next »

[supernumerary]

Ah, CBL, thank you for the very clear explanation and for making me laugh long and loud. Now I think my neighbour in the office next door wonders what's going on in here, but it was worth it because I now understand.

That was classic.

[crazybatlady]

Wow, you got all that out of "tree"?

I think I need to read more Derrida.

VP

Start with Saussure, dear VP.  He's much more fun for trees.  Then read about Derrida naked with his kitten.  That's exciting too.  (No, Larry!  You may not get anywhere near Derrida's kitten!)

[zharkov]

Here's a question to the OP:  Why do you believe that the CIA's and US Census Bureau's taxonomies are the "correct" ones?  What makes race and ethnic categories "correct" or "incorrect" ?   Calling something a "factbook" doesn't mean the one has to believe all it contains is correct information.

Another question: Why do you believe that private institutions, like colleges, should be obligated to follow the government's categorization scheme?

Well, to answer your question The US Census Bureau and the CIA Factbook's demographics are in accordance with guidelines from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB is the White House.

The White House.  Hmmm....

[helpful]

So, when were see there are more Hispanics/Latinos than there are black/African American and American Indian/Native Alaskan. That's a false comparison. Because you are comparing a race/ethnicity category with a place of origin category (that has nothing to do with race/ethnicity).

Um, I don't think American Indians or Native Alaskans would say they are a race/ethnicity category! Being Am Indian is about relationship to  a particular land and landscape.

So your argument doesn't hold water at all in this case! or trees!

[thinkuniversity]

How is that an answer to the questions asked? Someone please enlighten me.

The answer is:

Because if federal dollars are allocated to institutions, organizations and agencies, the US Department of Education, and other federal agencies require all to collect demographic data as a directive from the OMB. The OMB determined that Hispanic/Latino origin are treated as two separate and distinct concepts.

But, on the media and some researchers as well as many universities do not actually follow the actual format as directed by the OMB.

On the other hand......
I personally think that Hispanic/Latino should be removed demographically from forms that have race/ethnicity on it. I do think Hispanic/Latino should remain on demographic forms that show place of origin, which has nothing to do with race/ethnicity.

But, since this data is currently being collected all should follow the US Census Bureau's Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic Origin Data. Only because of this we wouldn't have any totals of Hispanic/Latino in the first place. The US Census Bureau is the one that collected the data in the first place. Remember prior to 1980 there were no categories on the US Census forms called Hispanic/Latino.  But, there were still people living in the US who were of Latin American origin and they had already been accounted for. There was no reason to create a new race/ethnic category other than to add Amerindian/mestizo to the already existing category called American Indian/Native Alaskan.

Just my personal thoughts.

[helpful]

On the other hand......
I personally think that Hispanic/Latino should be removed demographically from forms that have race/ethnicity on it. I do think Hispanic/Latino should remain on demographic forms that show place of origin, which has nothing to do with race/ethnicity.

Huh? Someone whose heritage is Mexican but was born in, say Fresno, is considered Latino by place of origin? That doesn't make sense, at all!

[crazybatlady]

Tree!  Tree!  Tree!

[voxprincipalis]

Tree!  Tree!  Tree!

Oh, stop, my belly hurts from laughing!

VP
(ow! ow! ow!)

[thinkuniversity]

Um, I don't think American Indians or Native Alaskans would say they are a race/ethnicity category! Being Am Indian is about relationship to  a particular land and landscape.

So your argument doesn't hold water at all in this case! or trees!

It's not my argument. American Indians and Native Alaskan is a race/ethnicity as defined by the US Census Bureau.

I didn't create that. It was your governement that created that.

Currently they are reviewing what should show up on the 2010 census forms. So, even more changes in categories may show up.

From the US Census

American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.


Please see link
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html


The U.S. Census Bureau complies with the Office of Management and Budget's standards for maintaining, collecting, and presenting data on race, which were revised in October 1997. They generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country. They do not conform to any biological, anthropological, or genetic criteria. You can read more in Questions and Answers for Census 2000 Data on Race and Race and Ethnic Classifications Used in Census 2000 and Beyond and more.


Old Standards. In response to legislative, programmatic, and administrative requirements of the federal government, the OMB in 1977 issued Statistical Policy Directive Number 15, "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting." In these standards, four racial categories were established: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White.
In addition, two ethnicity categories were established: Hispanic origin and Not of Hispanic origin. Although the Census Bureau has traditionally used more categories for decennial censuses, those categories collapsed into the four minimum race categories identified by the OMB, plus the category Some Other Race.
------------------------

The debate still stands if Hispanic/Latino are even an ethnicity.

Ethnic Group
People of an ethnic group are of the same race and the members identify with each other most times on the basis of a common genealogy or ancestry. Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioral, native linguistic, or religious practices. But this becomes a problem in the US, because various Latin American ethnic groups, blacks, Amerindians, Asians and whites are typically lumped together as "Hispanics/Latinos". They in fact do not share a common genealogy or ancestry. Most blacks in Latin American came there by the means of being enslaved by the European Spanish and Portuguese. Mulatto blacks in Latin America became mixed with European whites in the same way blacks in the US had offspring children by their slave owners of English, German, Scottish, Dutch, Spanish and French heritage. But, in the US mulatto people are black. On the other hand the Amerindians of Latin America were colonized by the Spanish and Portuguese. The language spoken and names worn by these Latin Amerindians and blacks have their origin given to them by the Spanish and Portuguese whole colonized them or enslaved them. In Brazil (who are not Hispanic, but are Latino) and in other parts of Latin America, such as Brazil, many blacks worship African religions and Amerindians worship native American religions not of European origin. European Latin Americans and Amerindians in Mexico are Christian Catholics. Latin blacks from Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic tend to be followers of the Christian religion.

