In the US, Asian is a racial category found on official government census forms. It is literally a category the US government uses to classify people.

There are no categories for Indian, Chinese, Korean, or Vietnamese.

Damn, it sounds like you come from a line of some nasty rapist slave owners.

Can confirm - was in Sicily in March/April, and my experiencing driving in Palermo was insane. The rest of the island wasn't nearly as bad, though.

Orly?



https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blog...n-designs.html

It's awkwardly shown, but I think the countries of origin shown on that form are not considered a race, but an ethnicity / subdivision of a race. Trust me, no one in the US thinks Chinese is a race, and I have never seen it called that in any book or government form.


https://www.census.gov/topics/popula...ace/about.html

The U.S. Census Bureau must adhere to the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards on race and ethnicity which guide the Census Bureau in classifying written responses to the race question:

White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

American Indian or Alaska 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 Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

The 1997 OMB standards permit the reporting of more than one race. An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification.

An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification. The Census Bureau does not tell individuals which boxes to mark or what heritage to write in. For the first time in Census 2000, individuals were presented with the option to self-identify with more than one race and this continued with the 2010 Census. People who identify with more than one race may choose to provide multiple races in response to the race question. For example, if a respondent identifies as "Asian" and "White," they may respond to the question on race by checking the appropriate boxes that describe their racial identities and/or writing in these identities on the spaces provided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_a..._United_States

The United States has a racially and ethnically diverse population.[1] At the federal level, race and ethnicity have been categorized separately. The most recent United States census recognized five racial categories (White, Black, Native American/Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander), as well as people who belong to two or more of the racial categories.

looks like the census measures ethnicity exclusively on the basis of origin , ie... common ancestors.

not something you can acquire after birth, something 100% inherited, as non jalfrezi people usually do

As I said earlier, for my entire life I have considered ethnicity only based on country of ancestral origin, not any of those other factors, and that is the way the word is generally used in the US.

Then you should both start updating dictionaries and encyclopedias with the definition provided by some idiot in government.


I think I see the problem.

"For my entire life".

Taking a wild stab at this but I'd hazard a guess that your entire life means pre-genetic science revelations about "race" (2003).

Jalfrezi do you think ethnicity can be lost or acquired after you are born?

Coming back to this. I was doing some reading and found something that might help you:


Genetic differences between continents

You might need to accept that words are used differently in different parts of the world, just like you told me earlier.

And I don't think new races have come into being since 1997.

Yes, by the definition of ethnicity clearly it can.

If you converted to Islam and went and lived in a village in Pakistan, changed your citizenship and married a local and raised a family there. adopting their language, customs and traditions you're not Italian any more by any reasonable definition of what an Italian is, so what ethnicity are you?

It helps me see that apparently there is no such thing as ethnicity either.

Some term is useful to describe groups of people whose customs, languages and cultures are different.

This is deliberately obtuse because you know the point being made is that post-2003 those of us that read obtained a different understanding of what "race" is.

Since then I have learned, as have you, that race isn't a real thing. So it certainly makes no sense for there to now be more races; it means there are none.

Your arguments make no sense when combined. Somehow you believe that there is no such thing as race, but also that Chinese is a race and that it is possible to be racist.

Even in this comment, you take something I say about ethnicity and assume that means I don't know anything about science since 2003.

Race and ethnicity are obviously different things, and I said nothing there about race. I was stating how the word ethnicity is generally used in the US, and I am certain that I know more about that than do you, unless you have lived in the US for more than 55 years.

As I already said Italian isn't an ethnicity.

But take Lap which is, or Eskimo, or Maori, such a person wouldn't become of Pakistani ethnicity if raised in Pakistan by Pakistani.

At least not the way most people use the word.

I mean ancestry.com determines your ethnicity by your DNA alone, that's what ethnicity means for non jalfrezi people.

A 100% inheritable trait which exclusively and strictly depends on who your ancestors were.

This is what non jalfrezi mainstream vanilla pubblications use the word for

Here you go.

The people practising racism do believe that race is a meaningful distinction between groups of people and that some "races" are inherently better than others in various ways (which just by sheer chance also seems to align superiority with the racist's own perceived "race").

Classic Luciom. Ignore the posted link to a well researched Harvard scientific article and repost one from the internationally esteemed organ..........HealthDigest.com?


LOOOOOOOL

the topic is how normal people use the word, so yes health digest is exactly what you should look at, while Harvard is absolutely irrelevant

remember the topic? normal. not Harvard.... normal.

100 IQ, 70k/year/household.

normal

Often treated synonymously

So everything before your arbitrary date is ignored? What if I had ancestors that were slaves in 1500 but in 1750 were slave owners?
I assume you mean the government pays only if it has enough money left after paying for blowjobs.

Scientists discovering and publishing things about genetics that blow apart your decades-old received wisdom about race = irrelevant

More disingenuous bad faith arguments from you.