Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States census/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

On the question of merging

I suggest we do NOT merge this article with Ethnicity (US Census). They are two distinct categories on the Census, and they deserve different articles--Citynoise 17:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree for no merger because they are not the same.--Dark Tichondrias 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree for no merger. It'd make more sense to merge with Indianapolis 500. ClairSamoht 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are we even having this discussion? Why can't we just leave it as is, and leave the race issue alone!

Given the overwhelming response in favor of merging, I've removed the merge template from the article page. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Department of Anonymous Contributions

I believe race to be a socially constructed term that we should examine further. I would like to know what people in this borad consider "race"? Is it the color of your skin? Is it that your lips are fuller than other people's? What do people consider "ethnicity"? I am asking because I am doing a dissertation on the topic. Don't you all think that before we can decide who belongs where we should define what is "race"? The US Census and the government in general have always gotten things wrong, mainly because they do not care about these issues, like identity formation and the "racialization" of society. Whenever I fill a form and get asked my race I go with the first thing I see: a "white" skin. My ethnicity: Puerto Rican. My citizenship: American (I HAVE American citizenship, I was born with it, but I am NOT American -is a distinction I make). I try to avoid terms such as Hispanic and Latino whenever possible. However, Latin Americans tend to call themselves "Latinos" as a unifying force outside the USA. If you ask Latin Americans in their countries (not in the US) what do they call themselves as a big group they will say "Latinos". However, this is not the same term as "Latinos/Hispanics" in the USA. I believe the terms "race" and "ethnicity" are separate terms that have to be defined and refined further.

Older comments

An anon user added the following to the US government definition. It is also partly inaccurate (the census allowed one to check off multiple categories).

Persons with origins in Western/Central Asia/Eastern Europe may belong here, unless they are east of the Indian subcontinent or from the Far East. This category however excluded European peoples with Spanish or Latin origin. (see some other race below and the separate Hispanic orgin question)

---

See Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Disambiguation_Bot_.2F_Rambot_data for discussion about linking to this page. --Jiang 03:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I presume writing in "Indian" is "Some other race"? Joestynes 08:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the guidelines, an Indian would be considered Asian. --b. Touch 21:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it depends. As I understand it, if the respondent checks "some other race" and then writes down something that fit into one of the other categories, it still gets recorded as "some other race" so that the census isn't interpreting on behalf of the person. It might work differently if the form is being completed by a face-to-face enumerator interview; I'm not sure on that one because I only worked on the 1990 census, where this question wasn't structured this way. Lawikitejana 03:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Colored soldiers existed

The US Army is a vital part of the US Government. Colored men fought in the War of the Rebellion. John Eaton (General) commanded colored soldiers in 1863, because there were no "Blacks" in the United States until the Democrats introduced the word in 1960. TooPotato 20:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

What does this comment have to do with this article? The article does not mention the Army or the Civil War. — Mateo SA | talk 21:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Negro

I reverted several edits together whose purpose seems to have been the elimination of the word "Negro". I understand that some people may not like this word, but it seems to be fact that this word was used during the Census. So, I've restored the word. John Reid 06:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnote

I rm the text Black people are the only group represented without the description of "original".

This was added by an anon who seems to edit confrontationally. The text itself appears to mean nothing particular; if one construes it to refer to the Census Bureau's definitions, which employ the words origin and original, the text is not factual; and in any case, it seems to have nothing to do with any footnote. John Reid 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But it IS relevant. If it has no particular meaning, it wouldn't be in the other racial descriptions. If it's not factual, it has no purpose in being in there at all. It should be noted because it irritates and offends many black Americans. Me being chief. No I was not the anonymous poster. But I 2nd his complaint. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, i checked that, and guess what, it looks like I AM the one who contributed to that. I am the confrontational editor. I will be sure to put this on my page. Thank you. I will always confront hypocricy and double-standards. John Reid, i salute you! --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

