Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Race isn't really a valid scientific classification, its origins are based on efforts to prove superiority, as far as I know.
"The first federal standards on race and ethnicity were produced in 1977... last updated in 1997 when five minimum race categories were delineated — American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander and white"
Anything would be an improvement
I would agree that those are the origins, but I would also say, considering entire classes of people have the whole institution of government working against them, and have throughout this nation's history, that such demographic information, unscientific as it may be, is important.
Yes, it won't mean it's really accurate since it's a self-assessment, but an approximate count of people who are black or indigenous is helpful when it comes to equity and restitution. Is it unscientific? Yes. But I have no idea how else we can address things like institutional racism and hate crimes without considering demographics.
the whole institution of government working against them
Why the unnecessary exaggeration? We have parts of the government that are specifically for combating racism. We have plenty of people in government fighting for equality or to remove institutional racism. Arguing that the whole government is working against them is patently false.
All this does is feed the people who believe we live in a post-racism society - or worse that the government has become racist against white people - an argument that the people who argue institutional racism still exists are unreasonable.
It's still a major issue that needs to be addressed, no reason to exaggerate it, and on top of that it probably works against the desired outcome; if we want to be on the side of objective reason, it's best to remain reasonable and objective.
We have parts of the government that are specifically for combating racism.
We have bullshit performative parts of the government that do nothing about institutional racism.
We have plenty of people in government fighting for equality or to remove institutional racism.
Again, mostly performatively.
Arguing that the whole government is working against them is patently false.
Okay, most of the government. The parts that actually have an effect on the lives of people of color.
Better?
All this does is feed the people who believe we live in a post-racism society - or worse that the government has become racist against white people - an argument that the people who argue institutional racism still exists are unreasonable.
So we shouldn't talk about institutional racism because it feeds racists. Got it. I won't ever mention it again.
Better?
No, it's still patently BS. As much as there is still persistent institutional racism, it's much better than it has been in the past. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that black people couldn't even vote and were just shut out of nearly 100% of society. Where there was outright discrimination and segregation. The Civil Rights Act was a major thing, just 60 years ago. There are plenty of people who are still alive that were adults before the CRA was passed. These things are gone in many areas directly because actions taken by the government. When i was a kid, in a pretty liberal east coast area, it was still pretty okay to be openly racist. I don't think, as kids, most people fully grasped what that meant or what they were doing, but I see how my kids treat race now and I can see the huge improvements. And that's not even that long ago. And this is all because there has been a push, from the government, to make schools more inclusive and to teach kids about the insidiousness of racism and it's persistence in our society.
So we shouldn’t talk about institutional racism because it feeds racists. Got it. I won’t ever mention it again.
I very clearly noted from the beginning that this was about the "unnecessary exaggeration" and I explicitly noted that institutionalized racism is "still a major issue that needs to be addressed." And you are trying to claim I'm saying don't talk about it at all?
Why the blatant lie about what I said? It's like you're just trying to be outraged.
its* origins
Oh yeah I also wrote clarification instead of classification. I'm swiping on an Android phone keyboard. Its* easy to make mistakes.
I mean, the idea of having a census based on ethnicity feels implicitly racist from my perspective, although I get that there may be socioeconomic reasons for it beyond just... you know, segregation, in the US, perhaps.
But... yeah, every time I've had to fill an immigration form flying into the US it's like being given a kafkaesque, Borges-esque critique of the concept of categorization. It's hilarious. I wonder if they'll make it better or worse.
You can't argue you don't see race when trying to fix a system that has been (and still is) implicitly racist. It's like claiming asking holocaust vitcims about their ethnicity is racist when Germany was paying Jews reparations.
It's why I always got pissed when ppl complained about Affirmative Action. Besides the utter bullshit claim of racial quotas (which were illegal when AA was still a thing) you can't fix racism without specifically helping the victims of said racism.
But is that the same as keeping census data? I mean, you can absolutely provide people with support based on their social status, including ethnicity, you don't need a set categorization of them or stored census data for that.
In any case, it's a cultural issue, I'm not American and you guys get to run this stuff however you want. I don't care.
I do care that every time I land in the US heavily jet lagged I'm asked to retrofit my family background into categories invented by some kind of alien entity that has heard about humans coming in different types but doesn't quite grasp the concept.
How do you help said ppl without knowing where they are, how many of them there are, and who is eligible (now and in the future) without long term catorgorization? It's like claiming you can figure out a grocery stores inventory without ever writing anything down. Most countries don't have this problem because they're racially homogenous.
I do care that every time I land in the US heavily jet lagged I'm asked to retrofit my family background into categories invented by some kind of alien entity that has heard about humans coming in different types but doesn't quite grasp the concept.
Im sorry about your slight inconvenience after circumventing the globe but if you have an issue with it blame Europe (mainly the English).
Im sorry about your slight inconvenience after circumventing the globe but if you have an issue with it blame Europe (mainly the English).
It's funny because I'm scratching my head over their comment. I'm a European mutt, my wife is an south/se/eastern Asian mutt. I can recall a couple of times (maybe even only once) where when filling out a form I was stuck with a radio button when it comes to my kids' ethnicities, and I was left scratching my head. . .but I can't remember the last time this happened. We have travelled abroad with them a few times, and not once did I feel like it was difficult to fill out some form when we returned.
How do you help said ppl without knowing where they are, how many of them there are, and who is eligible (now and in the future) without long term catorgorization?
If you want to know where poverty is found in the US you can just ask the IRS. Effectively every adult is reporting their income and major property every year. Additionally, you could easily look at services for the marginal. How many empty beds are in the this particular homeless shelter, how many people in the area applied for food stamps, etc.
