Skip to main content

I was in the comments section of another diary and the some of the commenters wrote about putting "human" or other such identifier in place of one of the standard choices for "race" on forms. I'd like to urge you not to do this. I'm taking a quick break from studying, so I'm just going to repeat what I wrote in that diary below.  

I wrote:

There is a problem with just ignoring race on forms and stuff. The only reason we know things like black babies are more likely to die than white babies is because of race reporting on forms. How do address an injustice like this if you don't have the means to even identify it? I've seen some arguments for making economic status the identifier in place of race, the theory being that the underlying problem with negative stats for minorities is really economic status. While it seems logical, and probably is true, it doesn't capture the racial injustice, the fact that blacks (and other minorities) are more disadvantaged BECAUSE of their skin color. It's a weird conundrum, because we have to deal with the reality of our racist society, but it seems like even acknowledging race is perpetuating it.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yup (4+ / 0-)

    Putting race on forms is not the reason we have racism in America...I suspect it might have something more to do with centuries of slavery, systematic disenfranchisement, and, continued....what's the word....bigotry.

    So yeah, let's at least have a record of what is being done to black people.  We can worry aout the forms once they stop revealing institutional racism.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:45:54 PM PST

  •  When the Identifiers Cease Revealing Patterns (4+ / 0-)

    that's when we'll know we don't need them.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 05:55:59 PM PST

  •  I mostly agree, but it's also true (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ashaman, Oh Mary Oh, kurt

    that the categories are peculiar ones, and that our society is invested in them in ways that only sometimes have anything to do with tracking the kinds of patterns we need to know about to fight injustice. Years ago I heard a fascinating little talk about someone who tried resisting the bureaucracy of racial classification, and where that led. By the magic of Teh Googles I have just found it for you. It's still fascinating. I don't agree with every judgment he makes, but there is a lot here to think about. Here is the move that starts it all off, to whet your curiosity:

    “Race” is, at best, a fuzzy concept about typical physical characteristics of certain populations. At worst, of course, it provides a basis for more contemptible conduct than any concept other than religion. In answer to the race question on the security form, I decided to put “mongrel.” It would have been slightly less provocative had I said “human,” but I've always enjoyed diddling forms a bit.

    Shortly after I handed in the form, I received a call from a secretary in the security office of the Defense Communications Agency. She said she had noticed a typographical error in the fifth question where it said “Mongrel.” She asked if I didn't mean “Mongol.” “No thanks,” I said, “I really meant mongrel.” She ended the conversation rather quickly.

    A few hours later I received a call from the chief security officer of D.C.A., who I happened to know. “Hey, Les,” he said in a friendly way, “I'd like to talk to you the next time you're over here.” I agreed to see him later that week. When I got there, he tried to talk me out of answering the race question “incorrectly.” I asked him what he thought was the right answer. “You know, Caucasian,” he replied. “Oh, you mean someone from the Caucasus Mountains of the U.S.S.R.?” I asked pointedly. “No, you know, white.” “Actually, I don't know,” I said.

    We got into a lengthy discussion in which he informed me that as far as the Defense Department was concerned there were five races: Caucasian, Negro, Oriental, American Indian, and Pacific Islander. I asked him how he would classify someone who was, by his definition, 7/8 Caucasian and 1/8 Negro. He said he wasn't sure. I asked how he classified Egyptians and Ethiopians. He wasn't sure. I said that I wasn't sure either and that “mongrel” seemed like the best answer for me. He finally agreed to forward my form to the security authorities but warned that I was asking for trouble.

    The rest is here: Can Computers Cope with Human Races?
  •  Asian-Americans? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    debedb

    Isn't their infant death rate lower than everyone else's?

    We sent them to die building the transcontinental railroad and we threw them into concentration camps.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site