Arab-Americans Tell Census, 'We're Not White'

[angus]

We're still using "white?"  I thought using caucasian was more precise (?)

I actually don't like the term Caucasian and I find it offensive.  I prefer the term white if we must do it.  Apparently others feel the same way, because white has been re=introduced in most forms after a decade or so of that pesky term Caucasian.  (I usually pick "other" and write in white if a form insists on using Caucasian.)  As for hamito-semitic peoples, that should be a choice in itself.  Arabs who identify as white (and those might actually prefer the term Caucasian for a number of reasons) can pick that, but those who prefer to self-identify as Hamitic or Semitic stock would have that option as well. 

That said, I think we should drop the whole business altogether.  Having folks racially categorize themselves on all sorts of forms seems to create more problems than it solves.  So I sort of agree with the OP.  Still, why have ethnicity either?  We'll run into many of the same problems with that type of categorization as well.  I say that race, ethnicity, and the like are not really merited as identifiers on census forms.  You could argue that religion might be, on university or hospital admission forms, since it might aid in an executive decision during a crisis, as well as native language.  After all, knowing whether to call a priest if you're about to die, or that I should shout Ukrainian instructions at you in emergency situations are much more important considerations than knowing whether I should describe you as Ukranian, Slavic, White, Caucasian, East Slavic, Balto-Slavic, Aryan, or Indo-European in some government report.

[angus]

If it had no social relevance, I would agree with angus... but it does.

It does only because you say it does. 

And the KKK?  Seriously?  You, BRTD, and Indy Texas are probably the only three posters on this forum who take them seriously.  Nobody else in America takes them seriously.  Have you been to one of their rallies lately?  They're so hard-up that they're even willing to admit catholics and jews. All you gotta be nowadays is white. Sorry state they're in.  They're "a bunch of disorganized rednecks" according to Derek Vinyard of American History X.  Find another example to make the point.

If there were a good reason to make us all pick a category then it might make sense, but outside bigotry I can't think of any.  Why make Arabs or Norwegians or Ukrainians or anyone else claim to belong to some bigger group.  We're all pretty familiar with the Out of Africa Theory by now.  Why should someone say on a government form, "Well, my ancestors apparently got across the Caucasus mountains between 20 and 40 thousand years ago and killed off the Neanderthals."   What the hell does that have to do with anything in the constitution?  There's really no good reason for it besides the fact that you and the census bureau say that there's a good reason for it.  Let's just be done with race and ethnicity.  Keep language and religion, of course.  Those have practical consequences.  Race and ethnicity do not.

[angus]

I reckon that the portuguese-speaking and portuguese-sirnamed are as legit as spanish-speaking and spanish-sirnamed when it comes to choosing Hispanic.  Just my opinion.

Also, it doesn't matter to me whether they're as lilly-white as norwegians or as dark black as the tires on a car.  Hispanic, after all, isn't a race, and it states that clearly on the census forms.

I still say it's all hogwash, but as long as we're going to have the categorization, I wouldn't quibble with a portuguese-American claiming hispanicity so long as the category exists.

[angus]

How would "Arab" as an ethnic categorization have anything to do with voting rights?  As I understand it, the act was meant to address groups which have historically been denied voting access.  Does Arab have such a history in the United States?

Also, doesn't the Shelby decision of last year sort of dismantle most of it?

[angus]

Section 2 still applies everywhere...

Ah, I guess I'm going to have to look that up.

Okay, according to justice.gov, section 2 applied a nationwide prohibition against the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on the literacy tests on a nationwide basis.  Also, it says that a 1982 amendment allowed a plaintiff to establish a violation without having to prove discriminatory purpose.  I really don't see a connection to that and the inclusion of Arab in the growing list.

That said, I also don't think we should have any of it to begin with.  Having racial (and ethnic) considerations just seem to confuse and cause problems.  For example, in this thread we have an original Aryan arguing with others over whether Persians are white.  (I say they are, by the way.  But that shouldn't really have anything to do with the census.)  For that matter, anyone whose voting rights are violated, no matter their ethnicity or no matter their region of residence, would have a case against the violator--with or without the voting rights act--and if your lawyer needs to rely on that act to make the case that your constitutional rights have been violated if somebody doesn't let you vote, then I respectfully suggest that your lawyer is a schmuk and you really ought to fire him and hire another.  

[angus]

how come no one wants to be white any more?

We have Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  They have MLK, Beyoncé, and Samuel L. Jackson.  You do the math.