Let’s say, hypothetically, that there were a city in America that consisted of 90% inhabitants of one single, non-white race.
Perhaps 90% Hispanic, or 90% Asian, or 90% Arab, or 90% African-American, etc.
Would you describe this city as being very racially diverse, because it is predominantly minority in a mostly-white country (the USA,) or would you describe it as lacking diversity, because it is overwhelmingly of one single race only?
In general no. Diversity requires a mix of cultures.
However there is certainly room for diversity given the broad categories listed. For example Asia is very diverse, there are numerous very distinct Asian cultures. If a city as 90% Korean I might not consider it diverse. If it was 25% Korean, 20% Japanese, 25% Vietnamese and 20% Chinese. I would think that to be rather diverse.
Plus, of course, while the city might not be diverse in itself, it could certainly contribute to the diversity of the region in which it is located.
No.
This is how I would describe my current area - Gary, Indiana is about 85% black (pretty close to your 90%). I would not describe the city proper as diverse because it’s mostly one ethnicity, but Lake County, Indiana is about 25% black, so without Gary the county would be less diverse.
For me, diversity means variety in ideas, philosophies, lifestyles, jobs, hobbies, and so forth. I think that a city can be extremely diverse, even if everybody is of the same ethnic group. A city can also have many ethnic groups and fail to be diverse.
As for racial diversity, for the same reason that boytyperanma said. The racial categories that the American government uses were established artificially so they could create affirmative action. The concept of Hispanic as a race, for instance, has no basis in biology or history. Traditionally Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Peruvians, and dozens of other groups would have never even considered viewing themselves as a single race.
What are the other categories used, and how did the American government establish them artificially?
So if a city is 100% white, but it’s a mix of German, Irish, Swedish, Dutch, etc., is it diverse?
I suspect I know what you’re getting at. Sometimes the word “diverse” is used to refer to nonwhite people. I’ve heard schools that were 95%+ African American students referred to as having a diverse population.
IMO it’s a euphemism used by people who are scared to use words like black or African American, for fear of being called racist. It’s a little like “urban” or “inner-city” used as euphemisms for black, or like “ethnic hair products” used to mean “hair products for nonwhite people.”
I dislike this usage. There’s real value to having a diverse population in a school, a city, a neighborhood, a government. Calling something “diverse” when it’s just majority-minority confuses the issue.
(And no, I don’t have citations; if you’ve never encountered this usage, that’s fine.)
A city’s racial makeup says little to nothing about diversity. Take a 90% Asian city.
Of those Asians, 100% are from the same village in China. Not diverse.
But if 10% are from Vietnam, 10% from South Korea, 10% from Japan, 10% from Thailand, 10% are Hmong, etc., and they practice five different religions and speak twenty-two languages, that would be diverse.
Here’s a copy of a form that’s used to report data to the American government. The categories are:
When I say that the government’s definition are artificial, I mean that they’re not based in biology or history. Historically, it’s certainly not true that the American government always divided up races in this way, and it’s certainly not true that other governments divide up races this way. Biologically, there’s nothing that separates each race from others. The definition of Hispanic, for instance, includes people who are white, black, Native American, and any combination of those. It’s based on “Spanish culture”, not biological origin.
What if they only spoke 21 different languages?
I’m just kidding.
Thank you for the link.
You’ve altered a point between your statement and your backing it up - namely, that it’s “not based in… history” beforehand, but then you go on to talk solely about governmental history.
What about non-governmental history? You pointed out that, traditionally speaking, many groups who fall under the category of “Hispanic” would “have never even considered viewing themselves as a single race.” Is the same true of the other categories your link includes, for the groups included in that category?
Possibly. If there is distinct display of the various racial heritages, yes. If they are all Americanized and conform to a single culture, no.
I think it’s pretty obvious that an Indian (person from India) and a Chinese person would not be considered the same race.
Most likely. What do you think about the other categories on the list?
ITR, btw, would it be possible to include the question that goes with that segment of the form? I’m afraid it’s behind a sign-up, which I’m not greatly interested in doing.
If you look at “Black”, it specifically ask for people from different racial groups.
Eskimo and American Indian are easily considered different racial groups.
The groups included in “white” could or could not be considered different racial groups, since North Africa is included as well as the Middle East.
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander is also a mixed race category sine Melanesians and Polynesians are distinct.
That about covers it. Every single category contains different races, or different groups of people that could reasonably called different races. The one category that is most consistent is “white”, since that is generally equated with “caucasian” and the people so NA/ME are usually considered “caucasian” in racial categories. As a “social construct”, though, many of those people are “Brown”, not “White”.
That all seems reasonable to me, which is why I’m interested in seeing what the question is that prompts those options, since ITR Champion referred them being the government’s “racial categories”.
The irony being of course that this would cause people to be categorized as being in the same racial group who obviously are nothing of the sort.
An African-American descended from Americans slaves going back to the early 18th century and, say, a Somali who just arrived ten years ago will both be classified as “black” despite the fact that they are genetically and culturally as different from one another as Taylor Swift and Sadahuru Oh are.
It’s what the US government uses on the census form.
Seems like as good a reference document as any, and better than most.