What do make of this statistic?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

in the CIA World Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ , in the entry for the United States under "Ethnic Groups" it states:-

Ethnic groups: white 83.5%, black 12.4%, Asian 3.3%, Amerindian 0.8% (1992) note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (especially of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)

As a Brit, what do any Americans think of this statistic, particularly how the note: is phrased? And what would the real statistics be? To me it seems nice that they admit to and explain why they have just blatantly lied to you. Cute.

― Lynskey, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It doesn't make sense because if you apply for other government things, Hispanic is a group. What the hell?

― Ally, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

race is color and socially rigid. legacy of slavery.

― Sterling Clover, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Doesn't the idea of lumping a Welsh Argentine, an Afro-Caribbean Haitian, and a Peruvian of Japanese descent, all living in America, all as a single racial group seem much more dubious? Because really, that's what we're talking about. "Race=social construct," sure, but that's very clearly laid out in the idea of a Hispanic "race."

It isn't hard to find a separate non-racial category in the census information that accounts for things like "country of origin." You could find how many people of Mexican ancestry live in Amarillo, for example. The US government isn't in any way concealing this information.

But maybe you can explain just how the US government is "lying" by coherently defining a racial category which includes the set of all persons of Latin American background.

― Benjamin, Tuesday, 7 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Why is Amerindian only 0.8% if they're defining hispanic by race? According to the 2000 census, the US is 12.5% hispanic/latino.

― Kris, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Doesn't the idea of lumping a Welsh Argentine, an Afro-Caribbean Haitian, and a Peruvian of Japanese descent, all living in America, all as a single racial group seem much more dubious?

Lumping a Peruvian of Japanese descent with a Sri Lankan with an Uzbek is no less dubious, but that's what they seem to be doing. I don't remember voting for the official government phrenologist; is this an appointed post?

― Kris, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Take a wild guess

― Matt Fallaize, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

This is completely unsurprising to me.

― Dan Perry, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

These census answers are self-categorized, after all, and there's a almost immediately-following question on census forms asking if someone considers himself/herself plus family "Hispanic." And I believe there also was a "multi-racial" category on the 2000 census.

If the original question was designed to point out that racial categories are dubious or imprecise, well then yeah, of course. But then why the point about "Americans: your government has lied to you," when it's hard to find a national census that DOESN'T ask respondents to define their race into imprecise/dubious categories? And there's are specific purposes to determining the broader "racial" characteristics of a population, such as remedying the injustice of racial discrimination through indirect community aid, or to draw election district lines in ways that do not dilute the voting power of, say, African Americans.

― Benjamin, Wednesday, 8 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.