We don’t all fit into “Asian.” I mean, technically we do, but practically speaking the grouping is pretty useless.
Why ask a persons colour? Just ask their country of origin, if they were born in the U.K.then the answer is U.K. no matter what their colour, those who were born outside of the U.K. just put their place of birth
Incorrect. Your post contained numerous dubious assertions, including the fact that AA hurts Asians and Whites, but I’d like to correct just one for the moment as it in particular really distorts the views of Affirmative Action. Affirmative action mainly benefits women, particularly White women; not Blacks and Hispanics. This is not really debatable.
No, it really doesn’t raise that question as obtaining things earmarked for a specific group by lying is typically covered by statutes covering fraud, theft by deception, etc. There is to need to criminalize something that is rarely done, and already has social and legal consequences in almost all cases. As long as no one is made worse off, people can claim they’re whatever race they want, just like the can claim they are 6 inches taller, and that they are rich and are related to influential celebrities.
One, it would not agree with the Constitution. Two, it wouldn’t be fair or right. Three, it is almost impossible to do so, and would do nothing to mitigate the damage that a hundreds years of discrimination has done. Further, the idea that we most treat everyone exactly the same is largely a stupid idea. Just like it would be stupid to treat the disabled the same as the abled, the rich the same as the poor, or foreigners the same as Americans. Those distinctions, like race, have real world consequences that make different treatment necessary, so ignoring that reality for some distorted sense of egalitarianism is really, really dumb.
Not at all. Many of the reasons we collect data are to enforce laws that require people to be treated equally in the private sector. The government treating everyone the same, and enforcing those norms on the private sector broadly speaking still requires the collection of data. Otherwise, it would be like collecting taxes without verifying any income data.
Agreed, although I will add that there seems to be a surprising number of people from the Middle East living in the US who consider themselves White. It’s a very strange thing to encounter.
In fairness, the last census I checked asked whether I was white (“having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa”), black (“having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa”), and so on for American Indian and Asian and et cetera, with the option of including “Hispanic or Latino or Spanish” with any of 'em.
So if I were from the Middle East, and living the US, and had just filled out that form as requested – and, I dunno, I’m guessing it’s the same categories if you’re applying to a college or putting in for a loan and so on – then after a while, maybe I’d shrug and say, yeah, when folks ask if I’m white, I answer ‘yes’, because that’s what they mean.
why is this strange?
Cause middle easterners are all a bunch of darkies!!!
;)
I see this (write-in identity) as the only legit answer. Multiple choice just isn’t going to cut it. This applies to gender, race, nationality, etc. It will piss off the “I know one when I see them” racists, but screw those guys.
how naïve…
The use of this data by federal and local governments is extremely miniscule, especially in comparison to companies that use the data for advertising purposes, etc.
When you are less than 1% of the US population (Arab Americans) no one really cares.
I always believe that data collection should be tied to action or decisions. What are the proposed decisions that the finer distinction could enable?
There’s nothing dubious about it.
There is plentiful evidence that members of some groups are less likely to be admitted to top schools because of their race, and others are more likely.
The context of this thread makes clear that we’re talking about race-based affirmative action. I’m sure this was quite obvious to everyone except you.
The Constitution guarantees all Americans “the equal protection of the laws”. Thus any law that treats some individual better or worse because of their race or any other inborn trait is in violation of the Constitution. Any government program which treats members of some races different than others is in violation of the Constitution.
Of course, some judges really, really want such programs to be allowed, so we have a patchwork of illogical, contradictory rulings about when the government can discriminate based on race. If we just agreed to throw out all racial discrimination, we wouldn’t need to have judges twist themselves into knots trying to allow what the Constitution clearly does not allow.
Psssst: “Near East” can mean “North Africa and the Middle East”. IME, it refers to the area around the Mediterranean but not considered Europe. YMMV, especially if you really want it to.
This thread is about Census classifications, isn’t it?
The Near East does and did not typically or usually mean the North Africa and aside it seems from some Americans functionairies who use(d) it this way, it would not be understood that way, so it would be very uneffective as a terminology for things like censuses, above all when there is common terminology that is more clearly widely used and understood.
it is also apparently about other issues like an ignorance and confusion about the history of terminologies.
Yes I think for the general national statistics it is not a good use of the resources to have finely divided categories for the population ethnic appartenance. If a population that is heterogenous and divergent in interests grows beyond a certain point, maybe the Asian for example, to the double digit percent, it becomes more useful.
the OP was about american census categorizations for the peoples from North Africa and the Middle East, who now are counted as white. you immediately transmuted the subject into something else based on a certain ideological predeliction and obsession, with a reply that had not much to do with the actual subjects raised in the OP.
IIRC it was
Near East: between the Med and the Euphrates.
Middle East: Between the Euphrates and the Indus* and South of the Hindu Kush and Caucuse.
Far East: East of the Bay of Bengal.
*Specifically one of its tributaries, the Jehlum.
Egypt was not Near East AFAIK.
Which is why strictly speaking, Karachi is in the Middle East and Tel Aviv is not.
I refer you to the link in my post which shows historical usages.
the other usage is for the Ottoman, but this excludes a nice portion of the Maghrebine who were never included in the Ottoman empire - and so is again not responsive to the OP
Even if I accepted your cites, that is not what you said. It is possible for something to hurt some people in one group and help others in the same group. The reason affirmative action is largely championed is because many people feel diversity helps everyone included the White and Asian students. You may disagree, but your claim cannot just be based on the supposition that affirmative action is zero sum and that the people who don’t get admitted are the only ones who matter. To analogize it, it would be like declaring that fact that the rich are taxed at a higher rate to be de facto bad for rich people. Usually it’s not because such a system has other effects.
The thread has nothing to do with affirmative action, so your rebuttal is nonsensical.
