Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
I'm not American but isn't there a Hispanic box? If not you're probably correct although there was a lot of mixing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizos_in_Mexico
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why do surveys/statistics put "Asian" as one entire race/ethnicity?
- Thread starter The Artisan
- Start date
I'm not American but isn't there a Hispanic box? If not you're probably correct although there was a lot of mixing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizos_in_Mexico
Zoe
Member
Hispanic is an ethnicity, not race. They're two different questions.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
I forget I think Hispanic is categorized as an ethnicity but then when it asks for race the options are usually white, black, Asian, native American
Yeah I generally see it considered Central Asia but no one ever brings them when talking about Asia.
Sidenote, some South Asians do look like East Asians. Like Bhutan or North East Indians (near India's border with China).
I've found that it just often reflects the demographics of the nation. Also, surprisingly, there aren't really widely adopted demographic standards out there in academia or for private organizations. Because ultimately, it depends on your target sample and what best describes it, and that's not often totally inclusive.
Some UK studies I've looked at have listed 8 different types of Christianity because it's a relevant and effective discriminator, but those had to change when we adapted a version of the study for use in Canada where there's a much greater diversity of religions.
Combine this with general lack of understanding of how others identify themselves (I.e. Myself as an Indian having to put down "Asian," though I would never refer to myself this way) and a pinch of ignorance and there's how you got there.
EDIT: sometimes there are mandates for how to refer to certain minorities though, I know in Canada you can't just say "Indian" to refer to Aboriginal, First Nations or Metis people, for example.
Some UK studies I've looked at have listed 8 different types of Christianity because it's a relevant and effective discriminator, but those had to change when we adapted a version of the study for use in Canada where there's a much greater diversity of religions.
Combine this with general lack of understanding of how others identify themselves (I.e. Myself as an Indian having to put down "Asian," though I would never refer to myself this way) and a pinch of ignorance and there's how you got there.
EDIT: sometimes there are mandates for how to refer to certain minorities though, I know in Canada you can't just say "Indian" to refer to Aboriginal, First Nations or Metis people, for example.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
Yes lots of mixing Great grandmother was Spanish blonde hair blues etc. I have dark skin and get confused for alot of things Middle Eastern, Indian, Pakistani etc.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
...No there isn't.
A higher proportion of adherents to those other religions perhaps, though. I guess that's what you meant.
I don't understand why the US still clings to these outdated concepts.
I've never seen any form anywhere in Europe where you have to fill in your "race". If I ever go to the US, I'd probably fill in "human", since that is the only correct answer - ethically and scientifically.
But can it explain "white on white" racism (like UK and Polish people) that's prevalent in Europe then? Xenophobia? Then where does xenophobia end and racism start?
Race is an outdated concept, and I'd argue that keeping it alive actually encourages racism, since it reinforces constructed differences and keeps them alive as well. The only thing worse is blood-based racism and the idea of "mixing".
I've never seen any form anywhere in Europe where you have to fill in your "race". If I ever go to the US, I'd probably fill in "human", since that is the only correct answer - ethically and scientifically.
But can it explain "white on white" racism (like UK and Polish people) that's prevalent in Europe then? Xenophobia? Then where does xenophobia end and racism start?
Race is an outdated concept, and I'd argue that keeping it alive actually encourages racism, since it reinforces constructed differences and keeps them alive as well. The only thing worse is blood-based racism and the idea of "mixing".
The Artisan
Member
wat do you propose?
PeskyToaster
Member
It's probably more to help you in the case of proving discrimination.
Don't get me started with all the "non-Hispanic white" and "Hispanic white" nonsense. That's something I've never managed to make sense out of.
I'm Basque from the Spanish Basque Country, so according to the American census I'd be "Hispanic white", but someone from the French Basque Country would be "Non-Hispanic White", despite both of us belonging to the same ethnicity (Basque). The only tangible difference is that in addition to Basque I speak Spanish and they speak French. Everything else is the same.
Another example would be the thousands of Argentineans and Uruguayans of Italian descent. They would be Hispanic/Latino whereas the Italian-Americans are simply white, when the only real difference is that the former speak Spanish and the latter don't. Nonsense.
It depends where. "Indio/a" (the Spanish equivalent of Indian) is usually considered to be pejorative and offensive to use when refering to the indigenous people of the Americas, and the indigenous themselves frequently find that term offensive, prefering the term indígena (indigenous) or simply the name of their actual ethnicity (Quechuan, Aymaran, Guarani, Mayan, etc.)
