I can't recall exactly when NPR started asking us to track the ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, and other identity markers of everyone we interviewed for the podcast. The checklist was long—too long and intrusive to run through while speaking to someone on the phone (not to mention it would have seriously changed the mood).
Reading Tomas Sheridan's quote made me realize how petty we are to bind ourselves to boarders. As someone who has the passport ranked at 10th from the Bottom, (Sri Lanka) such intermingling of multiple boxes is virtually impossible.
i am a biomedical researcher- specifically in population health and more specifically I have researching the past few years just this. How we ask, what we ask and why we ask demographics. Most importatly should we ask if it is not the variable we are studying? In my opinion the life sciences asking race/ethnicity, gender has played a huge role in biological determinism. I was motivated to do this by your poignant example when asking about someone's race who is not in the States. When I was still at a community college and on a task force to update how these questions were asked, and ultimately to make them more inclusive (in so much as we could at the time). I remember working on this and being gobsmacked that in the US, per federal standards, using IPEDS[integrated postsecondary education data system] ( the overarching reporting agency and metric that people refer to as "we have to for state/federal reporting standards) specific to post-secondary institutions counts middle eastern as white. My immediate reaction was "if you are any shade of not white in the US your lived experience is as a person of color so to have to put middle eastern folks into the white box is another act of colonization and also patently untrue. Plus, the "Middle East" is a vast diaspora.
In my opinion, you rightly point out the social construction of race. Colorism is a unique social condition that is place and time-dependent.
Sorry for the off the cuff rant.. :) I hope you can follow the wanderings of my brain. If not, that is ok too
By birth and geography and culture, I’m one thing. But I live in a somewhat different place (not far by miles, but very different culturally). My family speaks one language, but many of my friends speak a different one.
I always react negatively to these gender and race-related questionnaires that meet me when visiting the US. Even signing up for a conference includes a very boxy questionnaire about race and gender that is totally unrelated to my lived experience.
I touched on this question on my master's thesis as well. Brazil has only 5 official racial categories, and they are based mostly on looks rather than geographical origin. So as a descendent of Lebanese immigrants, in Brazil all I could be was white (though my grandparents and great-grandparents might not have had the same privilege).
Canada however has an extensive list of options for "visible minorities". I usually choose between Latin American or Middle-Eastern, depending on how the question is asked (sometimes I mark both). Is the question about race or ethnicity? Sometimes that makes a difference. I'm connected and influenced by both, seems like a misrepresentation if I mark just one.
Recently on a doctor's appointment I was asked if I was Caucasian, and I gave the longest "well..." as an answer.
This takes me back to school forms, staring blankly at my options trying to figure out how to classify “Middle Eastern” with no clear box for it. And even that felt inaccurate, like I was erasing a diverse family history of intercultural marriages and migrations.
It’s not so easy to force our lived experiences and identities into one box, and quite sad how that option can seem easier for society than accepting the sometimes nuanced and/or complex realities of others. It’s wonderful to read about research that delves into this further and challenges the idea of checking a single box. Thank you for sharing!
Thinking more and more of Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie after reading this!
Reading Tomas Sheridan's quote made me realize how petty we are to bind ourselves to boarders. As someone who has the passport ranked at 10th from the Bottom, (Sri Lanka) such intermingling of multiple boxes is virtually impossible.
i am a biomedical researcher- specifically in population health and more specifically I have researching the past few years just this. How we ask, what we ask and why we ask demographics. Most importatly should we ask if it is not the variable we are studying? In my opinion the life sciences asking race/ethnicity, gender has played a huge role in biological determinism. I was motivated to do this by your poignant example when asking about someone's race who is not in the States. When I was still at a community college and on a task force to update how these questions were asked, and ultimately to make them more inclusive (in so much as we could at the time). I remember working on this and being gobsmacked that in the US, per federal standards, using IPEDS[integrated postsecondary education data system] ( the overarching reporting agency and metric that people refer to as "we have to for state/federal reporting standards) specific to post-secondary institutions counts middle eastern as white. My immediate reaction was "if you are any shade of not white in the US your lived experience is as a person of color so to have to put middle eastern folks into the white box is another act of colonization and also patently untrue. Plus, the "Middle East" is a vast diaspora.
In my opinion, you rightly point out the social construction of race. Colorism is a unique social condition that is place and time-dependent.
Sorry for the off the cuff rant.. :) I hope you can follow the wanderings of my brain. If not, that is ok too
This really resonated with me.
By birth and geography and culture, I’m one thing. But I live in a somewhat different place (not far by miles, but very different culturally). My family speaks one language, but many of my friends speak a different one.
So, my life is not that complicated,
Where?
Gregory I enjoyed reading your post! I love the end result of our conversation. Thank you for sharing! Looking forward to your future work. Nairan
I always react negatively to these gender and race-related questionnaires that meet me when visiting the US. Even signing up for a conference includes a very boxy questionnaire about race and gender that is totally unrelated to my lived experience.
I touched on this question on my master's thesis as well. Brazil has only 5 official racial categories, and they are based mostly on looks rather than geographical origin. So as a descendent of Lebanese immigrants, in Brazil all I could be was white (though my grandparents and great-grandparents might not have had the same privilege).
Canada however has an extensive list of options for "visible minorities". I usually choose between Latin American or Middle-Eastern, depending on how the question is asked (sometimes I mark both). Is the question about race or ethnicity? Sometimes that makes a difference. I'm connected and influenced by both, seems like a misrepresentation if I mark just one.
Recently on a doctor's appointment I was asked if I was Caucasian, and I gave the longest "well..." as an answer.
This takes me back to school forms, staring blankly at my options trying to figure out how to classify “Middle Eastern” with no clear box for it. And even that felt inaccurate, like I was erasing a diverse family history of intercultural marriages and migrations.
It’s not so easy to force our lived experiences and identities into one box, and quite sad how that option can seem easier for society than accepting the sometimes nuanced and/or complex realities of others. It’s wonderful to read about research that delves into this further and challenges the idea of checking a single box. Thank you for sharing!