Come here mainly from the US Census articles. Most of them are piped through a redirect of the form [[Somerace (U.S. Census)|Somerace]] where Somerace is a redirect with possibilites to here. Some of them have been un-redirected to [[Race (U.S. Census)|Somerace]] as this article then (I assume) was. Is it worth changing them bach to the redirects with possibilities? Rich Farmbrough 14:54 25 March 2006 (UTC).

one problem

Most East Russsians are Far eastern not white

Another Problem

How South Asians are under the "Asian" list when most people from this region are caucasiod? Zachorious 21:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

'cause they're from Asia :) --Lukobe 22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So are Southwest Asians ;). How they are not classified as Asians as well? How about Asian Russians? Zachorious 01:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question...well, as you know, the US government isn't perfect :) --Lukobe 04:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah many Asians are also negroid, and so are many North Africans, but we aren't going to listen to that either will we.

Also many groups of East Indians numbering well over a hundred million are negroid in appearance. Tamil, Siddi, Dravidians, the various "shudra" and the underclass. Caucasoid is a very nebulous term. People from Rwanda Africa are classified as Caucasoids, and having a caucasoid looking skull doesn't necessarily mean you came from Viking or Indo-European ancestors. Caucasoid is a term used nowadays to hype up "whiteness" so it can be more appealing to those who are neither white nor black. It's a way to help keep the white race numberically high. By the time our grandchildren die, white and caucasoids will be more statistically more similar to bi-racial (black/white) children than to 12th century dutchmen. Anyway why would anyone clamour to be reclassified as white? Get off it. Your Asian, you're not white, you will never be white. If you are wanting to be white. then stop wanting to be. I don't see whites clamouring to want to be non-white Asians! --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No actually South Indians are classified as Caucasion as well. The only difference is skin color (being closer to the equator). 97% of all Indians (both North and South) belong to a caucasoid race of the mediterranean sub-branch. [1] Also in America Russians, and Southwest Asians (Middle Easterners) are classified as caucasion, despite being Asian themselves. So race classifications often contradict themselves. The whole idea that South Indians are distinct negroid race was an idea invented by British Colonialists. [2]There was no radically different race in the South. Tamils ARE Caucasians, but they obviously aren't white. Indians are no more Viking than Italians. your ignorance is so obvious here. CAUCASIAN DOESN'T MEAN WHITE! At least do some research before you post. Indians aren't white. The whole term of white has been used to describe even Chinese in the past. White in this case is irrevelent. No one wants be reclassified as white, you are totally missing the point. Zachorious 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Original

You guys like how our government uses the word "original" to describe all of the races except the black race? Black folks aren't worthy enough to be respected as coming from "original" people of Africa. No, black people come from black (not simply original humans from a particular region). --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You're working from an erronious assumption. They use "original" to distinguish people whose families lived an area 1000 years ago from people whose families immigrated since. There are no "original whites", "original blacks" or "original asians" because those populations didn't exist 1000 years ago in the areas where the Census Bureau does their enumerations. The groups living 1000 years ago in the 50 states were polynesians in Hawaii, aleuts in alaska, indians in the contiguous 48 states. If the Census Bureau was doing enumerations in subsaharan Africa, they would probagbly be using a term like "original subsaharan Africans" (to distinguish the black africans from the semitic africans of northern Africa), and the white population of South Africa would be the ones lacking an "original" label. ClairSamoht 23:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What about people who refused to answer the question?

I am sure there were at least SOME people who refused to answer the question and who said that a government in a supposedly democratic country has no business whatsoever asking such questions and compiling such statistics. I wonder how were these people registered. Adam Keller 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ans: The interviewer is told to make their best guess or whatever the majority of the household is they are automatically.

