And many people don't understand that and aren't bothered to understand that there are fine-grained differences in discrimination in these cultures.
I think it's both really cultural and also really hard to identify if you're not in the middle of it. I mean, from any sort of distance (whether this be from outside or because you're looking down from the top), oh, [insert slightly annoyed tone here because I hate this kind of attitude:] there's not that much difference, why are you so stressed about it? Which, I think, might be part of the reason there's little distinction in the census, frankly -- because as long as white men are the majority voice making the decisions, it really is a case of "all you people look alike" and there'll be little need seen to make even a rudimentary attempt at distinctions. Basically, everyone who's at the bottom is the same color of dirt, seen from ten miles up in the White Man clouds.
And since I guess my gender (and a few other things) put me at about eight miles up, I may be able to see a few more details but I still can't really say (nor am I comfortable making any guesses) how things are differentiated. Seems to me the fairest way then is to make it as equitable as possible so that the people in question can select what best fits them, rather than squeezing into my shoeboxes -- but at the same time, I only have so much room, so I'm aiming for a compromise that will keep things at least somewhat succinct.
Anyway.
What I want is to be able to break bunches of replies into groups: those voices in the global/western/white paradigm, those who are part of their local dominant paradigm (ie Japanese in Japan) but not the global paradigm, and those who are marginalized/indigenous or minority within their local AND global. That is:
white person in Britain: global YES, local YES, margin NO Chinese person in Hong Kong: global NO, local YES, margin NO white person in Tokyo: global YES, local NO, margin NO Aborigine in Sydney: global NO, local NO, margin YES
Obviously this wouldn't get enough detail to measure, say, the experience of a Navajo living in Singapore, but it's probably about as comparatively close as I could get, to just be able to say "the experience of being a marginalized indigenous person in Finland, under institutionalized racism, bears a similarity to the experience of a Navajo in Arizona and an Ainu in Japan that links the disparate groups such that their experience of being marginalized and disenfranchised within their local majority population may influence similar perspectives on X topic."
I'm wondering if maybe a better way to go about it is by asking a series of questions, and all of them (except the one yes/no) being "check all that apply" kind of situations -- one for "racial history, or if not sure, pick where the native population looks the most like you" (ugh ugh I don't know what to do there) -- and one for ethnicity, as in "culture that has greatest impact on you" and one for actual residency. And then a final yes/no as to whether you're a member of an indigenous population that is native to where you reside (ie Navajo in the US, non-Han in China -- as opposed to non-Han in Chicago or Ainu in Brazil).
*stares at page*
Maybe I should just go paint the bedroom... but I do appreciate you letting me figure this out. I just don't like making people feel like they might get a chance to specify who-they-are, so they're not just "lumped in" or something, and then disappointing them all over again with something that doesn't come close. So if you have any ideas on how a series of questions could triangulate into what is basically: "are you part of the (perceived) global majority, that is, White Culture" and "are you majority of where you live" or "are you minority of where you live" or "are you among the marginalized original citizens of where you live"...?
no subject
Date: 14 May 2010 10:44 pm (UTC)I think it's both really cultural and also really hard to identify if you're not in the middle of it. I mean, from any sort of distance (whether this be from outside or because you're looking down from the top), oh, [insert slightly annoyed tone here because I hate this kind of attitude:] there's not that much difference, why are you so stressed about it? Which, I think, might be part of the reason there's little distinction in the census, frankly -- because as long as white men are the majority voice making the decisions, it really is a case of "all you people look alike" and there'll be little need seen to make even a rudimentary attempt at distinctions. Basically, everyone who's at the bottom is the same color of dirt, seen from ten miles up in the White Man clouds.
And since I guess my gender (and a few other things) put me at about eight miles up, I may be able to see a few more details but I still can't really say (nor am I comfortable making any guesses) how things are differentiated. Seems to me the fairest way then is to make it as equitable as possible so that the people in question can select what best fits them, rather than squeezing into my shoeboxes -- but at the same time, I only have so much room, so I'm aiming for a compromise that will keep things at least somewhat succinct.
Anyway.
What I want is to be able to break bunches of replies into groups: those voices in the global/western/white paradigm, those who are part of their local dominant paradigm (ie Japanese in Japan) but not the global paradigm, and those who are marginalized/indigenous or minority within their local AND global. That is:
white person in Britain: global YES, local YES, margin NO
Chinese person in Hong Kong: global NO, local YES, margin NO
white person in Tokyo: global YES, local NO, margin NO
Aborigine in Sydney: global NO, local NO, margin YES
Obviously this wouldn't get enough detail to measure, say, the experience of a Navajo living in Singapore, but it's probably about as comparatively close as I could get, to just be able to say "the experience of being a marginalized indigenous person in Finland, under institutionalized racism, bears a similarity to the experience of a Navajo in Arizona and an Ainu in Japan that links the disparate groups such that their experience of being marginalized and disenfranchised within their local majority population may influence similar perspectives on X topic."
I'm wondering if maybe a better way to go about it is by asking a series of questions, and all of them (except the one yes/no) being "check all that apply" kind of situations -- one for "racial history, or if not sure, pick where the native population looks the most like you" (ugh ugh I don't know what to do there) -- and one for ethnicity, as in "culture that has greatest impact on you" and one for actual residency. And then a final yes/no as to whether you're a member of an indigenous population that is native to where you reside (ie Navajo in the US, non-Han in China -- as opposed to non-Han in Chicago or Ainu in Brazil).
*stares at page*
Maybe I should just go paint the bedroom... but I do appreciate you letting me figure this out. I just don't like making people feel like they might get a chance to specify who-they-are, so they're not just "lumped in" or something, and then disappointing them all over again with something that doesn't come close. So if you have any ideas on how a series of questions could triangulate into what is basically: "are you part of the (perceived) global majority, that is, White Culture" and "are you majority of where you live" or "are you minority of where you live" or "are you among the marginalized original citizens of where you live"...?