Interesting
I also read some of the comments people posted below the article.
As globalization and migration patterns continue, I think it's important for the census to methodologically take into account reality versus people's perceptions. And it's not just ok to throw our arms up in the air and say, 'who cares, we're all Americans...' because the playing field is not quite level yet. It is important to be able to put people into groups by nationality, race, ethnicity, etc. to have a more objective understanding to social problems and to come up with solutions for them. People should not strive for a colorblind society anyway, as differences are what make us unique and should be celebrated in a positive way.
Instead of just having "boxes" or categories for race, or for ethnicity, such as black or latino, I think a new approach needs to be taken. For skin color, instead of asking people to associate themselves with black or white, why not have a series of actual colors samples (like the ones they have in stores for paint colors), and put a code (could use numbers, letters of alphabet) by each color. People pick the code that is literally closest to the color of their skin. I think this seems more objective because things are being measured for in the United States. Someone who is white or indio in the DR might be called black in Mexico, but in the U.S. it could be standardized into a code based objectively on the color of skin.
The article brings up important points about people not liking their ethnicity being so simplified as it may not describe what the feel is the full story of who they are. So I think two types of ethnicities should be measured, perceived and prescribed. Perceived would be the person can pick all categories that they feel actively describe them, not just one, but should be things that they personally identify with. Prescribed would be based on the person identifying, if they can, their parents, grandparents and up to great-grandparents nationality. If all of someone's ancestors were born in the U.S., at that point they are not even a 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation immigrant, and perhaps at that point they could be considered just a "regular American", like a generationalized (that's not even a real word!?) American whose family's origins are not important for census purposes. I guess the question is, at what point does it stop becoming relevant (for statistical purposes), where your ancestors came from? Maybe that's why white people don't care to put Irish or German American, because to them it doesn't matter, they are "just Americans". At some point, can't Latinos become "just Americans" then?
I think the U.S. needs to invest some major funds in overhauling the census and making it technologically advanced. It would be a good investment considering the the outlook for the future of a country made up of immigrants. All of this additional information might seem like a nightmare of matrices, but the census needs to step up by hiring more of those out of work social science majors :bunny:. If there is money to hurdle stuff at the moon, surely there is money to do all of that somewhere.
