through the generations. I have examined many census, and I help people with ancestrial research, and it is funny when someone's great grandfather was born Black in Georgia, but moves to Iowa and becomes White in subsequent census. Sometimes it is a shock.
I agree with that Das IF it did not say "some other race"...which then becomes another problem. If you check 'white' and then the "some other race" box and write in Indian (from India)...how the heck is that a race? Yes I appreciate the clarification and that has value to know they are Indian, but the ethnic description of "Indian" is not "some other race." If they simply said "write in your ethnicity" or "population you identify most with" then I would be okay with it.
As it stands now, you are writing in some description of yourself which is not some other race.
Albeit a communist country Cuba really embraces its Afro-Latino heritage.
I know. Unfortunately it is very difficult for Americans to visit Cuba. For now, I am considering Costa Rica, Mexico or Ecuador since their educational programs have very good reputations.
I know. Unfortunately it is very difficult for Americans to visit Cuba. For now, I am considering Costa Rica, Mexico or Ecuador since their educational programs have very good reputations.
I think that is the way to go, to find a good educational program, and a country where you would not experience what one of my Dominican American friends refer to as racial terroism.
You may be the one to bring a perspective of celebrating Afro-Latin culture, through your own writings and teachings, and collaborations with others. You may bring something to academics, that I would compare to what Katherine Dunham brought to dance, when she travelled through the Carribean and bought many dance techniques back to the US.
I agree with that Das IF it did not say "some other race"...which then becomes another problem. If you check 'white' and then the "some other race" box and write in Indian (from India)...how the heck is that a race? Yes I appreciate the clarification and that has value to know they are Indian, but the ethnic description of "Indian" is not "some other race." If they simply said "write in your ethnicity" or "population you identify most with" then I would be okay with it.
As it stands now, you are writing in some description of yourself which is not some other race.
I am ..but I think it adds unnecessarily to the confusion, and it really invalidates any real stats we get from the census. When the census data tells us that 80% of the population of Puerto Rico is 'white', how useful, or for that matter, accurate is that data? This should have been fixed by now..so the question is, why did they choose not to fix it? What purpose does it serve?
I am ..but I think it adds unnecessarily to the confusion, and it really invalidates any real stats we get from the census. When the census data tells us that 80% of the population of Puerto Rico is 'white', how useful, or for that matter, accurate is that data? This should have been fixed by now..so the question is, why did they choose not to fix it? What purpose does it serve?
What if 80% of the population of Puerto Rico identifies themselves as White. What will happen because of that?
That's what I want to know. Clearly those in power understand that the methodology is wrong, but they let it persist. I have no idea for what purpose however. The fact that 80% of the population identify themselves as white (either by choice or more likely because they don't have more appropriate choices) means that the census is clearly flawed and the stats are not useful.
If the census chose not to count blacks, but instead only allowed them to choose multiracial, would this be ok? An argument can be made to assert that a significant portion of the black population is multiracial, so what would happen to the black identity if it disappeared and was invalidated by the census? What purpose would that serve? Hmm....
That's what I want to know. Clearly those in power understand that the methodology is wrong, but they let it persist. I have no idea for what purpose however. The fact that 80% of the population identify themselves as white (either by choice or more likely because they don't have more appropriate choices) means that the census is clearly flawed and the stats are not useful.
If the census chose not to count blacks, but instead only allowed them to choose multiracial, would this be ok? An argument can be made to assert that a significant portion of the black population is multiracial, so what would happen to the black identity if it disappeared and was invalidated by the census? What purpose would that serve? Hmm....
It wouldn't matter, if what is now known as Black, or African American were to change to muli-racial, it still would mean that you are not an Anglo Saxon White person or WASP.
I never give much substance to stats, when it comes to human beings. Everyone refers to funding, but isn't the funding for transportation, schools and number of representatives based on how many people are in a given area, and not what group they belong to?
By the way what is the Black Identity? For that matter what is the White identity? Or the yellow one? The Brown one? Kind of silly right? when you look at it like that. You really only have one, yours.
That's what I want to know. Clearly those in power understand that the methodology is wrong, but they let it persist. I have no idea for what purpose however. The fact that 80% of the population identify themselves as white (either by choice or more likely because they don't have more appropriate choices) means that the census is clearly flawed and the stats are not useful.
If the census chose not to count blacks, but instead only allowed them to choose multiracial, would this be ok? An argument can be made to assert that a significant portion of the black population is multiracial, so what would happen to the black identity if it disappeared and was invalidated by the census? What purpose would that serve? Hmm....
It would still be useful in the sense that it would reflect that they need to educate their people better on their cultural history and lineage...clearly there are more than a few in denial...
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.
Cuba