Hey. I´ve read that Portuguese and Spanish(maybe others South Europeans) aren´t cosidered white and should list Spanish/Hispanic/Latino. Let us presume that I´m Portuguese. I ain´t Spanish, I don´t know if I´m Hispanic, but I´m Latino. Can i list latino, or that is just for people who speak spanish or are spaniards?mvncvffjkbgh

The Spanish and Portuguese are white peoples, because they hail from Europe. Anyone that is white or a Caucasoid is from Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, or their descendents (which many from the Americas, Australlia, and South Africa are).The term Hispanic refers to people from Spain or their direct descendants (many from Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile). The term latino refers to anyone that is a national or direct desendent from a Latin Country (which includes France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania, and Moldova). In the US, the terms Hispanic and Latino are incorrectly used as labels to label many people, especially those that arn't direct descendants of Spain or Latin Countries, but instead just speak the Spanish language and claim Spanish or Latin heritage. Casey14 21:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to become a mixture of discussing the article, which addresses how the CENSUS handles "race," and a discussion of how different people view race or how the government should (or shouldn't) handle this issue. With respect to the census, if a person is filling out the forms himself/herself, then Portuguese or Spanish (Spaniard) respondents get to decide for themselves what "race(s)" and/or ethnicities to claim, if any. Lawikitejana 03:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No numbers

I came here looking for percentages, and found only definitions.

Five Races?!

There are only four: European, African, Asian and Australian (there may be two subraces: Arabian and Indian). The earliest colonists in the New World just happened to have come from the Pacific, so why aren't the New World's Atlantic colonists taken into consideration? What a flawed presentation of race, with anachronistic and obsolete depictions that haven't made sense since the Age of Discovery! This is outdated. IP Address 05:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to argue that American Indians come from across the Pacific, I'll remind you that we *all* came from Africa originally. ClairSamoht 23:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Making the ARTICLE better

What a horrible article. The chart is utterly meaningless to someone not versed in all these connections.

How about a simple pie chart showing the racial makeup of the USA? And if we think "ethnicity" is different, then one for that.

As it is we have a bizzaro table that is impossible for the novice to read.

One of the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of how anyone here views the issue of "race" personally or professionally ... the article would benefit from addition of a mention of research material showing that the "some other race" category was used almost exclusively by people who answered "yes" to the Hispanic/Latino question. It's an informative area of research that isn't presently in the article. I'm at the wrong computer to add it myself (it's all saved on my laptop), but if someone else has it handy or wants to look it up, by all means, let's get it in there. Lawikitejana 04:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Languages

I just noticed that there are two links for two similar Spanish articles. I just flagged the two articles on the Spanish wikipedia so hopefully we'll narrow it down to one article. Please leave the two up for the time being. Thank you. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 2: Tucker, Kojetin, and Harrison

Footnote 2 supports the following sentence:

The racial terms used on the 2000 US Census reflect the most preferred terms used for the group of people they include by majority consensus

However, the document is published in 1996, and specifically concludes with the following:

This CPS Supplement represents only one in a series of studies to be conducted by the Federal government that will concern the measurement of race and ethnicity. The Bureau of the Census is currently conducting two studies—the National Content Survey and the Race and Ethnicity Targeted Test—to prepare for Census 2000. Both of these studies test various ways of asking about race and ethnicity. The results of these efforts, along with the CPS supplement and other research will be evaluated carefully prior to any decision about Directive No. 15.

So this reference cannot support the sentence as written. We should find an appropriate reference. I have deleted the reference and replaced with {{citationneeded}}. I'm including the reference below.
Tucker, Clyde; Kojetin, Bryan and Roderick, Harrison. A Statistical Analysis of the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnic Origin. 1995. Accessed November 18, 2006.<http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gen/96arc/ivatuck.pdf>.
--ishu 06:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Tribal affiliation

I would have to disagree I myself am American Indian and am classified as such and I have absolutely no tribal affiliation. Not all Indians do.

