Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States census: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:46, 6 May 2006

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. --Jia ng 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]