3 ms·
The case for including an ethnicity in the minimum reporting categories starts with, largely, that it is both a large community and that it significantly cuts a
by dragonwriter 1y ago
The case for including an ethnicity in the minimum reporting categories starts with, largely, that it is both a large community and that it significantly cuts across rather than existing largely within a category already defined as a racial category; "Ethnicities" which would fall almost entirely within the Asian, Asian, or White racial categories don't really have a strong case.
That said, there is probably a good argument for breaking out at least South Asian from Asian as a distinct top-level racial category, in the same way that MENA recently was. (But note that all of the top-level categories also have more detailed breakdowns available, and recent revisions have also moved to require the more detailed options to collected in a wider range of circumstances.)
> The only reason Hispanic is one is because the conquistadors were really, really persistent, murderous, and shameless eh?
Mostly, the opposite: that the successors to the conquistadors were less genocidal and more assimilationist than their British and British-descended North American counterparts.
- lazide 1y agoAmerican born Ethnic Chinese would like a word. As would a very large number of other groups. The only reason these groups are included this way is because of lobbying power (for and against) and $$ and privileges related to being in or out of various categories. From an ontological perspective, your argument is BS looking at the actual distributions and ground truth of these groups.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> American born Ethnic Chinese would like a word. What racial groups in the minimum reporting scheme does this ethnic group cut across, and in what rough proportions?