Thursday, June 10, 2010

More than White or Black

One thing I realized during the readings and classes, is that everyone seems to define race as basically black and white. Be it in person, or on paper applications. That brought to my attention the question of what are the alternates?? So I went on a search. Maybe I'm not very good at searching on the internet? However, I was unable to successfully come to a consensus. Finally I found something semi-helpful. The races listed were:
  • American Indian or Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
  • Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Phillipine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
  • Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups or Africa. Terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be used in addition to “Black or African American.”
  • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
  • White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa
This makes much more sense to me. When people think it is just black and white, and only consider black and white in conversations, I was always semi confused. This is much more how I break down racial differences.

The area where it can get confusing is for Hispanics/Mexicans/Latinos. I feel like these people are missing from these classifications. The "classification" for race is always changing, and we should keep up with it. Personally I believe that Milano is an effective term, however in the US we do not recognize such as a race. This is brought up in Navarro's article, saying most Hispanics chose other, white, or black.

Also, because race is such a confusing area, I think it is necessary to provide descriptions next to choices, as above. It would clarify for many what to put down in context of what the application, census, ect wants.

In the US, we view everything as plain black and white. But its obvious that it is more complex than that, even when looking at people in the physical sense. We need to bring that complexity to the public knowledge to lessen racial naivety.

2 comments:

  1. Of course, race is even more complex and complicated than the descriptions of the most common racial types you were able to find browsing the internet--for example, consider our reading on the myth of the model minority. Also, based on the classifications you found, where would Latinos fit in?

    I think the term you are thinking of is "Mulatto" as opposed to "Milano." Today, "mulatto" is actually viewed as an inappropriate term, as it stems from the term mule--a animal that comes from the mating of a donkey and a horse. This term is problematic because 1) it compares people to animals; and 2) is inaccurate because a donkey and a horse are from different species whereas humans of different races are not.

    Today, it's much more acceptable to refer to people as bi or multi-racial.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oooh! Thank you for the clarification! I did not know that!

    ReplyDelete