I'm afraid you're wrong ~ Equal representation of EVERY CITIZEN is what it was about,

yeah... You really believe that ?  You ? You dont think it had anything to do with the fact that having more control over where taxation $ was spent by having reps and the chance for people to profit from that had nothing to do with it ?  You... ha.

Sorry...  You can't be suspicious of the motives of people with power and believe the revolution was all 'for the greater good'.

it's a bit like thinking no racists supported (voted) for desegregation.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because someone figured out how to manipulate the system,

the system was set up FOR that manipulation.

The system was in place long before the revolution... the revolution just made it pay better.

(For crying out loud, Obama, himself, stood proudly and LIED on his census form, calling himself "black" when the entire world knows that's he's mixed-race!)

If you saw someone who looked exactly like Obama stealing your car, I very much doubt that you'd tell the cops that a "mixed" guy stole it.

And I'm not at all surprised this ended up being about affirmative action.

Actually, Si, I would describe the perp as a dark-skinned male, and try to remember all of the details about his appearance, such as height, weight, eye color and shape, hair color and/or style, etc.

But, thank you!  I'm LMFAO imagining what you think I would have said!!!


btw, if the perp were hispanic or asian?  I'd describe him as brown-skinned.

AZNs ain't brown. They yella.

I'm yet to meet a person with big ideas, ambition and drive who is stuck in poverty in the western world. 3rd world nations are a separate conversation.

How are Asian and Indian different?  Is that supposed to be native Indian or something?
...because I don't think pakis/bengalis/Shri lankans would like bein classed as that.

Here are the various "Races" listed on our census:

White
Black, African Am, Negro
American Indian or Alaska Native (and you have to name the "tribe" you're from)
Asian Indian
Chinese
Filipino
other Asian (and write which race: Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, ...)
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Native Hawaiian ~ WTF is a "Native Hawaiian?"  Someone born in Hawaii, or someone with Hawaiian ancestry?
Guamanian or Chamorro
Samoan
Other Pacific Islander (list which: Fijan, Tongan, ...)

Hispanics and Whites are NOT different enough to warrant separate Races,

but Hawaiians, Guamanians and Somoans ARE?!?

And Chinese is a completely different race than Japanese?

The truth is, Mexican hispanics are a lot closer to Native American Indians,

so what I want to know is this:

Why is the push on to weight the scales towards White being the majority?

On the one hand, we're lumping two verifiably different races together,

while on the other, separating one race into a bunch of nationalities.

It doesn't make good sense...

ah okay.

And I'm sure Japanese and Chinese are different.

But Indians and Pakis are not.

Hispanic does not mean white.

You can designate yourself as hispanic and then pick a race.  There are a large number of black hispanic people, for example.  Or they can designate Native American as their race and name one of the tribes that populated Mexico.  Or you can claim white because of your Spanish ancestors.  It's up to the individual how they choose to designate their race.  South & central America tends to have a lot of people of mixed race.

The various Island races are separate races because they have been inbreeding with a relatively small population for hundreds or thousands of years.  They are distinct.  Japan and China were also distinct breeding population.

Native Hawaiian should be as obvious as Native American.

But Indians and Pakis are not.

It is pretty funny how strongly people identify with that arbitrary line the British drew down the middle of the region, though.

I'd feel strongly about it too with Kashmir in the balance. Kashmir kicks ass.

Hispanic does not mean white.

You can designate yourself as hispanic and then pick a race.  There are a large number of black hispanic people, for example.  Or they can designate Native American as their race and name one of the tribes that populated Mexico.  Or you can claim white because of your Spanish ancestors.  It's up to the individual how they choose to designate their race.  South & central America tends to have a lot of people of mixed race.

The various Island races are separate races because they have been inbreeding with a relatively small population for hundreds or thousands of years.  They are distinct.  Japan and China were also distinct breeding population.

Native Hawaiian should be as obvious as Native American.

If a person is hispanic, from two hispanic parents, descended from Mexicans, THERE'S NO OPTION other than White for their race.

I don't believe you could find even just 10,000 "Native Hawaiians" that aren't Mixed Race, that are descended from Hawaiians AND born in Hawaii.  Like I said before, other peoples have been "visiting" there for over 100 years, so to think that little to no OUTbreeding occurred is the height of stupidity.

In fact, just for shits and grins, how many of us, here in this forum, are PURE BRED anything?

So, if EVERYONE is Mixed Race, and we're just about to that point, imho,

what's the point in trying to segregate us into SPECIFIC Races?

Why ignore race? Celebrate it, man.

