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

[kaigou]

My awareness/sensitivity to the Hispanic-Latino-Chicano-Spainard issue is due, actually, to a NY Times article a few months ago, I think it was, talking about how the census is really stifling in the way it really only allows for black, white, yellow, and red -- because it's erasing an entire range of people who are of South or Central American ancestry and wrapping them up as "white" even though the same people experience daily discrimination for NOT being "white". So it doesn't seem right that if I'm trying to get a sense of whether or not one considers oneself to be, basically, part of the "dominant paradigm" that I then skip an entire group of people who -- for all intents and purposes -- are NOT treated as part of the dominant paradigm, not in that everyday sense.

Basically, in what I'm measuring, I want to figure out if a group's perceptions and attitudes shift, the farther one moves away from the central/dominant "white" position -- which means also measuring in which direction that shift occurs: Asian, South European, Central American, First Nation, and so on.

Unless I just say to hell with it and ask people for skin tone, eye color, hair color, and whether they have an epicanthic fold... which just feels to me to be REALLY rude. Strange, hunh, that I can rationalize asking "where did your family come from, oh, maybe like twelve generations ago" but not ask bluntly, "would you consider yourself white/black/red/etc" ... cripes.

On the other hand -- yes, I know I'm making it harder on myself by trying to allow for a person's right to actually be listed on a damn list instead of feeling, once again, like they have to settle for "I guess this is the closest thing" -- but I think I'd rather make it harder on myself than be one more person reinforcing the notion that anyone doesn't deserve the respect of seeing themselves in a list of options. At least, that's what might make it worth it, to me.

D'ya think I should just go with the map, and maybe say: "pick the region where the majority population looks the most like you?"

[majoline]

Using the map for Hispanics might not tell you anything, unfortunately. Because it's a really big deal how much of anything you are and what those things are. And we're really good at being able to tell you're lying.

That is the problem. There are many racial tensions and they depend on: what you are (say, white with black hair Hispanic and black) and how much (3/4th white and 1/4th black)... and so on and so forth.

That makes a big difference how people are treated. A BIG DIFFERENCE.

And many people don't understand that and aren't bothered to understand that there are fine-grained differences in discrimination in these cultures. And I don't know how I would ask that, other than asking for your family background after they admitted their Hispanic-ness.

They are really missing the point in how they ask if you are Hispanic. Because not all of those catagories are the same level and can be mixed with other things. (and the upper-class Hispanics will discriminate against being too white, too blond, too redheaded, etc. also)

[kaigou]

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"...?

[majoline]

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"...?

That might actually be how you need to ask this!

Are you white and how? Are you among the majority population where you live? And what is that population? Are you marginalized despite being a member of the original population of the area you inhabit?

[kaigou]

Are you white and how?

The "how" is confusing to me -- what would be the answer/specifics you'd look for, in asking that question? I mean, are you saying the how is "because you pass for AngloSaxon/North European ancestry" or... something else?

[majoline]

"because you pass for AngloSaxon/North European ancestry"

That is what I meant, sorry for that being unclear.

[kaigou]

Heh.

I honestly think there are potentially fewer concepts more politically loaded than the phrase, "do you pass" ... but I can't think of a decent verbal machination that'd get me the same answer without actually asking that question.

[hl]

I'm sorry for spamming you, but this comment is really interesting me. In argentina, basically the blond-est and whitest, the more privileged you're. Can I ask about which country(ies) are you speaking about? Is it Mexico, like I read up-thread? I'm just really really curious. It hadn't occurred to me that this point could be different in other latinoamerican countries.

[kaigou]

THE ENTIRE WORLD.

Heh.

That's what I'm asking about, because the internet is global, so I'm trying to figure out terms -- as it's evolved through the comments, at least -- for a way to asses who has privilege within their own local/domestic/national community, and who does not. It seems to me, that is, that there are two (or three?) privilege axis going on, when we're talking "what do you look like, physically" -- there's the issue of global, which -- far as I can tell, at least -- is dominated by the white/anglosaxon/northwest european standard of the US/EU -- and then local, in which we measure ourselves compared to the faces we see where we live. So someone who's of A in A country might have transnational privilege but if not also US/EU whiteness, at the same time would be lacking global privilege.

The issue is how to succinctly address/pinpoint whether someone is privileged within their own culture.

[majoline]

Yeah, in Mexico there's a distinct not liking/less Mexican feeling towards "gringos", those too white and blond. Reddish hair on down is okay, and dark with highlights, but yeah. Not blond.

[hl]

Ah!

Here it's mainly a political thing (that not everyone shares)--I doubt it would translate to discriminating against blond people.