I'm Basque from the Spanish Basque Country, so according to the American census I'd be "Hispanic white", but someone from the French Basque Country would be "Non-Hispanic White", despite both of us belonging to the same ethnicity (Basque). The only tangible difference is that in addition to Basque I speak Spanish and they speak French. Everything else is the same.
Another example would be the thousands of Argentineans and Uruguayans of Italian descent. They would be Hispanic/Latino whereas the Italian-Americans are simply white, when the only real difference is that the former speak Spanish and the latter don't. Nonsense.
It depends where. "Indio/a" (the Spanish equivalent of Indian) is usually considered to be pejorative and offensive to use when refering to the indigenous people of the Americas, and the indigenous themselves frequently find that term offensive, prefering the term indígena (indigenous) or simply the name of their actual ethnicity (Quechuan, Aymaran, Guarani, Mayan, etc.)
Thelonelykoopa
Member
Yeah I referring more to US and with English , language changes the meaning of a word even if it's nearly identically due to cultural context and other stuff . Personally I wouldn't mind if we adopted the First Nation nomenclature from Canada in the US.
It's for statistic purposes. For example, if a company wants to be more diverse.
The Artisan
Member
yes. it's voluntary though.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Broadly, because of the approximate alignment with rather arbitrary geographical boundaries, where such had become standard practice with regards to dividing Europe and Africa. In the particular context of the United States, there's a much greater focus there on identity in racial terms rather than ethnic ones, because... well because such had been applied to the whole white/black divide with slavery and all. Ultimately it has such strength in terms of cultural understanding that people end up buying - or at least, tolerating having to use terminology - that people continue to use it as a point of reference even though it struggles for meaning beyond the macro.
The debate around Native America vs American Indian is something that deserves nuance
see: https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/culture/social-issues/blackhorse-do-you-prefer-native-american-or-american-indian-6-prominent-voices-respond/
My thinking would be to refer to them as Native American or indigenous peoples (because "indian" is a white colonizer term) or, if referring to a specific tribe, whatever the hell the name of the tribe is. If you have to group them (as in the collection of indigenous tribes) together I would avoid terms invented by the colonizers IF you are not indigenous yourself.
Even if you meet one Indigenous person who uses American Indian or Indian, I wouldn't take that as carte blanche that it's okay for _you_ to refer to them as such. As always, asking for context and personal preference is the best course of action.
see: https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/culture/social-issues/blackhorse-do-you-prefer-native-american-or-american-indian-6-prominent-voices-respond/
My thinking would be to refer to them as Native American or indigenous peoples (because "indian" is a white colonizer term) or, if referring to a specific tribe, whatever the hell the name of the tribe is. If you have to group them (as in the collection of indigenous tribes) together I would avoid terms invented by the colonizers IF you are not indigenous yourself.
Even if you meet one Indigenous person who uses American Indian or Indian, I wouldn't take that as carte blanche that it's okay for _you_ to refer to them as such. As always, asking for context and personal preference is the best course of action.
Zoe
Member
But that's the difference that they care about. They're asking the question so they can gauge the need for Spanish language services.
No, it's there because of the EEOC.
Ethnicity is much more accurate, though you'd need hundreds of boxes on your survey instead of [White] [Black] [Brown] [Yellow] [Mixed] [Other]
Or you get rid of the question entirely. It's kind of an irrelevant question when applying for a job anyway.
what if your name is Mo Jamal...and guess what Mo stands for...Muhammad.
they won't assume you're white, lol.
well... finally getting rid of the concept through nation wide long-term campaigns like many other countries did would be a start. although that works best after getting defeated in a major war.
Getting rid of xenophobia will be a lot harder to achieve, and is probably impossible with our current system of economy.
sounds more like they want to look more diverse. But having a staff with different skin colours doesn't automatically make them diverse. A white person who grew up somewhere in Eastern Europe and a white person who grew up in the US are likely to be much more different than a white and a black person who grew up in the same neighbourhood in the US. Therefore it seems kinda pointless
I've never seen an American curriculum vitae but I always figured that including language skills is a widespread standard... guess that's only true in Europe then?
Zoe
Member
Who knows. They probably figure it's worth more to not piss off the Hispanic community than to completely change the question and get a multitude of responses that they don't care about.
