Posted on 12/17/2009 9:20:07 AM PST by NativeNewYorker
DEARBORN, Mich., Dec. 17 (UPI) -- Ethnic groups, especially Arab-Americans, say the U.S. census all but eliminates any way of distinguishing their background by simply classifying them as white. "It's unfair because we are not treated as white in society and by the government, but we also don't qualify as minorities to get the benefits of some programs" such as minority contracts, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Regional Director Imad Hamad said. The concern arose because, for the first time, the regular 2010 U.S. census form eliminates a question asking people about their ancestry. Government officials say they shortened the form so more people would fill it out than in previous decades. The U.S. Census Bureau considers anyone with Middle Eastern roots, for instance, as white. "That's just weird to me," said Khadigah Alasry, 23, whose parents were born in Yemen. Alasry of Dearborn, Mich., has light-brown skin and told the Detroit Free Press she doesn't consider herself white.
"There is no such thing as white culture," said Thaddeus Radzilowski, president of the Piast Institute, a Polish-American group near Detroit.
Having the ancestry question "provides a better notion of our pluralistic society and who we are," the newspaper quoted him as saying.
"We're aware of the problems with the census," U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, a Chinese-American, told an Arab-American group in Dearborn, Mich. "But we still need you to participate."
Locke, whose department oversees the Census Bureau, said the ancestry question remained on the American Community Survey, sent to some 250,000 addresses monthly to replace the decennial census' long form.
We need to get rid of laws that confer benefits on individuals based on gender, ethnicity, and race. It is distructive and patently unfair.
You are absolutely correct. And I agree
And you are right about the Hispanics. Asians were in the same boat, as it were. Yet the whole idea was to adress supposed wrongs these groups “suffered”. At least there was some semblence of cause and effect.
With Arabs there is none.
It was garbage then and it is now. But at least you could make some sort of link between the past and those groups.
Yet the whole idea was to adress supposed wrongs these groups “suffered”.
What other groups suffered wrongs? Irish? Catholics? Italians? Jews? How far do you want to extend such a "rationale?"
Asians were in the same boat, as it were.
How do you define Asians? Here is how the Virginia Department of Minority Business defines them.
"Asian American” means a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands, including but not limited to Japan, China, Vietnam, Samoa, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan, Northern Mariana, the Philippines, a U.S. territory of the Pacific, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part."
At least there was some semblence of cause and effect. With Arabs there is none.
A case can be made that there is now given the events of 9/11, Ft. Hood, etc. The point is that they have just as good a case as Cambodians, Vietnamese, Laotians, etc. Where is the cause and effect for these newly arrived groupls? You may not like it, but I understand it completely. We have created these victim groups and it makes perfect sense for other groups to want to hop on the gravy train.
the one drop rule is absolutely not law
Another Obama win. Every single identifiable group now must have its own separate racial classification.
I do, eastern european Jew -originally from Judea, with oriental eyes, b blood, and a daughter with a mongolian spot- I guess the tatars took some liberties
Or some immigrant from Nigeria
whose ancestors enslaved their fellow countryman and sold them for bacardi gold
Or some immigrant from Nigeria
whose ancestors enslaved their fellow countryman and sold them for bacardi gold
That aside, most Arabs I know do not consider themselves white. They consider themselves Arab and they do have some distinguishing features. Some are lighter (Lebanese) than others (Egyptian).
"There is no such thing as white culture," said Thaddeus Radzilowski, president of the Piast Institute, a Polish-American group near Detroit.
My distaste to hyphenated Americanism aside, I agree. I'm American.
It my not be law but how does one determine race in this country both for official records as well as for other purposes?
forgetting the question whether there is such a thing as race,
mixed is a choice. Tiger said calling himself black would reject his mother.
Obama rejected his momma to play the race card.
The only difference is that Tigers black side experienced slavery and jim crow, obamas didn’t.
also some would characterize obama as being capoid not negro
Don’t this just Frost you over for good!
How about we stop all government recording of race other than for personal identification (ie drivers licenses).
Then we can judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
As Langston Hughes wrote, "You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word 'Negro' is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black. I am brown."
"The 1910–19 decade was the nadir of the Jim Crow era. Tennessee adopted a one-drop statute in 1910, and Louisiana soon followed. Then Texas and Arkansas in 1911, Mississippi in 1917, North Carolina in 1923, Virginia in 1924, Alabama and Georgia in 1927, and Oklahoma in 1931. During this same period, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Utah retained their old "blood fraction" statutes de jure, but amended these fractions (one-sixteenth, one-thirtysecond) to be equivalent to one-drop de facto."
"When the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), it declared Plecker's Virginia Racial Integrity Act and the one-drop rule unconstitutional. Despite this holding, the one-drop theory retains influence in U.S. society, from both sides of color lines. Multiracial individuals with visible European and African, and/or Native American ancestry are often still considered black or at least non-white, unless they explicitly declare themselves white or Anglo."
This has been proposed in Congress a number of times, but the groups most opposed are those considered minorities. The NAACP and La Raza want the differentiation because they say it allows them to track racial/ethnic progress. It gives their organizations more political power because they make the assertion they represent these groups. It also is used to obtain financial resources from the federal government and the states.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
I hate that question!
I always respond “American!” With the exclamation point!
And, given the opportunity, I tellem that “It is none of your damn business!”
I thought we were supposed to be a color-blind society!
The majority of Arab Americans are Christian Arabs who have fled persecution (like Tony Shalhoub)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.