Journal Community

Eric, tell it to the census bureau.

I guess I'm just accustomed to "black" being another word for Negro, which folks from Southern India are not, even while dark as the dickens.

And now that I think about it, I understand many Japanese, Koreans, etc. would be quite insulted if you called them Chinese, and vice versa. Not that anybody from any other part of the world can tell one from the other (no offense).

Categorization may be arbitrary, but that doesn't make it meaningless. Categories are very real and have very real consequences. Categories and their consequences may change over time, but they're still real.

@Rob, @Eric, first off, they're not *my* categories. But the categories do exist and they are real.

E.g., you qualify for certain "bennies" in the US if you have a great-great-great-grandparent who is an American Indian ("Native American" for the PC crowd). Add one more "great" and you no longer qualify. The same holds true in Hawaii, or something similar, if you have a native Hawaiian ancestor.

Again, these rules change. It's no longer so big a deal if you have a Negro ancestor, since a) there is no more Negro slavery and b) there are no more laws against inter-racial marriage. But, just a little over half a century ago, that made a huge difference.

Arbitrary? Yah, you betcha.

Meaningless? Not in 1960 if you and your intended spouse had any ancestry from different categories.