when in doubt, ask the internets!

[kaigou]

ETA3: the comments are where it's really happening in this post -- the more comments there are, the less the above post really applies, since it's the discussion that's helping me clarify and articulate better ways to approach the goal I've got in mind.

Without getting into why I'd be asking such a bizarre question, I could really use extra eyeballs. My predominant exposure to the whole "what race are you" question is via the random HR-says-the-govt-wants-this stuff for diversity hiring, and in the US census, the latter of which is admittedly US-centric (well, duh, being the national census). But if you had a "identify your race" question AND the potential respondents are from all over the globe, well, then, centric is not so good.

So I have this list, which is a bit more than the usual in terms of what races are listed, but it seems a bit fairer to me:

Americas-Native
Arab/Middle-Eastern
Black/African
Hispanic/Latino
Northeast Asian
Oceanian
Pacific Islander
Southeast Asian
European/Caucasian

Can anyone think of an option I'm missing, or maybe can see where two should be combined? That is, if the distinction here is one that would be unfamiliar and thus even more confusing than trying to be fair.

Not to mention things like this always make me think: what if you're a member of the indigenous population -- is "americas/native" really the only option, so if you're, say, an Aborigine, then you pick "Oceanian" and hope that this isn't code for "click this if you live here, even if you're descended from white people who got sent here because some judge thought manual labor was good for the soul". I mean, if it's not obvious to everyone reading the list that the intention is (if not in so many words) to get an idea of what you LOOK like -- not WHERE you ended up -- then, okay.

But still, it just seems that indigenous populations are, in a way, their own kind of sub-set of race, and the local/domestic environment usually makes a very clear distinction between the native peoples and the main population, and to put them all together ignores the impact of this racial/sub-racial conflict. Frex, the fact that Sami and Swedish look very similar to me, but apparently most Swedes can spot, and discriminate against, a Sami at ten yards, easy -- just because as an outsider I think "gee, all you north europeans look alike!" doesn't mean that there aren't racial tensions, and doesn't mean that the former isn't a very much marginalized group, with all the difficulties that entails, who don't deserve the indignity of being lumped in with the majority population just to make it easier on some person with a list of checkboxes.

ETA: look! picture! maybe this'd work better... except this does require/expect you to have some idea of "where you came from" if you're not native to your region. I've met a fair number of black Americans whose family history only goes back so far... and before that, to know where in Africa their families came from? short of DNA testing, it's a big mystery -- so naming a region, especially on a map, might feel like you're being mocked for not-knowing, as though you're "supposed" to know. And that's not fair to anyone, and I sure wouldn't want to make someone feel like that.

So that said, maybe at least the map can be a starting place:



...but we're still sitting in the spot of conflating "ethnicity", "citizenship", and "race" -- when the three aren't always the same or even all that related. The first is your culture (at the most base level), the second is what name's on your passport, and the third is the color of your skin and what your eyes look like. To be really blunt.

Oww, I'm making my own head hurt.

---

I mean, in the US, our concept of race is really rather simplistic -- black, white, yellow, red, to be crude -- but there's a lot more to it than that. I just lack a good template for how to go about incorporating the "more than that" part.

Thoughts?

ETA2: as part of my attempt to get out from under simplified-US understanding... is it true that the Welsh are considered an indigenous population, or at least treated as (somewhat?) racially distinct from Anglo-Saxon, by most Brits? Just curious.

Comments

[whatistigerbalm]

Central and South Asian seem to be missing. I'd also separate African into several categories but I'm not sure what terms to use other than the north, west, etc. Or would you incorporate North African under Middle Eastern?

[kaigou]

Apparently "north african" is usually considered part of "middle eastern", based on the lists I'd found so far. But see, now, there's map! ... and that raises entire issues on its own, specifically for black citizens of the US whose family came here by way of slave ship. Hell, for that matter, any major population who arrived at a shore and had no way to retain family knowledge of their past -- at least with a broad question you can say, "well, I look like people who live there, so I'll pick that," but the more the question gains details (like Central vs North vs South vs etc), the more it can become baffling, upsetting, even offensive to feel like you're being put on the spot because you just don't know which part of goddamn Africa or Asia or whatever that you should be clicking on.

And, like I've said above, I'd really hate to make a person feel like that, but the simple fact is that race does impact our lives. Sheesh, maybe I should just go for blunt and ask people to pick a skin color!? ...no, that's probably not much help. But still.

On the other hand, maybe this is one reason the US census still has so few boxes, given just how much of this nation is composed of immigrants (and how many of us came here, at one point or another, unwillingly or just plain with nothing but clothes on our backs). Hmmm... *snaps out of it* Woah, for a second there I was almost feeling sympathy for US civil servants! Excuse me, I need chocolate.

[whatistigerbalm]

even offensive to feel like you're being put on the spot because you just don't know which part of goddamn Africa or Asia or whatever that you should be clicking on

I admit, I tend to -- well, not forget about this, but seeing how the legacy of colonialism is a whole other world to me (yes, even though it impacts all of the globe) I think first of the people who live (roughly) where their ancestors lived, and then I remember the issues of in/voluntary migration. Which is a longwinded way to say: point taken!
But I do feel like there is simply no way for this questionnaire to exist in a single form globally; you can't ask people in the US anything more specific than the broadest definitions of race as they already exist in official ticky-lists, and at the same time - like you said - you can't apply US definitions to anywhere else either. I can't imagine people throughout Africa being pleased with having only one box while Asia gets several, etc.

[kaigou]

Actually, what's bizarre is that the UN map -- which is mostly, it seems, based on geographical sub-regions and not necessarily racial regions, in which case China alone would have like fifty-something seeing how many indigenous and sub-cultural groups they have, and the US and Japan both have reservations and... wow, we'd be here all day.

But except for the "eastern europe" thing, which I suspect is really the UN saying "this is all Russia so, uhm, Eastern Europe! even if half of it's Northern Asia" -- the part that gets me the most is the North America thing, as others have pointed out. Greenland and Iceland may be geographically part of North America but they're totally distinct when it comes to race, ethnicity, culture... So I'm thinking maybe I need to do a bit of manip and break the Americas into a few more parts, too. Just to be fair.

Or MAYBE I should go stick my head in a bucket of ice water.