4 ms·
> The racial categories are a very American centric and limited term, and arguably rooted largely as social constructs that loosely define the ethnic population
by x3n0ph3n3 5y ago
> The racial categories are a very American centric and limited term, and arguably rooted largely as social constructs that loosely define the ethnic populations they cover. For example, and I don't mean any offense or to call any group out specifically, Koreans are overrepresented compared to Cambodians at the academic institutions listed in the article per their population proportion. This doesn't seem to be captured and accounted for under the current system.
You've really hit the heart of the logical conclusion of intersectionality that those espousing it fight to avoid: individualism. Once you have to start accounting for subgroups of subgroups, you reach the fact that the smallest subgroup to account for is an individual person.
- pessimizer 5y agoWhile Asians not being fungible has something to say about individuality (although not much), I don't know what it has to do with "intersectionality." It's very difficult to be Cambodian yet not Asian. Being both Asian and Cambodian is not an "intersection."
- x3n0ph3n3 5y agoIt's not about the intersection of the group with the subgroup, but the fact that the group is not a good proxy for the individual. The subgroup is a _better_ proxy, and each further subdivision becomes closer and closer to clearly representing the individual. Ultimately, the person being an individual is the highest fidelity subdivision.