when in doubt, ask the internets!
14 May 2010 02:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouETA3: 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 15 May 2010 03:22 pm (UTC)Uhm. I don't know. It's a word on a map and the word is usually on maps right around where you'd live..?
That kind of question reminds me of being a kid in France and saying something to one of the children I aupaired, but I slipped up and said the english name for the country instead of the french name, and the child got very indignant with me that I was trying to pull one over on her, because there was obviously no such country. Heh.
no subject
Date: 16 May 2010 06:45 am (UTC)Everyone else I've ever talked with groups landmasses hereabouts the same way: Australia and New Zealand are collectively 'Australasia' (older uses of this term may also include New Guinea). Australia is the Australian continent and a few islands, but not New Zealand, much of which isn't even on the same tectonic plate, let alone being the same continent (our continent is the mostly submerged Zealandia, the same as New Caledonia). (Note that we use the geological definition of 'continent', not the geographical one, commonly, where I think the US uses the geographer's term.)
'Oceania' is sometimes used to mean the Pacific islands or the whole Australasia and Pacific region, but it's so variable as to be of very little use, so it's pretty rare. I'm always unsure what's intended when I see it, because I've run into it with so many different meanings.
no subject
Date: 16 May 2010 07:08 am (UTC)Well, everyone does have their own words for systems. I've seen Australasia on maps, but that always confused me because I never associated Australia or New Zealand with Asia... but, eh, I'll just put Australia/New Zealand on the map, instead.
Although I do recall seeing 'Oceania' on things as a kid, and being quite certain that must be just another name for 'Atlantis' -- because, y'know, Atlantis = Atlantic and that's an ocean, just like Oceania, right? And then my father stumped me by pointing out we lived (at the time) in Atlanta, and I gave up on the entire notion of geography for awhile.
no subject
Date: 16 May 2010 07:26 am (UTC)We hear 'Australasia' quite often here, because there are a fair number of official organisations with the name. It's similar in some ways to 'North America = Canada + US' for you, I imagine: separate countries with similar cultures that are in the same area.
The main differences are that our flora and fauna are *really* different, our indigenous peoples had no particular contact before the Europeans showed up and very different post-European-settlement histories, and it takes a three-hour flight to get from New Zealand to Australia (just because they're our closest neighbour, they're really not at all close).
If you're after information about indigenous peoples' situations, though, you might not want to group the two countries together. The Maori *beat* the Europeans in the Land Wars, and the Waitangi Tribunal's been working on sorting out the land thefts for decades. Last time I was in Australia (ten years ago, admittedly) they were trying to decide whether the government should apologise at all for stealing people's kids.