--------------------

White Cubans are not the same ethnicity or race as black Cubans. White Mexicans are not the same ethnicity or as the 90% Amerindian/or mestizo Mexicans. White Puetro Ricans are not the same ethnicity as black Puerto Ricans, An Amerindian Colombian is not the same race or ethnicity as a black Dominican, a white Chilean is not the same race or ethnicity as an Amerindian Chilean...and so on.

[supernumerary]

I actually agree with you, thinkuniversity. It's a very good point. Someone else said the same thing recently, when he explained that blue, rhinocerous, triangle. I think in that case too it was the government who created it.

[larryc]

It's not my argument. American Indians and Native Alaskan is a race/ethnicity as defined by the US Census Bureau. I didn't create that. It was your governement that created that.

Exactly, the Census Bureau created the category.  It is exactly as legitimate as Hispanic, or white, or black, or any of the other categories that we throw about in this thread.  They are all equally legitimate, or illegitimate.

[helpful]

Um, I don't think American Indians or Native Alaskans would say they are a race/ethnicity category! Being Am Indian is about relationship to  a particular land and landscape.

So your argument doesn't hold water at all in this case! or trees!

It's not my argument. American Indians and Native Alaskan is a race/ethnicity as defined by the US Census Bureau.

I didn't create that. It was your governement that created that.

You accept everything your government says? Amazing for a sociologist to say that!

I guess you think there were WMDs in Iraq because the government said there were?

Bizarre!

[thinkuniversity]

You accept everything your government says? Amazing for a sociologist to say that!

I guess you think there were WMDs in Iraq because the government said there were?

Bizarre!

I don't think you've been reaing my post. If I agreed, the title of this topic would not be "Why are Hispanics/Latinos counted as a race or an ethnicity by universities"

It was the Office of Management and Budget that created the term Hispanic for the US Bureau of the Census as an ethnic group.

No, I don't not agree with Hispanic being an ethnic group.
Why don't I agree?
Because a black Cuban is not the same race or ethnicity as a white Cuban.

An Amerindian Mexican is not the same race or ethnicity as a white Mexican.

A black Mexican is not the same race as an Amerindian Mexican.

A white Chilean is not the same race or ethnicity as an Amerindian Chilean.

A black Panamanian is not the same race or ethnicity as an Ameindian Colombian.

An Amerindian Peruvian is not the same race or ethnicity as a white Peruvian.

A black Puerto Rican is not the same race or ethnicity as a white Puerto Rican.

A black Dominican is not the same race or ethnicity as a white Dominican.

If we were to use the same criteria that the OMB has the US Census Bureau using, to define Latin Americans as a single ethnicity, for people who are from English speaking North American and the English speaking Caribbean nations. Then black people in the US are the same ethnicity as white people from the US. As well as Asian Americans and American Indians/Native Americans are the same ethnicity as black and white Americans.
English speaking whites, blacks, First Nations people from Canada then would also be the same ethnicity as whites, blacks, Asians, American Indians, Native Alaskans from the US and the same ethnicity as English speaking blacks, whites and Asians from the Caribbean.

We know this isn't the true. So, then we also know that people from Latin America aren't the same ethnicity either.

So, all this to again say....No, I don't agree with the OMB on defining Hispanic as an ethnicity as they have had the US Census Bureau doing.

[voxprincipalis]

OK, but thinkuniversity, let me offer this, in all seriousness and sincerity, and not at all being snarky.

We talk a lot on these fora, but ultimately we are a bunch of individuals in all different departments scattered all over the country. We have no power to actually change anything of this magnitude.

It seems clear that you would like this situation to change, but talking about it here will not ultimately lead anywhere. Only a few people are participating in this discussion, but even if the whole membership of the forum were on board, it wouldn't lead to change.

If you want this to be addressed, you'll have to take it to the people who can change it. Otherwise, it's just talk, and you will be spinning your wheels here for nothing.

Just my thoughts.

VP

[thinkuniversity]

OK, but thinkuniversity, let me offer this, in all seriousness and sincerity, and not at all being snarky.

We talk a lot on these fora, but ultimately we are a bunch of individuals in all different departments scattered all over the country. We have no power to actually change anything of this magnitude.

It seems clear that you would like this situation to change, but talking about it here will not ultimately lead anywhere. Only a few people are participating in this discussion, but even if the whole membership of the forum were on board, it wouldn't lead to change.

If you want this to be addressed, you'll have to take it to the people who can change it. Otherwise, it's just talk, and you will be spinning your wheels here for nothing.

Just my thoughts.

VP

voxprincipalis,

I agree with you 100% on what you've stated. I actually have contacted the US Census Bureau and others about this subject.

Only time will tell what happens. But, the US Census Bureau doesn't have control over the media (print, audio and visual) who have made it too common to not follow the US Census Bureau's Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic Origin Data.

But, the Census Bureau itself will also not follow their own guidance and issues statements that the AP will pick up and run in national articles.

Because of this.... it is too common place now for others to follow the same bad habits.

Also, outside of the media the common public now also has been using these bad habits.