Am I the only one tired of people speaking about being Black or White as a race?

What point?
Let’s compare and contrast I look at my window In 1970 my neighborhood cops was parked, he was from my city, the construction workers were from my city, my new neighbors grew up here. So what changed? What big policy changed?
 
Been Telling people there is no such thing as Race since 1970. Do the research and anyone will come to the same conclusion.
Of course there is a such thing as race. And the idea of race is also a human construct. Heck, language itself is a human construct. We could say there is no difference between a tree and a bush, but there are observable differences. If the differences are observable, they have to exist.
 
So you have no point? Is this like the question you kept begging me to answer that you never actually asked? You’re not really great at this whole communication thing.
I communicated very clearly what I see outside my window. Pre-immigration and this immigration .. Americans in urban areas exposed to today’s immigration are struggling.. those that remain in homogeneous cultures and communities are progressing
 
I communicated very clearly what I see outside my window. Pre-immigration and this immigration .. Americans in urban areas exposed to today’s immigration are struggling.. those that remain in homogeneous cultures and communities are progressing
:lol:

And everyone dresses the same, and has the same last name, and has the exact same opinion on everything? Is that your fantasy?

And everyone living in every city is suffering?

:lol:
 
For your reluctant edification, here is the government's definition of "RACE".
And for your edification, here is part of a very lengthy article from a former director of the US Census Bureau, Kenneth Prewitt:

Racial classification in America

In its first national census, the young American republic not only counted its population; it racially classified it. From 1790 to 1990, the nation’s demographic base changed from one decennial census to the next, and so too did the racial categories on offer. Always, however, the government held fast to two premises: First, it makes policy sense to put every American into one and only one of a limited number of discrete race groups, with the decennial census being the primary vehicle by which the counting and classifying should take place. Second, when policy treats Americans differently depending on what race they belong to, it should make use of this government classification.

The second premise depends on the first. Without a limited number of bounded groups, it is difficult to fashion policy with race as a criterion. This is easily seen in comparison. Since 1790 there have been policies based on age – who can vote, own property, be drafted, buy alcohol, and claim social security. These policies use a small number of age groupings with fixed and knowable boundaries. Though policy can draw the age boundaries differently as conditions change (eligible to vote at eighteen rather than twenty-one) there is no dispute about who is in a given age group. Using race as a criterion to define groups was never this straightforward, a fact implicitly acknowledged by the government as its census added and subtracted categories from one decennial to the next and as different federal agencies used different taxonomies.

In the mid- 1990s the official primary race groups went from four to five.

The ease with which this change took place was consistent with the government’s position that “classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature . . . They have been developed in response to needs expressed by both the executive branch and the Congress.” In the absence of science, classification decisions respond to strong voices expressing themselves in the political process. Native Hawaiians, a population group that had suffered discrimination and had the (statistical) scars to prove it, became the latest of the nation’s official races.



In the future, on what grounds will the federal statistical system declare that enough is enough – that four was wrong, but five is right?


Of course race has always had a subjective dimension but, as Melissa Nobles notes, “in the past, race appeared more fixed because there was a range of constraints – political, intellectual, and social. Undoubtedly, some unknown number of Americans questioned race and color as concepts and as identities, but there was not much public space for such questioning.” Race in census taking was until 1960 assigned by enumerators, whose judgment in such matters was constrained by instructions as well as by social and political realities. But today we ask individuals themselves for their views and, Nobles continues, “there are no laws, social mores, intellectual agreements, or general consensus about what constitutes a racial identity.”

Whether for purposes of self-expression or to detect barriers based on race, ancestry, ethnicity, or color, the United States will continue to have a racial and ethnic classification system. But is the one now in place the right one? In my view, not exactly – though of course there is no one ‘right’ classification.

Yet neither racial measurement nor policy that relies on it is in a settled state – and this provides a historical opportunity for fresh thinking, starting with the term ‘race’ itself.

There is a strong moral case for jettisoning the term ‘race’ altogether. Relevant data can be collected without ever using the term that echoes a discredited eighteenth-century science that took physiological markers as indicative of moral worth and intellectual ability. The government doesn’t have to ask what racial group we belong to; it could simply ask what population group we belong to. This change, too long postponed, would break with hierarchical assumptions historically attached to fixed racial categories.
 
:lol:

And everyone dresses the same, and has the same last name, and has the exact same opinion on everything? Is that your fantasy?

And everyone living in every city is suffering?

:lol:
A community having something in common or a community that has nothing in common?
I think it’s clear evidence that multi cultural neighborhoods are pretty violent.. that’s why I compare and contrast pre immigration to todays immigration..
 

Forum List

Back
Top