It really doesn't matter that much. All you have to do is read a single bill that gets passed in Washington and it becomes clear that need of a population has no relationship with funding for that population.
I would argue you do need census data, because that provides the data for where resources should be distributed. If I am trying to combat a racialized system that gives African Americans fewer resources, I need to know where the African Americans are.
Consider the scenarios that result in the practice of redlining. Back in the day, schools were racially segregated. To combat this, the government began forcefully integrating schools by bussing in students who were otherwise considered "outside" of the district. So the racists move further away to preserve their effectively segregated communities, closing their businesses and bringing their wealth with them.
The formerly integrated, now majority-minority neighborhoods are left with little capital to support the growth of business as well as less capital coming in the form of municipal taxes (why that is still a thing is beyond me as well). So a neighborhood with less financial resources through business/tax revenue faces crumbling infrastructure along with brain drain due to academics not willing to serve as educators in these neighborhoods.
The census helps levels of government at higher tiers than the municipal level recognize when areas are being underserved due to racial discrimination and compensate with distribution of state/federal resources. The suburban schools around Boston, for example (which are majority white) are almost wholly funded by property taxes collected in the towns that the school districts serve, but the urban schools in the city receive substantially more state funding to incentivise educators to come in for higher paying jobs and ensure that minority students who were forced back into de facto segregated systems can still receive a quality education and help counteract the effects of redlining.
The state of things right now is definitely not perfect, but it could be a lot worse if we were just combatting racism with colorblindness.
I mean, like I said, I'm not American, I don't have a horse in this race at all...
...but am I the only one surprised that in a country driven by of anarchocapitalism and endless Hobbesian paranoia white rich guys seem to be unusually fine with specifically this quirk of government oversight? Because it's not super usual, it's a rather American thing.
I get that you do want to correct specific, race-driven bias in things like those, and I get that the absolute insanity of some of the pushback necessitates different measures, but if the racists have the tools to enact the racist policy surely so do the policymakers pushing back.
I don't want to be disingenuous, either. I fully understand that the US starts from a pre-segregated baseline. Part of the reason you don't need those tools as much here is there was never a similar push for outright apartheid, so you're not trying to make up for geography and ethnicity at once to the same level. But still, for a country that thinks having universal government ID is a step away from tyranny the willingness to ask broad questions on protected categories like ethnicity or religion seems... surprising to me.
You can do the same thing with standardized test scores. You don't need to violate the privacy of people to know that the school their children go to is underperforming.
If you need information to, for example, determine if FHA loans are weighted unfairly towards people considered to be white or appearing to be white, then you need demographics information. Having a self-assessment of race is really the only way to get it even if it might not be as accurate as we might hope.
We can and we do.
We straight-up outlawed ethnic categorization.
Because we have a different history than the US. Last time we had a Big Ethnic Event™ some motherfuckers wearing Hugo Boss came in and went through every bit of census information we had to commit genocide against people that are otherwise indistinguishable from the general population.
Also positive discrimination is viewed, even by some progressives, as "bad" as in "on a philosophical level I think it's wrong" (I this is largely due to the stronger influence of Humanism and much lower penetration of CRT). I have to stress, this is not a matter of whether positive discrimination works, it's a matter of philosophy.
So with THAT in mind it's not hard to see why Europeans are culturally very put off with America's approach of putting everyone in labelled boxes. There's still a debate being had about CRT, but I think everyone agrees that the state MUST NOT have an "ethnic database".
Europeans are culturally very put off with America’s approach of putting everyone in labelled boxes.
I wish I had a buck for every time I heard an atheist in Europe complain about having to identify with a specific church for tax purposes.
you can't fix racism without specifically helping the victims of said racism.
I think the opposition to that often comes from the fact that victims of racism are selected on the grounds of race and those not being helped are similarly excluded from it based on race
While that be MIGHT be true that you can't solve a problem unless you know the exact extent of the problem I question how you know the motivations of people gathering this data. Especially since it started well well before the civil rights movement.
When I see bigots doing x,y,and z and people claiming to stop bigots doing x,y I wonder if z is coming later. Specifically do you really think the last census was going to ask about citizenship information to ensure racism would be diminished?
I know this isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, but I will always be confused on what to put for myself. My family comes from Central America (I have dual citizenship), so I should pick Hispanic, right? But my family is also white Hispanic, my cousin's have a range of blonde and red hair, light eyes. I also have some Asian Hispanics in my family.
Hispanic really isn't a race and it feels like I'm not supposed to pick it on the census because I don't have the right skin color.
Whereas someone who does look Hispanic the way people think of, but maybe their family hasn't lived there for generations, they get to be considered more Hispanic than me. It's just confusing.
There also isn't an option for brown Hispanic, I always pick other
Hispanic is an ethnicity, which is based on culture, while white/black/native american are based on genetics (theoretically).
Many (most?) Hispanic people in Central America are considered white because so much of their ancestry is Spanish or Portuguese. It sounds like you may have a higher proportion than most, is all.
But if there is a large portion of Asian Hispanic people in your ancestry, you may be mixed race Hispanic.
Just choose what you identify as. Sounds like white or Hispanic. Just pick one. It's not that important. It's not a personality quiz.
The article seems to imply that people will be able to select multiple options but isn't very clear when it describes doing that. Does this mean that someone who is half white and half Asian will be able to select both? It's always struck me as odd that we're expected to choose one or the other.
Some forms already allowed this, and I welcomed it. It seems like it will be the norm now.
Yes you can choose more than one option according to the article
The government shouldn't even be collecting this data, the only thing it can and will be used for is racial discrimination.
Also, lumping people into these overly broad arbitrary categories is racist.