This a weird process

If a Korean declares that he is a Korean, he will be ignored and called an "Asian." If a Negro declares that he is a Negro, he will be ignored and reported as being an "African American," even though when he deplores the term "African American." People's responses are simply ignored, thus there is no point in asking people to identify themselves. GhostofSuperslum 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you would be hard-pressed to find an African American who self-identifies as "Negro", these days.Self-identification is a flawed method, but race is a flawed concept, too. Technically, "Asian" includes Koreans. FilipeS 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that this is about the article, so I'll keep it short ... in the 1990 census, at least, there was a space under "Asian" (for example) in which the relevant nation could be identified. Lawikitejana 08:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sudan on the map

Interesting. The southern half of Sudan is in the black people zone and the north in the white people zone. It's the only country cut by the boundaries on this map. Seems strange, even if it does reflect Sudan's geographical racial reality. But um, how does the census categorize someone who simply answers that s/he is "Sudanese"? White? Black? From which part of Sudan do they assume that respondent is? SamEV 10:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

White

I have a problem with exclusively calling Caucasians 'white'. If African Americans are called African Americans, then I want 'whites' to be called Caucasian.

I hate being called a white man. I am North African Catholic, but don't label me as a white man! "White man" is an insulting term.

I myself would be very insulted if called "Caucasian", I'm white, nothing else. 81.230.84.102 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Write your congressman. FilipeS 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This Talk page is intended for discussing the article; no one here decides what the census calls people, but rather, Wikipedia simply describes what the census calls people.Lawikitejana 08:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the 'White' and 'African-American' categories. The government always has to change our names. We went from nigger, then to negro, to colored, to black, to African Americans. Why must our name suggest that America is not our home, when infact if it wasnt for slavery, America would be NOTHING!! Why arent whites called Eurpoean-Americans???? Also, I LOVE how the map shows North Africa as being considered 'white'. Since when were Eygptians considered to be white??

Hey! My brother-in-law is Egyptian, last I checked, he was White. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.195.17 (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See the official definitions of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. There's a link in the article. FilipeS 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This from the previous version

I suppose this can help clarify some questions, so I put it here.

Also, people from Mexico are not classified as American Indian in the United States, even though 90% of all Mexicans have partial or full Amerindian origins and 69% with partial or full white (mostly Spanish) origins they are not classified as white either.

Mexico by race

Population: 103,400,165 (July 2002 est.)

Multiracial (American Indian and Spanish) 60%

American Indian 30%

white 9%

other 1%

Mexicans do not generally maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. This could be a major reason they are not classified as American Indian in the United States. It is the only race category on the US Census where a person must maintain their tribal affiliation or community attachment to be classified by the race they are.

It is important to keep in mind that racial self-identifications on the US Census are optional categories that people select or choose not to select. In the case of Latinos, some choose Asian, Black, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American, or White for their race. Many would rather indicate a multiracial ancestry, but using terms different from those on the Census form, such as Mestizo and Mulatto. Some may actually be unsure of their racial origins. In the absence of any racial choice which fits their understanding of themselves, more than 40 percent of Latinos/as will check 'Other' for their race.

SamEV 03:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Australia?

Where does Australia sit in all of this? The map has it purple. Qaanaaq 05:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Writing in "Australian" gets you counted as white.----^DarkTea© 08:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

the map

According to {{2000 Race US Census map}}, people from Sudan are considered "white" in the US? Seriously?? Or did somebody just use the "bucket fill" tool inspired by our North Africa article? --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

in fact the very CIA Factbook gives Sudanese "ethnic groups" as "black 52%, Arab 39%, Beja 6%, foreigners 2%, other 1%" (by comparison, Egypt: "Egyptian 98%, Berber, Nubian, Bedouin, and Beja 1%"). I really doubt Sudan should remain in the "white" category (unless, of course, rock solid references are given). --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1990 US Census ancestry codes from the University of Michigan says Sudanese are blacks. I'll fix the map.----^DarkTea© 17:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Other example

