I agree with this. We can start with Vital Statistics and the Census. There is no reason why the government, local or federal, needs to know what ethnicity I am. Stop asking me to tell my race on applications, standardized exams, and to get a license. Stop police officers from writing whether they think I’m black or not after a traffic stop, and prevent doctors from putting what they think my race is on my medical file and let me designate what ethnicity I am. Perhaps the reason we’re fixated on ethnicity because the government is always hounding us darkies to reveal our ethnicity at every roadbend.
Because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required redistricting to correct the gerrymandering used to disenfranchise blacks in the South and elsewhere. Some states have taken it a step further (arguably) and specifically designed certain “majority minority” districts to ensure that specific racial or ethnic groups are represented.
Basically, if you aren’t drawing voting districts (which have to be redrawn frequently to reflect shifting demographics) to make sure minorities aren’t disenfranchised, somebody will be drawing them to make sure they are being disenfranchised, goes the thinking.
It’s a fairly controversial idea, especially in the South, where some states are still subject to preclearance - meaning the Justice Department has to approve any redistricting to make sure they aren’t deliberately marginalizing black people.
It’s also important in evaluating companies for racial discrimination. The racial/ethnic makeup of the staff should roughly reflect the racial/ethnic makeup of the surrounding population that might be expected to work at that particular place (after considering any relevant factors that might affect that.)
Example from when I worked at a pharma firm in central NJ. We had many “laboratory types” on staff in all sorts of roles. There is a huge number of Indians with the appropriate skill sets within say a half-hour commuting radius of the building. Consequently, we had many Indians working in the labs. If we had very few or no Indians there, then that would probably indicate discriminatory hiring practices.
You said “black people” instead of some silly multi-label. Just being silly myself.
As for the real gist of the discussion, I don’t care much what self labels people put on themselves. But I will reserve to myself the right to ignore what I consider to be over the top. (Such as French Blacks being referred to in an American newscast as African Americans.)
Gerrymandering might make an interesting GD thread …
Well, in truth, the law is there to protect black people, since they were the ones getting fucked. There are majority-minority districts for other ethnic and racial groups, though - certain Amerindian tribes, native Hawaiians, Chinese, and so on.
It’s simply a term adopted to separate the pre-existing Irish from those johnny-come-lately sorts who were dirty catholics.
I don’t know anyone who claims “Scotch” as an ancestry.
(nb: note my ancestors showed up 1698-1700ish, in New Hampshire.)
Like we can’t find any porn on the net. Shucks, all I have to do is run a search engine for “french auto parts” and I get dozens of porn hits. For “french,” “parts,” and for “auto.” Unless I set the filters, of course. Then I get usedcitroenparts.com. Which is kind of a porn site …
:dubious: (maybe I just need more fiber in my diet)