Mega Caprison
Member
Thailand isn't in east asia
They're all arbitrary. However, what meaningful distinction would you split Asians into? While there's research that finds specific subgroups are more associated with certain illnesses and such, is it worth another 5-10 categories? Splitting them out into countries isn't super useful as sometimes it's less about the country and more about some broad cultural issues, but again, it depends on the stats.
yanipheonu
Member
Declaring a specific ethnicity doesn't really make sense to me in our post DNA testing world. It's become pretty clear we're all mixes of some kind.
airmangataosenai
Member
Grouping East with Southeast and even Pacific Islander makes sense as they all share the sane racial designating eye feature. Grouping South Asians into that category is utter nonsense with them. Their are some who have those eyes but the vast majority fron the subcontinent do not.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
only if you think affirmative action is illegal.
That is another topic. Do you think what is Thai people ethnicity?
darkhunger
Member
The "eye feature" itself is a bad way to classify people in and of itself. A whole bunch of European, African and Amerindian people would be considered "Asian" using that definition considering the epicanthic fold is not a trait exclusive to Asians.
Tevious
Member
They should reconsider before Trump deports them.
Yep: Just for "Black":
Jamaican
Haitian
Bahamian
African-American
+ the tons of different African ethnicities.
The Artisan
Member
to fucking where?
gutter_trash
Banned
you pretty well describe to utter ubsudity of the term "Hispanic" in terms of profiling.
To me, Hispanic should be stricly linguistic based on your mother toungue or the mother toungue of your parents.
Like Catalan people from Barcelona who'se mother toungue is Catalan and not Hispanic either.
Hispanic should be strickly linguistic not ethnic nor racial.
hey_monkey
Banned
Existing shitty data self-perpetuates due to ease of comparison.
I'm working on a research project right now and this is something we're dealing with right now. There is an existing pool of related but dissimilar data on the group we're prepping to survey. We have to face the question of whether we want to use their demographic categories (which are in turn based on standard categories in the US) for ease of comparison or create our own, which actually makes our data look worse even if it's more accurate in some measures.
I'm working on a research project right now and this is something we're dealing with right now. There is an existing pool of related but dissimilar data on the group we're prepping to survey. We have to face the question of whether we want to use their demographic categories (which are in turn based on standard categories in the US) for ease of comparison or create our own, which actually makes our data look worse even if it's more accurate in some measures.
Officially it is, hence why the census treats it that way. But in the popular consciousness it's morphed into a racial term whether it actually makes sense or not (it doesnt).
TheRedSnifit
Member
Because expanding the categories doesn't serve any practical purpose.
For comparison, there are 87 different European ethnicities. But as far as businesses are concerned there's no need to know the differences between a German and a Moldovan, so they're all listed under European/White. Many Russians aren't even from Europe, but we still throw them, under that.
For comparison, there are 87 different European ethnicities. But as far as businesses are concerned there's no need to know the differences between a German and a Moldovan, so they're all listed under European/White. Many Russians aren't even from Europe, but we still throw them, under that.
ChubbyHuggs
Member
Are you latino, but not white. Are you white, but not Latino.
I have a guts feeling there is the all too common dreaded Taiwan=Thailand mistake somewhere in this conversation
ghostofsparta
Member
Not for long, the census will very likely have Hispanic as a racial group http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...sus-bureau-may-change-how-it-asks-about-race/
It's crazy to me that people actually want it that way.
Take this video for example: https://youtu.be/3e6ChgL1EC4
You can clearly tell that the people interviewed are American Indian, yet they consider themselves Hispanic or white.
I completely agree with you. Hispanic should be tied to language and that's it, yet somehow below the American border the people have been convinced they are ethnically Hispanic.
Chuckie
Member
Lol. Yeah could be.
Though I always asumed 'Asian' in the US was not only East Asian but also Southeast Asian. If Indonesians, Malaysians, Thai, Vietnamese etc aren't considered Asians...what are they considered then?
The Artisan
Member
I never thought about that before, people making that mistake. Thailand=Thai and Taiwan=Taiwanese
Zoe
Member
Even other Asians make that mistake. This happened to the husband several years ago:
Him: Yeah, my parents are from Taiwan
Clueless Asian b-school girl at an event for aspiring Asian entrepreneurs: Oooh, I love Thai food!
Heh...not in my case. People think I'm Asian/Chinese or something by my last name.
The Artisan
Member
My understanding is there's a good bit of history behind this. During the time of legal segregation and discrimination, South Asian and Middle Eastern groups fought pretty hard to get themselves legally classified as "white", so they could enjoy the benefits of that. That left "Asian" referring exclusively to East Asians. Now of course that's flipped, and groups want their own classifications so they can accurately self-identify and to track statistics around issues in their communities, and there's a push to get South Asian and Middle Eastern/North African categories added.