The fact is that there are certain phenotypic traits that are distinctly recognizable within the human population. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

What should be banned is the value-judging of races. Race A isn't any better on a value scale than Race B. That's not to say that differences such as prevalence for certain diseases or race-linked socio-economic positions within society should be ignored. Those aren't value-based issues. They're objective and clinical issues.

In theory the census is supposed to provide equality of voice from within different communities. That shouldn't be something you fear, but rather something you look forward eagerly to. Different views is what makes democracy democratic.

Directly from the 10 question form (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/interactive-form.php):

Question 8 - Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin?
No
Yes, Mexican...
Yes, Puerto Rican...
Yes, Cuban...
Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin...

Question 9 - What is Person 1's race?
White
Black
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian Indian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Native Hawaiian
Guamanian or Chamorro
Samoan
Other Pacific Islander
Some Other Race

You can pick Hispanic in Question 8 and whatever race you want in Question 9.  You can also write in whatever you want to call your race.

It's also not an issue of being "pure breed."  It's distinct racial groups.  Some mixing does not necessarily make the group at large less distinct.

I've already explained some of the reasons that the government and doctors care about racial groups.  This is not a dream world where everyone is equal.  And we don't live in a country that was founded on equality.  We live in a country that might have struggled towards it at various points, but it certainly was not founded on it.  We were founded on slavery, stealing land from native Americans, denying women rights, excluding the poor from various elements of life as a citizen, etc.  That is absolutely not founded on equality in anything other than some idealistic language stuck into a document.  And if you want "equality" to be anything other than some pretty language stuck in a document someplace, you have to do something other than prattle on about it.

But Indians and Pakis are not.

It is pretty funny how strongly people identify with that arbitrary line the British drew down the middle of the region, though.

my grandpa took me to see the border once
 

I'd feel strongly about it too with Kashmir in the balance. Kashmir kicks ass.

it's Indian I say!!

Maybe they should change the race part of the question to a colour bar, like the kind used to show degrees of teeth whitening...

And a series of eyes.

You would just check your skin shade and eye shape.

Yeah but then you're also ignoring noses, lips, badonkadonks, etc.

BTW Emp's posts in this thread are about the best thing I've read recently on this board.

Lets use phrenology and be done with it.

Penis size is the only way to judge a people. And by that I mean that women should be property, not citizenry.

Maybe they should change the race part of the question to a colour bar, like the kind used to show degrees of teeth whitening...

And a series of eyes.

You would just check your skin shade and eye shape.

there'd be an awful lot of orange boxes ticked.

Maybe they should change the race part of the question to a colour bar, like the kind used to show degrees of teeth whitening...

And a series of eyes.

You would just check your skin shade and eye shape.

there'd be an awful lot of orange boxes ticked.

I know, right? Especially in New Jersey.

I hate not being a prejudice asshole like the rest of you niggers!

Get it right dike jumper, I'm not prejudiced, I'm sexist.

I hate not being a prejudiced asshole like the rest of you niggers!

(nazi'd)

I know; am I not correct that I know? Especially in New Jersey.

Nazi'd. Also for the record I was being racial against Jersey Shore people who are of an orange pallor. Not real people.
Nice use of irony, though, regardless.

And I still stand with:  If it's a Good Idea?  It's a Good Idea for EVERYONE.  Whatever made it a good idea for one group, makes it a good idea for ALL groups,

ACROSS THE BOARD.

Oh, you mean like Universal Health Coverage? How socialist of you.

Unfortunately, Emp, you've fallen for the lies, believing that racism lives in HUGE segments of our population, and I'm sorry, but I don't believe it.  What I DO believe is that you have to be LOOKING for it in order to find it,

and if you're focused on finding something, you're much more sensitive to any little thing to grab hold of to prove your point.

Thanks for the laugh on that one. I love how people try to claim that racism is dead because we elected a non-white president.

The excuses that the gov gives for needing to know our races is absolutely BOGUS.  We're ALL Americans, and our gov should care about the American people, and bringing us together,

not FURTHER segregating us.

Until NO ONE gets special treatment (good OR bad) based on the color of their skin, there will be racism.  (It goes BOTH ways, see?)

Yeah, special treatment is great. Like not being able to drink from the "whites only" fountain.

Until you've been lynched or had dobermans sicced on you or been blasted with fire hoses or had your church blown up because you simply wanted the same rights as the next person, kindly shut the fuck up. Yes, some white people have it as bad as some black people, but to try to make it sound like all is equal is absolute horseshit.

I love how people try to claim that racism is dead because we elected a non-white president.

I'm convinced that Obama's election was a direct consequence of the shittiness of GW Bush as a president. There's no way to prove it, but I'm pretty certain that latent racism would have barred Obama in any other election cycle.

Perhap they should just make the race section into an essay question...describe your roots in 500 words or less.