The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Proposed New MENA "Racial" Classification and the Jews
Arab and Iranian activist groups are trying to get the Biden administration to impose a new MENA classification; it would have some surprising effects on American Jews.
[Cross-posted from my blog at The Times of Israel]
The Biden administration is considering adding a new "Middle Eastern and North African" racial classification to the US Census. If this classification gets written into law, it will inevitably spread to college applications, civil rights forms, and other documents that ask Americans to indicate their race.
What would this mean for the American Jewish community? Will Israeli Americans be part of the MENA classification? Mizrahi Jews? Ashkenazi Jews who feel closer ties to their Middle Eastern heritage than to their more recent European places of origin? Why add a new classification to begin with?
As discussed in my new book, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America, through the late twentieth century, most immigrants to the United States from Arab countries were Christians from Lebanon, along with a smaller number of Muslims and Jews. After some uncertainty early in the early twentieth century, American law and custom ultimately treated these immigrants and descendants as "whites." For example, actors such as Danny Thomas played "white" roles and co-starred with white leading ladies without controversy–something that would have been unthinkable for black or east Asian Americans.
In the late 1970s, when the federal government created our modern racial classification scheme, Arab Americans were placed in the white classification, along with Iranians, Afghans, Berbers, Jews, Chaldeans, Armenians, and others. This decision attracted no controversy, as the overwhelming majority of Arab Americans self-identified as white.
Nevertheless, in the 1980s, Arab American organizations lobbying for the US census to recognize a new Arab or Middle Eastern racial category. They hoped enumerating the Arab American population would increase its visibility and political clout, and perhaps plant the seeds for eligibility for affirmative action. Samer Khalaf, national president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, explained, "The MENA category was a bit of a compromise for us. In a perfect world we'd have an Arab category."
The lobbying efforts were unsuccessful, in part because of an unresolved debate over whether Israeli Americans would be included in the MENA classification.
In the meantime, more Muslims from Arab countries began immigrating to the US. A new generation of Muslim Arab American progressive political activists self-identified as "people of color." The media generally accepted this designation. For example, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and activist Linda Sarsour, both Muslims of Palestinian Arab descent, have been widely described, and describe themselves, as "women of color."
In Sarsour's case she attributes her "person of color status" despite her pale complexion to the fact that she wears a hijab, which causes others to see her an outsider to mainstream America. This raises the question of why Haredi Jews do not get "people of color" status based on their more dramatically non-mainstream religious garb.
In the early 2010s, the Census Bureau again began studying whether it should add a MENA category to the 2020 census. The proposed MENA classification would apply to "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Middle East and North Africa. This includes, for example, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan, Israeli, Iraqi, Algerian, and Kurdish."
Census Bureau researchers reported that Israeli American and Jewish organizations told them that American Jews did not want to be included in the MENA category because they identify their ethnicity as Jewish, not Middle Eastern. The latter response, however, is beside the point, because there is no "Jewish" category on census and other forms; most Jews would have the choice between identifying themselves as white or as MENA. Many Mizrahi Jews (Jews of recent Middle Eastern and North African descent) would check the MENA box, as would many Israeli immigrants.
At least some Ashkenazim consider themselves to be descendants of a group indigenous to the Middle East. And if the MENA classification developed into an affirmative action category, Jews would have an incentive to identify themselves as MENA.
The Trump administration ultimately killed the new MENA classification. The failure to adopt a new MENA category resulted in part from lobbying by conservative political activists opposed to what they saw as further balkanization of the population. Another factor was the relative lack of enthusiasm from the grassroots for a new MENA racial category. Some Middle Eastern Americans were content being categorized as white; others thought any new category should be ethnic, not racial.
Arab American groups and their Iranian American allies are trying again in the Biden administration. American Jews should oppose this change, for several reasons. First, the groups pushing this change are, to say the least, not friends of the American Jewish community. They want a MENA classification primarily so that Americans of Middle Eastern Muslim descent can get official victim status, including eligibility for affirmative action. They also hope for a certain immunity from criticism. Already, when people criticize the likes of Sarsour and Tlaib for antisemitic and anti-Israel statements, the latter's defenders question how critics indulge in "white privilege" and dare attack "women of color."
Relatedly, as noted above many American Jews will adopt the MENA classification, leading to communal tensions with other MENA Americans as Jews take a share of whatever gains the others believe are "supposed" to go to them.
Finally, our current classification scheme is already incoherent, arbitrary, and divisive. An additional "racial" classification, especially for a group that is internally very diverse and fits no sensible definition of a "race," will just make matters worse.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Seems to me the governments approach is completely backwards. Rather than make up a bunch of categories up front, and ask people to pigeonhole themselves, it would make a lot more sense to interview a broad sample of people and ask then how they identify in terms of both race and ethnicity. Then you would analyze the responses and develop the classifications from there.
Isn't this effectively what a lot of older classifications entailed, more or less? Taking a less purely regional point of view and looking more at categories social perception, both internally and externally.
What race is this man, Anwar Sadat? Does he need a diverse advantage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Sadat
What the lawyer will not say is that all -isms, are folk statistics, mostly true, most of the time. They also change with reality. African immigrants outperformed whites on the 2010 Census. Now they are being chased by employers and admissions officials waving wads of cash. The new stereotype is that they will get a striving top performer. There are even refinements, Ghana, yes, Nigeria, no.
