Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States census

On the question of merging

I suggest we do NOT merge this article with Ethnicity (US Census). They are two distinct categories on the Census, and they deserve different articles--Citynoise 17:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree for no merger because they are not the same.--Dark Tichondrias 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Older comments

An anon user added the following to the US government definition. It is also partly inaccurate (the census allowed one to check off multiple categories).

Persons with origins in Western/Central Asia/Eastern Europe may belong here, unless they are east of the Indian subcontinent or from the Far East. This category however excluded European peoples with Spanish or Latin origin. (see some other race below and the separate Hispanic orgin question)

---

See Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Disambiguation_Bot_.2F_Rambot_data for discussion about linking to this page. --Jiang 03:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I presume writing in "Indian" is "Some other race"? Joestynes 08:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the guidelines, an Indian would be considered Asian. --b. Touch 21:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Colored soldiers existed

The US Army is a vital part of the US Government. Colored men fought in the War of the Rebellion. John Eaton (General) commanded colored soldiers in 1863, because there were no "Blacks" in the United States until the Democrats introduced the word in 1960. TooPotato 20:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

What does this comment have to do with this article? The article does not mention the Army or the Civil War. — Mateo SA | talk 21:19, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Negro

I reverted several edits together whose purpose seems to have been the elimination of the word "Negro". I understand that some people may not like this word, but it seems to be fact that this word was used during the Census. So, I've restored the word. John Reid 06:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnote

I rm the text Black people are the only group represented without the description of "original".

This was added by an anon who seems to edit confrontationally. The text itself appears to mean nothing particular; if one construes it to refer to the Census Bureau's definitions, which employ the words origin and original, the text is not factual; and in any case, it seems to have nothing to do with any footnote. John Reid 07:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But it IS relevant. If it has no particular meaning, it wouldn't be in the other racial descriptions. If it's not factual, it has no purpose in being in there at all. It should be noted because it irritates and offends many black Americans. Me being chief. No I was not the anonymous poster. But I 2nd his complaint. --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, i checked that, and guess what, it looks like I AM the one who contributed to that. I am the confrontational editor. I will be sure to put this on my page. Thank you. I will always confront hypocricy and double-standards. John Reid, i salute you! --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

Come here mainly from the US Census articles. Most of them are piped through a redirect of the form [[Somerace (U.S. Census)|Somerace]] where Somerace is a redirect with possibilites to here. Some of them have been un-redirected to [[Race (U.S. Census)|Somerace]] as this article then (I assume) was. Is it worth changing them bach to the redirects with possibilities? Rich Farmbrough 14:54 25 March 2006 (UTC).

one problem

Most East Russsians are Far eastern not white

Another Problem

How South Asians are under the "Asian" list when most people from this region are caucasiod? Zachorious 21:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

'cause they're from Asia :) --Lukobe 22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So are Southwest Asians ;). How they are not classified as Asians as well? How about Asian Russians? Zachorious 01:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question...well, as you know, the US government isn't perfect :) --Lukobe 04:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah many Asians are also negroid, and so are many North Africans, but we aren't going to listen to that either will we.

Also many groups of East Indians numbering well over a hundred million are negroid in appearance. Tamil, Siddi, Dravidians, the various "shudra" and the underclass. Caucasoid is a very nebulous term. People from Rwanda Africa are classified as Caucasoids, and having a caucasoid looking skull doesn't necessarily mean you came from Viking or Indo-European ancestors. Caucasoid is a term used nowadays to hype up "whiteness" so it can be more appealing to those who are neither white nor black. It's a way to help keep the white race numberically high. By the time our grandchildren die, white and caucasoids will be more statistically more similar to bi-racial (black/white) children than to 12th century dutchmen. Anyway why would anyone clamour to be reclassified as white? Get off it. Your Asian, you're not white, you will never be white. If you are wanting to be white. then stop wanting to be. I don't see whites clamouring to want to be non-white Asians! --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No actually South Indians are classified as Caucasion as well. The only difference is skin color (being closer to the equator). 97% of all Indians (both North and South) belong to a caucasoid race of the mediterranean sub-branch. [1] Also in America Russians, and Southwest Asians (Middle Easterners) are classified as caucasion, despite being Asian themselves. So race classifications often contradict themselves. The whole idea that South Indians are distinct negroid race was an idea invented by British Colonialists. [2]There was no radically different race in the South. Tamils ARE Caucasians, but they obviously aren't white. Indians are no more Viking than Italians. your ignorance is so obvious here. CAUCASIAN DOESN'T MEAN WHITE! At least do some research before you post. Indians aren't white. The whole term of white has been used to describe even Chinese in the past. White in this case is irrevelent. No one wants be reclassified as white, you are totally missing the point. Zachorious 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Original

You guys like how our government uses the word "original" to describe all of the races except the black race? Black folks aren't worthy enough to be respected as coming from "original" people of Africa. No, black people come from black (not simply original humans from a particular region). --Zaphnathpaaneah 09:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What about people who refused to answer the question?

I am sure there were at least SOME people who refused to answer the question and who said that a government in a supposedly democratic country has no business whatsoever asking such questions and compiling such statistics. I wonder how were these people registered. Adam Keller 22:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ans: The interviewer is told to make their best guess or whatever the majority of the household is they are automatically.

Hey. I´ve read that Portuguese and Spanish(maybe others South Europeans) aren´t cosidered white and should list Spanish/Hispanic/Latino. Let us presume that I´m Portuguese. I ain´t Spanish, I don´t know if I´m Hispanic, but I´m Latino. Can i list latino, or that is just for people who speak spanish or are spaniards?mvncvffjkbgh

The Spanish and Portuguese are white peoples, because they hail from Europe. Anyone that is white or a Caucasoid is from Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, or their descendents (which many from the Americas, Australlia, and South Africa are).The term Hispanic refers to people from Spain or their direct descendants (many from Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile). The term latino refers to anyone that is a national or direct desendent from a Latin Country (which includes France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Romania, and Moldova). In the US, the terms Hispanic and Latino are incorrectly used as labels to label many people, especially those that arn't direct descendants of Spain or Latin Countries, but instead just speak the Spanish language and claim Spanish or Latin heritage. Casey14 21:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No numbers

I came here looking for percentages, and found only definitions.

Five Races?!

There are only four: European, African, Asian and Australian (there may be two subraces: Arabian and Indian). The earliest colonists in the New World just happened to have come from the Pacific, so why aren't the New World's Atlantic colonists taken into consideration? What a flawed presentation of race, with anachronistic and obsolete depictions that haven't made sense since the Age of Discovery! This is outdated. IP Address 05:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)