inadequate terminology for race and ethnicity
ok, this is just something that has been bothering me for a while, and isn't a huge deal, but:
i am annoyed at the way race and ethnicity are categorized. what's with the term "caucasian?" i'm not from the caucasus. i looked it up on wikipedia (totally reliable i know) and here are some gems about the origin of the use of "caucasian" to describe "white" people:
The Caucasian race, sometimes called the Caucasoid race, is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English as "relating to a broad division of humankind covering peoples from Europe, Western Asia, and parts of India and North Africa" or "white-skinned; of European origin" or "relating to the region of the Caucasus in SE Europe".
---so it actually says almost nothing
The concept originated in attempts chiefly by 19th c. European thinkers to develop a method of racial classification. This typological method was discredited and the concept is not relied on in scientific work related to humans.
---so it was just created for the purpose of being a neat category, and on top of that, has been discredited
People in Europe, especially in Russia and nearby, generally use the term "Caucasian" exclusively to identify people who are from the Caucasus region or who speak the Caucasian languages.
---which makes sense!!!
The term "Caucasian" originated as one of the racial categories developed in the 19th century by people studying craniology.
---are you kidding me- craniology?! measuring the bones of the skill in order to categorize people, mostly for the purpose of scientifically justifying racism?
18th century anthropologist Christoph Meiners, who first defined the Caucasian race, posited a "binary racial scheme" of two races with the Caucasian whose racial purity was exemplified by the "venerated... ancient Germans", although he considered some Europeans as impure "dirty whites"; and "Mongolians", who consisted of everyone else. Meiners did not include the Jews as Caucasians and ascribed them a "permanently degenerate nature". In his political history of racial identity, Bruce Baum wrote,"Jean-Joseph Virey (1774-1847), a follower of Chistoph Meiners, claimed that "the human races... may divided... into those who are fair and white and those who are ugly and dark or black."
---way to still use a creepy racist term, then!
In the United States, the term "Caucasian" has been mainly a distinction based on looking white, and being descended from a people who are "symbolic Christians" (excluding the people descended from the Muslim regions of the Middle East).
---again, this says almost nothing, but brings in religion, another touchy topic
so why do we use this term? anyone?
thankfully the US census does not use this term. however, it does limit race/ethnicity to the following categories:
RACE:
-White: people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. examples: Irish, German, Italian, Persian, British, Assyrian, Iraqi, Near Easterner, Arab, Polish.
-Black/African American: people having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. examples: Kenyan, Caribbean-American, Nigerian, Haitian.
-AIAN (American Indian/Alaskan Native): people having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.
-Asian: people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. examples: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Pakistan, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam.
-NHPI (Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander): person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. examples: Native Hawaiian, Guamanian, Chamorro, Samoan, Indigenous Australian.
ETHNICITY:
-“Hispanic or Latino”
-“Not Hispanic or Latino”
is it just me, or does this seem grossly inadequate?
first of all, the ridiculousness that being hispanic/latino is an "ethnicity" but everything else is a "race"- what's with that? there are really no other ethnicities? second of all, the race options themselves: so people from iraq and ireland are the same race- "white"- while people from the pacific islands get their own race because apparently they are not close enough to "asian"? and AIAN requires community affiliation or attachment to be considered that race?? since when does that define race- lots of people who consider themselves african americans have no connections to africa. i really wonder when and why these particular categories were created.
i don't think race and ethnicity are a big deal and am actually really annoyed in general at having to categorize everything and everyone, but if we are going to insist that people define themselves, why are there so few categories? the census is getting rid of the "other" category, too.
references (lol):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census
i am annoyed at the way race and ethnicity are categorized. what's with the term "caucasian?" i'm not from the caucasus. i looked it up on wikipedia (totally reliable i know) and here are some gems about the origin of the use of "caucasian" to describe "white" people:
The Caucasian race, sometimes called the Caucasoid race, is defined by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English as "relating to a broad division of humankind covering peoples from Europe, Western Asia, and parts of India and North Africa" or "white-skinned; of European origin" or "relating to the region of the Caucasus in SE Europe".
---so it actually says almost nothing
The concept originated in attempts chiefly by 19th c. European thinkers to develop a method of racial classification. This typological method was discredited and the concept is not relied on in scientific work related to humans.
---so it was just created for the purpose of being a neat category, and on top of that, has been discredited
People in Europe, especially in Russia and nearby, generally use the term "Caucasian" exclusively to identify people who are from the Caucasus region or who speak the Caucasian languages.
---which makes sense!!!
The term "Caucasian" originated as one of the racial categories developed in the 19th century by people studying craniology.
---are you kidding me- craniology?! measuring the bones of the skill in order to categorize people, mostly for the purpose of scientifically justifying racism?
18th century anthropologist Christoph Meiners, who first defined the Caucasian race, posited a "binary racial scheme" of two races with the Caucasian whose racial purity was exemplified by the "venerated... ancient Germans", although he considered some Europeans as impure "dirty whites"; and "Mongolians", who consisted of everyone else. Meiners did not include the Jews as Caucasians and ascribed them a "permanently degenerate nature". In his political history of racial identity, Bruce Baum wrote,"Jean-Joseph Virey (1774-1847), a follower of Chistoph Meiners, claimed that "the human races... may divided... into those who are fair and white and those who are ugly and dark or black."
---way to still use a creepy racist term, then!
In the United States, the term "Caucasian" has been mainly a distinction based on looking white, and being descended from a people who are "symbolic Christians" (excluding the people descended from the Muslim regions of the Middle East).
---again, this says almost nothing, but brings in religion, another touchy topic
so why do we use this term? anyone?
thankfully the US census does not use this term. however, it does limit race/ethnicity to the following categories:
RACE:
-White: people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. examples: Irish, German, Italian, Persian, British, Assyrian, Iraqi, Near Easterner, Arab, Polish.
-Black/African American: people having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. examples: Kenyan, Caribbean-American, Nigerian, Haitian.
-AIAN (American Indian/Alaskan Native): people having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.
-Asian: people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. examples: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Pakistan, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam.
-NHPI (Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander): person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. examples: Native Hawaiian, Guamanian, Chamorro, Samoan, Indigenous Australian.
ETHNICITY:
-“Hispanic or Latino”
-“Not Hispanic or Latino”
is it just me, or does this seem grossly inadequate?
first of all, the ridiculousness that being hispanic/latino is an "ethnicity" but everything else is a "race"- what's with that? there are really no other ethnicities? second of all, the race options themselves: so people from iraq and ireland are the same race- "white"- while people from the pacific islands get their own race because apparently they are not close enough to "asian"? and AIAN requires community affiliation or attachment to be considered that race?? since when does that define race- lots of people who consider themselves african americans have no connections to africa. i really wonder when and why these particular categories were created.
i don't think race and ethnicity are a big deal and am actually really annoyed in general at having to categorize everything and everyone, but if we are going to insist that people define themselves, why are there so few categories? the census is getting rid of the "other" category, too.
references (lol):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census