Can we get an example of an "other" race? I understand that it's used by many people from South and Central America, but what do they put in the blank as the descriptor? I was under the impression that writing "Mexican" would get them automatically re-classified as a native of the Americas, even though they ticked the 'Other' box. And who else uses it? Jedi knights? WhatamIdoing 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Respondents providing write-in entries such as multiracial, mixed, interracial, Wesort, or a Hispanic/Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) in the "Some other race" category are included here." [3]

"Finally, the category Some Other Race, which is intended to capture responses such as Mulatto, Creole, and Mestizo, also has a write-in area." [4]

"These people were primarily of Hispanic origin, 90.4 percent or 16.8 million people, and many wrote in their Hispanic origin or Hispanic origin type (such as Mexican or Puerto Rican) as their race." [5]

"Respondents who provided write-in entries such as Moroccan, South African, Belizean, or a Hispanic origin (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) are included in the Some other race category." [6]

"In New York, about 52 percent of entries in the race comments field were non-specific Hispanic origins such as “Spanish”, “Hispanic” or “Latino”. Other specific Hispanic groups, such as Puerto Rican, Cuban or Dominican made up another three percent of responses. “Mestizo” was reported about five percent of the time and “Trigueno” about 1.4 percent of the time. About four percent of the race comments in were some form of the word “Mexican,” and South American groups (e.g. Ecuadorian, Brazilian, Colombian, and Peruvian) were found in about 4.5 percent of responses. Responses of “American,” “Human,” or “Person” occurred in almost six percent of the responses. Other notable responses in New York included “White,” “Indian,” “Egyptian,” and “Mixture”. In Georgia, almost half of the race comments were some form of the word “Mexican”. About 34 percent of responses were “Hispanic” and another three percent of responses were “Spanish” or “Latino”. “White” or “Caucasian” were reported about 2.7 percent of the time, and “American” or “Human” were reported over two percent of the time." [7]

"About 21% of Hispanics leave race blank in Census 2000 forms, compared to 31% in 1990-style forms. The already low missing rate of 1.5% for non-Hispanics is still lower in the Census 2000 form (.6%)." "The data hint at increased reporting as AIAN by Hispanics and reduced reporting by non- Hispanics in Census 2000 forms, but samples are too small to be sure." "The effects of questionnaire changes on Hispanic race reporting were fairly dramatic. Reporting as White increased 10 percentage points, and reporting as “Some Other Race” decreased by the same amount, in Census 2000 forms. This result reflects the “one or more” option and the reversal in item sequence, and is consistent with prior research." [8]

See also La Raza Cosmica. --JWB 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

PUMS Ancestry Codes and race

Currently the article has statements about the presumed race of people of certain ancestries, based on the first digit of a PUMS Ancestry Code. However, I don't see any reference saying that presumed race is computed based on the first digit of the PUMS Ancestry Code.

Most of the first digit groups of ancestry codes obviously include people of various races: 2 Hispanic including Spain and Latin America, 3 West Indies and other S America, 5 Sub-Saharan Africa including Afrikaner, 8 Australia, NZ, Pacific Islands, 9 N American including Afro American, Native American, Pennsylvania German. --JWB 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For the love of god, Filipe

Again, please read the sources before you edit. The document "Overview of race and Hispanic origin"[9] reads: "The OMB defines Hispanic or Latino as “a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.”". Do you notice the word "Latino" there? I hope so. The document "American Anthropological Association Response to OMB Directive 15"[10] reads: "...for many respondents, the concepts of race, ethnicity and ancestry are not clearly distinguished. Rather, respondents view race, ethnicity and ancestry as one and the same." "View", as in "see", not "saw". I have no patience for your attitude. SamEV (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, it's not my fault that you can't write proper English. No need to get your panties all tied up in a knot over that. FilipeS (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Filipe, I don't know what your problem is, but in English, "they view" is more akin to "they see" than to "they saw". Perhaps you should consult with an English major. Good day. SamEV (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)