Not really. It’s starting out with the larger definition and then gives examples of what might also fail in that larger category. If **Dr Deth **was correct, there would be no definition other than: Put down whatever you want.
The purpose of the definition is to give people some sense of what the government is trying collect information about.
You get counted as “White” if you check the box “White” (per the definition prior), OR if you write in Irish or German or Lebanese or something else like that. They are telling you that they are allowing you to call yourself any number of things (like Irish), but if you do, they are ultimately going to lump you into one of 5 categories, not necessarily the one you chose (Irish -> White; Nigerian -> Black). If you read the blurb on race on page 2, it becomes clearer.
Well, yes. But under no circumstances do they consider you to be white if you write in black. It’s not simply methodology: according to their definition, “black” includes EVERYONE who indicates their race as black. It is by definition impossible to indicate your race as black and not be black.
Once I decided to give blood at one of those mobile blood vans that you see sometimes in random parking lots. Before I rolled up my sleeve, the lady pulled out her clipboard and started asking me the usual questions. Then we came to the “race” checkbox and she started checking the white box before I stopped her.
That’s got to be the first time in my life that’s ever happened. I’ve had people not guess that I’m black, but that’s because they assume I’m Hispanic or biracial (or Samoan…I’ll never forget that one). No one has ever thought I was a white person.
Except for this lady. Who, based on her accent and physical appearance, was likely from a Latin American country. I’m guessing she identified as white, despite not looking “white” to me. And I’m guessing that she saw my African ancestry in my phenotype,but knew, based on her rubric, that my features didn’t preclude “whiteness”. Perhaps in her native country, there are plenty of folks walking around with my skin coloring and cheekbones who believe themselves to be “white”.
Whiteness really is the most made-up group of them all. Not black. The reason why a person usually has to have such little African ancestry to get pegged as “American white” has less to do with how we’ve defined “black” and more to do with how we’ve defined “white.”
Conservative white people (like some of the whites in this thread) playing gate-keeper of racial categories is nothing new. They used to get het up if the racially ambiguous “passed” as white, because OMG THEY ARE TRYING TO STEAL ADVANTAGES THEY DON’T DESERVE!! Now, they get het up in if the racially ambigious identify as black because OMG THEY ARE TRYING TO STEAL ADVANTAGES THEY DON’T DESERVE. One day I believe they’re going to come after folks like me. If we say we’re black, they’re going to demand an explanation. After all, we don’t really look like we’re straight out of Africa and we SPEAK SO WELL. They’re going to say we must identify as black so we can get something…like those secret Affirmative Action/slave reparation welfare checks Obama has been passing out.
What am I saying? They’ve already started doing this shit. There are still tons of white people who think President Obama is being “racially divisive” everytime he mentions his black identity, and that he pretends he doesn’t have a white mother and grandparents just so he can milk his brown complexion for all its worth.
I don’t care if they are white or black. Racial gate-keepers are the epitome of stupid.
But there is a distinction in the way the information is collected, and what the government is expecting it to mean. You get to self-identify as anything you like (although there might be some confusion if you check “Black” and write in “German”, for instance). They are essentially counting on people to give an honest assessment, and not fuck with the system by checking “Asian” when you know your ancestors came from Europe.
So they take al this self-reported data, and put into 5 different buckets, that are defined per that PDF. This document is probably clearer on how the definitions came about whereas the other document I linked to was more about what they do with the information once they get it. But in the end, the government is clearly expecting that it is collecting data about “black” people, where “black” is defined as “A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be used in addition to “Black or African American.”” And for “white”, it means “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.”. Scroll down to about 4/5 of the way to the bottom, where it says “Categories and Definitions”.
Like I said upthread, self-reporting seems to be working pretty well. If, however, some large segment of society tried to game the system by claiming some other race that they did not really believe they were (racial trolling, if you will), we’d see self-reporting go out the window faster than you can say Cablinasian.
Also a few pages back (I am too lazy to look right now, sorry) I noticed someone saying people “passing” as white never happens anymore… all of my friends know I am half black, but no one at my work does, because I have had to let some racist comments my boss made about black people slide because he’s the owner’s son and I have no recourse. This would be considered “passing” in any sense of the term I suppose. I always wonder how people would KNOW how many people are passing? By definition if they are “passing” you won’t KNOW, amirite?
Similarly to how horrible white people are at telling when people are biracial unless they have curly hair and butterscotch skin. Black people are much more adept at telling, and much more accepting when you state what you are-white people always want to declare what someone ELSE is for some bizarre reason.
I really don’t get why these people whose background might not match their claimed background makes any difference at a wider societal scale-those are their personal choices which have nothing to do with my personal choices.
It’s certainly true that the categories of white and black don’t translate well between the US and many Latin American countries. Partly, there is widespread denial about blackness in much of Latin America (Louse Gates did a whole program on this once-- fascinating in that I never knew about this before). But also what you are reporting, which is that “white” can mean “skin not so dark and hair not so curly”. Brazil certainly comes to mind.
That’s sounds like an awful position to be in. Hopefully you won’t be stuck int hat position too long!
