Interestingly enough, I always say I'm white, even though I'm half Hispanic.

Even my job would like me to change my status with the Human Resources department so the company can look more diverse. But, I really don't identify with my Hispanic side. I am white, I was raised in the whitest part of America, etc.

So, I guess I don't see it as a bad thing.

I see being "white" as being part of a large majority and something pretty bland. There's not a lot of significance to it. So by putting myself down as "white" on my forms, statistically I don't really make anyone look better or worse, nor do I give myself a leg up or leg down. I like it that way. I don't want to be treated differently because my father happens to be Hispanic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

The President and everyone else is allowed to self-define how they represent their ethnic / racial heritage in this country. Being Black is a societal construction as much as a biological one.

He's not "half-White." He's Black, as this country defines it.

It seems obvious to me why your daughters say they're not white. The Asian genes are dominant so they probably look more Asian than white.

Great article on Tiger Woods and race from the Economist in 2001 http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_GVGTDG

I can display the content if people are interested.

My mother is white. I never knew my father, except to know that he was a drug dealer and convicted criminal. I was raised by an extended white family.

I checked Black on my census form as well. Why? Because I am. Perhaps more importantly, I came of age when one drop still made you black. And I'm a generation past Obama.

Kalman

Indeed, Hispanic covers a diversity of races and cultures. (Some Mexicans identify with Caucasian ancestry from Spain, others with Native American ancestry from right where they live; Some Cubans also identify with Spanish ancestry, while others identify with African ancestry; etc.)

FWIW - the part of the U.S. Census form where you identify race is now "check all that apply". Identification as Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Samoan, "Other Asian", and "Other Pacific Islander" each have individual check boxes under "race". Hispanic/Latino/Spanish is in another part of the form, separate from race. The Census people decided to go that way because "mixed" is well on the way to becoming the dominant racial/ethnic group in this country.

So it's all a "social construct". FWIW, there are many, including myself, who believe that at least in part, Obama chose to identify himself as "Black" (as opposed to "Checked Several Categories, including 'White'") because in the 2008 election identifying himself that way was politically advantageous as the Presidential candidate of the major political party that draws far more votes from African Americans than the other major party.

I see the fact that identifying oneself as "Black" can now have some practical advantages as a small measure of progress. It was only a few decades ago that "passing for White" was common among people with mixed Black and White ancestry.

Also FWIW - I find it interesting that Hispanic/Latino/Spanish, Asian, and Pacific ancestries are the only ethnic categories that are tracked. There is no checkbox in any category for indicating "Ashkenazic Jewish" ancestry. Or Romany or Armenian or Arabic ancestry, among many others that are culturally significant in U.S. society.

Sephardic Jews with ancestry from Spanish-speaking countries have to either identify themselves as "Hispanic" or check boxes based purely on race (e.g. "White", "Black","Chinese", "Asian Indian"). All of the specific races I just mentioned are represented among Sephardic and other non-Ashkenazic ("German") Jews - but by tracking only the racial characteristics of these people, the U.S. Census database gives no insight into the variety of sub-cultures among the Jewish population.

I assume that this problem applies to many other ethnic groups in the U.S. The post I am replying to shows that the U.S. Census is doing a "much less than adequate" job for people with Brazilian ancestry, for example.

I know that Census forms are a pain to fill out, but culture and cultural family history matters. The diversity of world cultures and races found within the U.S. is one of our best assets. It's becoming the way we identify ourselves as a nation and culture. There is much work that remains to be done in documenting/acknowledging/honoring/celebrating that.

For the exact same reason it was even an issue for an obviouls black guy to select black on the census. Because anything he does will generate controversy from some folks. If Obama had selected White and Black, we'd be hearing about Obama was trying to dis the black community, that he was trying to be cute, trying to have things both ways, etc etc etc.

Kalman

Actually, the fact the Shagbaby sees it within his own house shows us how complex the issue of race remains in America. For him, it's an obvious choice White + Asian = White + Asian. Select both. For his daughters, it might be more internalized, or White + Asian = Not White. This is because we are still wedded to the idea in contemporary America that white is a racial group and a privilege, even though these are artificial creations. So White + X = Not White.

My family tried everything to preserve me as an individual; society had other plans.

Kalman

Eh, it's decidedly uncool these days to be white (even if it's still the majority). Everyone is trying to distinguish themselves.

Ditto. When you try to hail a cab at night, you will always be black.

This is part of a U.S. attitude evolution that is still a "work in progress".

On the one hand, it might be a measure of progress that increasingly Asians are regarded as "White". This follows movement in past decades that recast Jews, Irish and Southern Italians the same way.

But even though the category narrows on account of these shifts, the category "White" remains and is considered privileged over the "not-White" category - which increasingly boils down to African-American.

The real attitudinal goal I would hope for in the long-run is a final end to "White" vs. "Not-White". Although most marginalized racial/ethnic groups get to join the "White" club eventually - the very existence of "Not-White" REQUIRES that SOMEBODY has to be labeled "Not-White". In this sense it's a good thing whenever someone with the status of POTUS chooses to embrace the one identification that persistently gets defined as "Not-White". When enough of that happens, perhaps being defined as "White" will lose it's dubious value in our society.

There are financial benefits to it; for example for the Bill Gates scholarships non-Hispanic whites are the only ones excluded from consideration--all other races and ethnicities may apply.

Also, the safety "fudge factor" that companies put in place to avoid EEOC lawsuits--i.e., hiring minorities at rates above their general percentage of the population just to play it safe with the EEOC--have the effect of causing reverse discrimination against non-Hispanic whites, as they become proportionally underrepresented.

No brainer. Publicizing the fact that he only checked the box for "Black" is a way of publicly saying, "Say it Loud! I'm Black and I'm Proud!" and indicating that he does so by choice. It not only sets an example for others, it also gives him a political advantage in the eyes of the African-American community and in the eyes of all who agree with his choice and his decision to make that choice public.

Quote
National and global politics can also factor into one's decisions. I'm 2nd generation Taiwanese-American, and there is a slick YouTube video going out from some advocacy organizations encouraging folks in my community to write in Taiwanese in the Other Asian box (as opposed to checking Chinese).

This brings in another factor. The chaotic manner in which the U.S. census presents questions about ethnic and racial self-identification opens the door to local and regional political issues creeping into the results. The way people with relatives and/or ancestors in Taiwan respond to the question is based on where they stand on the issue of "reunification" - which in Taiwan breaks down along political party lines. And I won't even try to speculate on how a person with family ties to the original native (as opposed to Han Chinese) Taiwanese culture would deal with the issue of what to write into that box!

(Hmmm ... without seeing this YouTube video, I can't rule out the possibility that it IS a statement of protest from advocates of native Taiwanese culture. Could you post a link to this video?)

Actually, it doesn't have to do with "native" Taiwanese groups--if by native you mean the members of the Polynesian cultures who lived on the island before the Han Chinese came over centuries ago. "Native" is typically used more colloquially to refer families on the island prior to the KMT arriving in the late 1940s. There are also many Hakka in Taiwan, who are considered Han chinese but who migrated to the South centuries ago. They are still referred to as the "guest people" in Taiwan, though fairly well integrated into Taiwanese life, as far as I know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcFLfw73O30

Okay, enough about Taiwan. Back to the regularly scheduled programming.