Geeze 2 thinkers in a day need to rest now rofl
When I was at school we always placed people/countries via their nation. i.e you are from germany then you german, spain your spanish.
Seems different here and trying to understand peoples hangups. We sat around talking at work one day at the topic of national identity poped its head up. Someone said to me you are english and speak english. Logical answer lol.
But when I said you are Mexican and you speak spanish. They said nope, they are hispanic or a latino. So I said whats wrong with saying your from Mexico. They could not give a real answer to the question.
Then things got deeper. People claiming to be Irish american, african american and Jewish. So put the question again. If you are jewish why not say your Israeli, why should your faith denote you instead of your country.
Again no one could give any real answers lol. So what is everyones learned thoughts here lol
Goose, there is genuine distinction between being Jewish (which is both a region and an ethnicity) and being Israeli (a nationality).
I've always found it to be one of those oddities of America that people frequently (but not always) describe themselves as what they believe their hereitage is plus american.
The ones who I find a little more irritating are those (and this is common in Boston) who say "I'm Irish" - when in fact neither they, not their parents (and sometimes not even their grandparents) actually come from Ireland!
The UK is much more homogenous and I think for many British, or English people, the issue of identity is much more straight forward, or at least they think so.
Thought it was a faith based ethnicity. Israel has been an historic name from biblical times.
well techically its even worse .
african american means (or should mean) somebody who was born in / africa or their ancestors came from that region.
so does that make a white born in african or desendants of somebody born in the area a african american ????... i dont think so . this PC B/S has come round to being ridiculous .
well techically its even worse .
african american means (or should mean) somebody who was born in / africa or their ancestors came from that region.
so does that make a white born in african or desendants of somebody born in the area a african american ????... i dont think so . this PC B/S has come round to being ridiculous .
I don't qite go along with your 'PC/BS' rhetoric, but I have known some white African's (primarily South African's) who have had some fun with this issue. I've never known one who could also claim to be American, but I have known a few who would tick the "african' box on forms in the UK.
Also, years ago I knew a white woman born and bred in the Carribean, who would have great fun telling black kids in London how much more "real" she was than them.
Forms are limiting and there is always somebody who will not conform. However they serve a valuable purpose when properly used. About the time I knew the woman from the Carribean I worked with runaway kids in London. Alhough people of of African/Carribean descent made up something like 5% of the population, they accounted for over 70% of the kids we worked with. The reasons for thay are another issue, but we would never have even known if we didn't keep records.
It can be a real issue when any racial or ethnic group is under represented in some aspect of society: higher education, judiciary, police... It isn't PC/BS to monitor these things and attempt to address them.
Of course John, some of the attempts to address them might well be legitimately characterized as well intended BS (or alternatively, cynical exploitation for political gain), but that is a different issue.
While I think later generations should get over it and just be American, I can understand the first generations using origin to modify"American". The people lived in ethnic groupings, Germantown, little Italy, Chinatown, etc. Much like a Scot giving his clan and family names.
I do think that "African American" and "Native American" are legitimate though, because they describe characteristics that need an identifier, and for which, all other names are considered pejorative.
well techically its even worse .
african american means (or should mean) somebody who was born in / africa or their ancestors came from that region.
so does that make a white born in african or desendants of somebody born in the area a african american ????... i dont think so . this PC B/S has come round to being ridiculous .
I don't qite go along with your 'PC/BS' rhetoric, but I have known some white African's (primarily South African's) who have had some fun with this issue. I've never known one who could also claim to be American, but I have known a few who would tick the "african' box on forms in the UK.
Also, years ago I knew a white woman born and bred in the Carribean, who would have great fun telling black kids in London how much more "real" she was than them.
Forms are limiting and there is always somebody who will not conform. However they serve a valuable purpose when properly used. About the time I knew the woman from the Carribean I worked with runaway kids in London. Alhough people of of African/Carribean descent made up something like 5% of the population, they accounted for over 70% of the kids we worked with. The reasons for thay are another issue, but we would never have even known if we didn't keep records.
It can be a real issue when any racial or ethnic group is under represented in some aspect of society: higher education, judiciary, police... It isn't PC/BS to monitor these things and attempt to address them.
Of course John, some of the attempts to address them might well be legitimately characterized as well intended BS (or alternatively, cynical exploitation for political gain), but that is a different issue.
Rob following on about some white africans who would tick *african* on forms assuming the forms them got them a job/position cus the administation of the job in question was looking for* equal racial representation * by you think when seeing them to be white they would try to reverse the appointment .
you could hardly use the term* not suitable* when dismissing them as that would show reverse discrimination as the job should be filled by qualifications of the applicant . not race . if the position was filled by race only it would be discrimination
John A
In England, the forms do not help or hinder you to get a job. They are separate and should not contain any details that identifies you or links to the job application.
The purpose of the form is purely for statistical monitoring.
It is worth remembering that affirmative action is unlawful in Britain - appointing someone to a position because of their race or ethnicity is as unlawful as not appointing them on the same grounds. (there are certain limited exceptions to this, but let's not go there).
However, before you go thinking that America could learn from this example, consider the number judeges, senior police officers, mayors and people in senior positions in business, government etc etc in America, in comparison with England.
I don't pretend to know what the right answer is.
I've got "told off" in the past for describing a bunch of Mexicans as "Mexicans".
Certainly, they weren't wearing sombreros or humming "La Cucharaca" but I wasn't wrong either.
I don't complain when they call me "gringo", along with the Americans.
Just to be annoying, I might start describing myself as "English-American" next year wink
I was called a Brit at the weekend and got quite huffy about it. I pointed out I was English first, British second. Well, I can go back to the 14th century with the records, before that we, as a family, were infiltrated by of all people the Scots and the French, not to mention the black Irish.
My pal whose married to a Welshman immediately apologised between laughing saying her hubby was exactly the same, he maybe British but he's Welsh first.
I'd have to be an English American, if I took citizenship, but every time we try they declare an amnesty for the illegals, and we legals go to the back of the queue. roll
I do remember in my last employer in the UK, we used fill and your ethnic background form every year, which is stupied. So one year feeling brave I put " the same ethnic background I was 10 years ago, when I joined and the same 10 forms I filled in since". well got in trouble for that, but when I point out the cost of sending the same questionaire out year in year out no one could give and answer.
Then suddenly white Irish appeared on the form, so I ticked the "other" box and put half welsh/londoner on it and got in trouble again. So again I asked if you can be white Irish, why not whatever and there was no answer lol.....
Wish they would just stop trying to fit people into groups....
I do remember in my last employer in the UK, we used fill and your ethnic background form every year, which is stupied. So one year feeling brave I put " the same ethnic background I was 10 years ago, when I joined and the same 10 forms I filled in since". well got in trouble for that, but when I point out the cost of sending the same questionaire out year in year out no one could give and answer.
Then suddenly white Irish appeared on the form, so I ticked the "other" box and put half welsh/londoner on it and got in trouble again. So again I asked if you can be white Irish, why not whatever and there was no answer lol.....
Wish they would just stop trying to fit people into groups....
There is a logic to making people do these forms yearly - the monitoring provided a regular annual snapshot and a record of progress (or lack thereof).
However the fact that you got into trouble suggests your employer wasn't using the forms properly (indeed may have been unwittingly breaking the law). In England such forms are supposed to be anonymous (which is why they cannot just refer back to the form you filled outlast year). If they can match a particular form to a particular person, then insinuate that persons ethnicity is something other than what they described, they defeat the purpose of the forms and, implicitly are seeking to control the outcome.