Agrippina wrote:Saim wrote:Warren Dew wrote:Tyrannical wrote:I had heard that some members of the Negroid race prefer the term Negro, and that it was added to the census form at their request and was not some racist conspiracy. I'd rather the White box read Caucasian myself.
Some older blacks prefer "negro". It seems that "white" and "caucasian" are no longer synonymous, as subcontinental Indians are caucasian but no longer seem to be "white" by the definition Morien cites.
"White" and "Caucasian" were never subcontinental outside of the American neologism. Originally it referred to people from the
Caucasus region, it was later used by 19th century anthropologists to describe a certain physical "type" that was typical among Europeans, Middle Easterners, North Africans and Indians. It was only then appropriated in the US to refer solely to European or Anglo people.
As a way to define "them" i.e. non-white as opposed to "white" because in the days of slavery, the idea was that British people weren't Europeans, and to call them "Europeans" as they did in Africa, would exclude the British, so they came up with this silly term. And the really stupid thing is that the people from the Caucasus region weren't "white" in the sense that Northern Europeans are "white," also because Southern Europeans are dark-skinned, they didn't want to use "white" because that would exclude dark-skinned southern Europeans, which now should show you just how dumb it is to differentiate on the grounds of skin tones.
It's also used by diasporic Europeans to deny their Europeaness and whitewash their destruction of the indigenous nations in America, Australia and such.
Saim wrote:From what I can remember of the 2000 statistics, "Is this person Hispanic or Latino?" is a separate question to "What is this person's race?". The census wants Hispanic Mestizos to identify as "White" and "Native American" and then check "yes" for "Hispanic or Latino?" as well.
That's correct, not that it makes any sense.
Why does it not make any sense? Why are Native American descendants of Spanish-speakers any less Native American than those Native Americans that were Anglicized?
Because the "Anglicized" Native Americans had "European" genes, which makes them different from pure "Native Americans."
I was asking why Hispanicized Mestizos are considered "Hispanic" and not indigenous while Anglicized Mestizos are considered "Native American". As far as I know Anglicized Aborigines in the US are still called "natives" or "Indians" even if they are of partial European ancestry.
"Hispanic" used to be "hispanic surname"; I don't know what the definition is now, if any.
Hispanic used to refer to people from Portugal and Spain, the previous "Hispania" provinces of Rome.
Recently though, it's been used to refer to more "Castilian" (i.e. "Spanish") cultural, ethnic or linguistic origins.
What the hell is a Chicano???
A Mexican American.
See how ridiculous this is all becoming. The original "Indian" people of American were descended from the people who travelled across from Northern Asia across Alaska and south towards South America, they were basically the same as the people who lived in the Himalayas except that over time, the warmer climate, and colder north, made them appear to be different physically. Then Europeans arrived and interbred so they are in fact a mix of "Mongolians" and "Europeans" and then with slavery having brought "Africans" a little bit of that as well. So why all the differentiation based on these new "races?"
You just differentiated people based on races (i.e., by migration history). Why are you then asking why people use these categorizations?
Agrippina wrote:Why not come right out and say "hey dude, what colour is your skin?"
I think it's because they want to keep their racism politically correct.
Why is it racist to ask what someone's race is?
Because the idea of "race" was invented by people who settled the new world as a way to prove that the settlers were somehow "better" than people who weren't European.
How were these people not European if race, and by extension "Europeanness" is a construct?
(By European I mean the Dutch, English, Spanish, Portuguese, who embarked on voyages of discovering in the middle of the second millennium).
So were the Russians, Germans, and those Dutch, English, Spanish and Portuguese who did not voyages of discovering not Europeans?
Using skin colour as a guide, i.e. shades of brown from coffee-colour through to the dark almost black skin of central Africans, they were able to point out the superiority of "white" people.
Does racial categorization have to be about superiority? Can't we simply point out these divisions exist without claiming that any group is superior?
Race is a false construct, using it to decide someone's value as a human is totally unacceptable. I know that where the inhabitants of a country are of mixed ethnic origin, most governments use it to determine whatever they think they need to use it for, but it is wrong.
If they want to use a measure for statistical purposes, why not go by cultural or ethnic origin: German, French, Italian, Greek, Arabic, Israeli, Pakistani, Kenyan, Rwandan, Australian etc. using skin tone is just rubbish.
I agree.
But Pakistani, Israeli, Kenyan and Australian aren't ethnic or cultural origins (and Rwandan is a borderline case).
Can't you then, categorize people and peoples within larger super-categories of national origins? So, for example, German, French, Italian and Greek people are European. In the US, Europeans have historical been called "whites". So can't "White or European" be a Census option?