Equal protection does not mean everyone must be treated exactly the same. Otherwise things like disparate sentences for the same crime would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Suproeme Court has ruled on affirmative action multiple times, declaring laws that “treat some individual better or worse because of their race” are largely constitutional, so your critique is without basis or merit.
This article from Al-Jazeera mentions:
The context here as I am given to understand is that Arab-American activism, despite its splits, is better funded, better organized, has more contacts and official recognition, and has a much larger population base than organizations representing groups like Amazigh and Kurds. The US government often looks to ‘representative groups and leaders’ when reaching out, choosing them pretty haphazardly and often regardless of how representative that group may actually be. Part of the reason that a variety of Maghrebi groups plus at least Copts, Chaldeans, and Kurds were very skeptical about the MENA category is because they worry that if they are grouped together in the same category with the Arab-American organizations, then they will lose recognition and influence to those organizations. If the Census shows in a region that xyz number of people chose MENA, they may choose to engage with the Arab-American groups who are currently in a more visible position, in order to provide services like those mentioned above, meaning that the voices and concerns of Amazigh/Kurds/Copts would be marginalized more than they already are. This is why those groups fought hard against the earlier wording that called them sub-national communities, and why they are to varying degrees not super pleased with the current proposal.
As far as the US government is concerned, these organizations are representatives of their communities, which is why they were invited as “Experts” to the census forum. The fact that the groups claiming to speak for North Africans in the US are very much against Arab identity does not necessarily say much about the ideas people they claim to represent, or the support they have in their communities. Again as a Mexican-American, it’s not exactly uncommon for our activists to have ideas that have no popular support or are just weirdos (Aztlan, for example), but they still do some good for our community and have influence because they are the ones who are, well, active. We also, by the way, are happy to flip around our identifications as need be 
Latino, Hispanic, Mexican, Chicano…
There is also the potential that ideas that start in the academic activist bubble can get bigger. The push to have a MENA category, in fact, began not with grassroots pressure but was the result of a small group of Arab-American activists actively campaigning in their communities to first, get people to stop checking “white”, and second, to ask for a new category. I’ve also, anecdotally, met Moroccan and Algerian Americans who aren’t traditional academic activists – like cab drivers or barbers – and who still have strong feelings about claiming Amazigh identity or Arab identity and there are splits within families on this question too. I don’t know if this says anything about a real difference between North Africans in America and those in Europe and North Africa.
I appreciate your responses and apologize for my tardiness in replying. I’m trying to consider how much I buy the idea I mentioned of the smaller groups getting subsumed under an Arab-dominated MENA label in relation to the US government and how it could be addressed. I’ll admit I’m biased to accept it based on my social circle.
I hope they can work out various kinks with the current proposal – it seems they mix up national and ethnic terms a bit, like Algerian and Berber – to make it more accurate and neutral and prevent their fears from coming to pass. From my own academic-y background, I’m interested by the dynamic of what Americans do indeed regard as a sub-group reacting against their larger or more visible group. I’m also interested by the unclear distinctions often made in the media between Arab and Muslim-based groups and leaders and how that effects who the Census and government eventually end up listening to or ignoring.
I agree that this would be the ideal way to ask the questions. However, the government is still going to have to sort the data, and grouping questions will just get moved to that phase, which doesn’t necessarily help. For example, in 2010 there was an “Other Race” option, and Arab-American activists have claimed that people who selected this option and wrote in a category associated with MENA were re-coded as white.
Whites have a “box” and in the 2020 Census they may be able to write in a national origin. In the example I linked to earlier, “Irish” was given as an example.
I would think so, more numbers and older.
they seem to do this in the region, so I can not expect different habits chez eux.
I think this is silly and fantasy thinking that if they split themselves away that the american government will not lump them anyway and that they will care about them with small numbers.
Agitating maybe for documentary note in the government documentation that MENA “may include…” and list beside Arab other ethnic identities could be realistic. But the idea that being little stand alone ethnic confettis is advantageous is to me the typical academic activists lack of realism.
I think they are fantasising.
Either you have the population numbers (and then the organization) for the central government to care or you do not.
Already for the Berber it is my practical experience (excepting the Algerian kabyle who have specific politics) that only a very small minority identify in the way the activists do, while most have a fluid flow between the Berber and the ‘Arab’ (or Maghrebi). I prefer Maghrebi and the term Arab Maghreb annoys me, but not something I would be ‘activist’ about.
Activist academic weirdos.
Well yes as you say, they can do some good (although also bad, the adoption by the Moroccans authorities of the Tifinagh - which only the academic activists weirdos even knew about - as the writing for the Berber is a disaster).
yes there are splits within families.
The islamist leaning tend to say arab due to the Islamist tendency to look to the Saudi or the Gulf and idealize an arab-gulf orientation.
The majority I think are fluid, but identify against the Big Families, for Morocco it is the Fassis (the Fes, often Andalous Fes origin) and for Tunisia, the Soussei for example. then of course even in the Moroccan dialect we have a term for stupid, rude, uncultured people: 3aroubi - so that tells you something.
I can see in North america there could be a dynamic where the dominant Arab culture reference is the Middle Eastern (Sham or Egypt) and this can annoy and rub the wrong way the Maghrebis since we’re quite different in reality (as I always say to Europeans you do not expect the Russians in Moscow to be the same culture as the English in London although they are “Christian” in culture…, so why do you think the Moroccan in Casa is the same culture as the Saudi in Riyadh, it is the similar distance).
It seems to me the natural regional affiliation is Arab dominated relative to the US immigration so there is no way to define this away. It is better for them to agitate for recognition that reminds rather than trying to set themselves up as little statistical confettis.
I assume this is simply confusion.
such confusion is on display constantly here, indeed right now on this board, so no surprise.