I’ve heard this before on this MB, and it makes sense. Black people have always had to have more of a sense of solidarity in the US than whites did. Plus, given our segregated society, most white people don’t live near and regularly interact with the full range of black people you’re going to find in areas that are predominantly black in the US.
Race is a human construct, they are roughly equivalent to having a genetic test to see if you are a Browns fan because you have similar genetic markers as people who are from Cleveland.
(missed my quote button this was related to genetic testing)
I’m betting there is a big overlap in the people who assume that no one passes as white any more and the people who assume that racism and racial discrimination are things of the past.
Passing takes on different dimensions today, that’s all. When everything in society was segregated and people were literally forced to walk around with papers, a racially ambigious person had to make a conscious decision whenever they were presented with a “choice”. Passing was a deliberate act. Today, it is a more passive (hehe) thing. You can fool people without trying to, without even knowing that people are being “fooled”. Because no one ever walks into a room and says “I’m a big ole darkie!” And no one ever says, “I see you there, you big ole darkie!”
But that’s the only difference. There are still enough people who don’t like “the blacks” that it makes sense not to shout one’s racial identity from the rooftops if you have the choice.
About white people not grokking “biracial” very well, this has also been my experience. But what I’ve noticed is that white folks tend to think anyone with light-skinned is biracial. Like Sinbad. When I see Sinbad, I don’t see “ooh, biracial!”. I see a light-skinned black guy, with parents who could be similarly complected, the complete opposite, or everything in between.
In my experience, a black person is not as likely to automatically guess “biracial” when they see yellowish skin. It’s not just the skin. Or the hair. There are a bunch of tells.
When we say that race is a social construct, that just means that there is no single scientific way of dividing up our species into races. You can slice and dice any number of ways, and so there isn’t one objective way to do it. If I were to say “there are only 5 races in the world”, I could be proven wrong by any number of folks who come up with other, equally valid schemes.
However, that does NOT mean that whatever scheme we do come up with is completely disconnected to genetics. Especially in an “artificial country” like the US (see my post upthread).
Well… actually the census bureau is presumably expecting that people will fill out the forms in all manners of way and that their data will have a variety of uses. They hope that the data has some grounding in social reality, but that’s about it. From your .pdf, I add emphasis. [INDENT]1. The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standards should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in reference. Race and ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry.
Respect for individual dignity should guide the processes and methods for collecting data on race and ethnicity; ideally, respondent self-identification should be facilitated to the greatest extent possible, recognizing that in some data collection systems observer identification is more practical.
To the extent practicable, the concepts and terminology should reflect clear and generally understood definitions that can achieve broad public acceptance. [/INDENT] There are a total of 13 points covering this hot potato. I’m glad they’ve kept at it: data on race has been collected at least since the 1800s and it would be a shame to interrupt the series. This site summarizes the situation as, “The Census Bureau collects race data according to U.S. Office of Management and Budget guidelines, and these data are based on self-identification,” though that’s just a summary.
It also alludes to the fact that in the 1800s people would refer to the Irish race, the Scandinavian race, etc. Also that biologists don’t typically use racial classifications with other animals. Social scientists use race as a concept all the time though.
The whole way we use the term “biracial” is screwy. Excluding recent immigrants from Africa, every black person in the US is biracial. But we’ve created this strange new racial category (African-American) which encompasses everyone from the guy who is 80% white to the gal who is 10% white as long as both of their parents are also African-American. We tend to only call someone like Obama biracial, when someone like Louis Gates is pretty much the same, genetically (that is, ~50% African, 50% European).
It should be no surprise that black people generally have more experience with other black people than whites generally do, so it should also be no surprise that the former or more attuned to nuances in family history. Not sure why that is particularly remarkable.
I expand this philosophy to the subject of racism and racial discrimination (of black people, at least) as a whole – in general, black Americans understand racism and racial discrimination (against black people certainly, and probably more broadly as well) much, much better than white Americans, in my view.
Yes, the data is collected based on self-identification. But they are required to collect info about certain races, and those races are defined in the at 1997 document. When you think about it, how else could they do this? Stick pencils in peoples hair and see fi they fall out (one of the racial tests they used to use in South Africa)? In the US, we no longer have any legal way to force people into racial categories, but that does not mean we don’t use racial categories with their own definitions.
As most browns fans are from the Cleveland area, due to their poor performance. It is closer than you think as most brown fans were born in the area.
It is how we as humans treat others based on arbitrary traits that is unconscionable and ridiculous. Outside of bolstering some smear campaign, which only distracts from real issues of the BLM movement, Shaun King taking a test would accomplishing anything.
Outside of speculative theories of human history how does it relate to artificially restricting job opportunities or increased police contact or any racist actions by individuals, organizations or the state.
Institutional bigotry doesn’t care if your grandfather 100 generations removed was born in X, they care if they an shove you in their artificial out-groups based scientifically insignificant cosmetic differences.
So how about coming back with a cite that the various makeup of your recent ancestors genetic material means squat when it comes to advocating for reduced institutional bigotry?
Yes. But keep in mind that we were talking about “biracial” people. That term usually is applied to people with parents of different races. Such a person can self-identify as African-American, but I think monstro was using the term to mean “parents of different races”, and I was responding in that context.