Portrayed by Louis Gossett Jr??? Sadat was obviously Afro-Amurican!!!! (well "Afro" anyway)
and assassinated celebrating Egypt's crossing the Suez (well retreating ignominiously in defeat could be considered "Crossing") during the Yom Kippur War... couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy
Frankie, Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel, and made $billions for his country, in tourism alone. Don't get weird. Or least, not too weird.
Yeah, right, like Michael Spinks signed a "Peace Treaty" with Mike Tyson after getting knocked out in 91 Seconds (seemed faster) https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=spinks+tyson+fight&qpvt=spinks+tyson+fight&view=detail&mid=EFA0A68FEC32037DF0C5EFA0A68FEC32037DF0C5&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dspinks%2Btyson%2Bfight%26qpvt%3Dspinks%2Btyson%2Bfight%26FORM%3DVDRE
Why not either drop all this classifying altogether, as the 14th amendment requires, or let people choose their own? Why must classifications only be from a weird government-approved list?
The fluidentity crowd ought to be happy with this approach too, since it's what they want for gender.
Any halfway decent wokester can urp* up the problems with "othering" groups. Pretending race and religion are unrelated in this context is artificial and wrong.
Any difference you can apply to a group suffices, for exactly the same reason. Race, religion, gender, gay.
Liberal. Conservative.
It's all tools for the politicians, not to fix things, but to pretend to, while beating the drums as loudly as ever.
* This word is spelled correctly.
"It's all tools for the politicians, not to fix things, but to pretend to, while beating the drums as loudly as ever."
You hit the nail on the head.
If it wasn't for politicians, we wouldn't have racial differences? Jim Crow wouldn't have existed? Slavery? Destruction of native tribes?
Politicians may sometimes stoke differences in order to gain power (see: Putin's anti-gay agenda) but often they're only picking up on existing bigotries and taking advantage of them. It would be impossible for politicians to leverage cultural issues like this if they didn't already exist. All the BS around "CRT" in grade schools is an invented political ploy that successfully leveraged and amplified existing anti-black bigotry for the benefit of some politicians. None of this would be possible, however, if the bigotry wasn't already there in some form to begin with.
"If it wasn't for politicians, we wouldn't have racial differences? Jim Crow wouldn't have existed? Slavery? Destruction of native tribes?"
That is simple whataboutism.
Why persist in a bad practice?
"None of this would be possible, however, if the bigotry wasn't already there in some form to begin with."
Clearly, it is strong in you also.
"It's all tools for the politicians, not to fix things, but to pretend to, while beating the drums as loudly as ever."
Mere examples of where bigotry existed without the need for politicians to beat the drums. It's too easy to blame politicians for the power we hand to them. Trump "fixing" the "invasion" at the Mexican border, for example. If there wasn't pre-existing bigotry inherent in his base, beating that drum would not have had the effect he wanted.
Classifications like "MENA"--whatever the value people may think it does or doesn't have--only exist because people can be assholes and treat people as "other." If you want to stop the "bad practice," start by going after the root cause, which isn't the naming of a thing. The root cause is widespread bigotry against various "out groups" as scapegoats for the majority's own perceived failures.
Shawn,
You obviously want to be deaf to the objection of creating a "race" where there is none for the purpose of new forms of discrimination.
This trend in allowing people to choose an identity will have to be reigned in eventually. Already some of it flies in the face of science and some are using it for simple exploitation of others.
We are all human and the only other category that is meaningful is your biological sex.
I couldn't agree more.
Classifying the population by biological sex is important.
Classifying the population by race or ethnicity is a terrible idea that should've gone out with the abolition of slavery and Jim Crow laws.
We already self-identify in so many ways... like "Irish American" or "Gay" or "Catholic."
We "reigned in" Irish immigrants, gays, and event Catholics at various points in our history. That didn't turn out well for anyone and, at least for the Irish and Catholics, we largely overcame those bigotries. For the LGBT folks among us, that effort is still going but it's slowly being won.
We "reigned in" Irish immigrants, gays, and event Catholics at various points in our history.
Nobody said anything about reigning in people, you dishonest twit.
There isn't a significant difference between reigning in people and reigning in people's actions (choices or speech related to identity.)
What else does it mean when one uses government force to prevent its citizens from expressing identity?
It looks an awful lot like Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law, for starters.
There isn't a significant difference between reigning in people and reigning in people's actions (choices or speech related to identity.)
If you believe that then you're even more of an idiot than I thought.
What else does it mean when one uses government force to prevent its citizens from expressing identity?
Nobody said anything about using government force to prevent anyone from doing anything, so in this case...it just means that you're making stuff up. The issue giving people the option to make up their own identities for purposes of responding to a government question. Even if that were eliminated Rachel Dolezal and Shawn "Talcum X" King could still both claim to be black to their hearts' content.
It looks an awful lot like Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law, for starters.
Continuing to repeat that lie ad infinitum isn't going to make it any less of a lie than it was to begin with. It only reveals what a dishonest hack you are.
"especially for a group that is internally very diverse and fits no sensible definition of a 'race,'"
Like Asian American?
Nah, they all look the same to Round Eyes
If you have a racial classification system, you are racist.
That spinning sound is (Dr) Martin Luther King Jr turning over in his grave.
Well, since I'm a Race-ist I'll invoke Him again, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
OMG! that's literally (pre) Nazi Germany! and whenever I'm asked ethnicity, I put "Amurican" so much simpler than Scotch-Irish-Jewish-Silesian(that's right, not German, not Polish, Silesian, it's more of a real identity than "Palestinian" and when's the last time a Silesian blew up anything?
Frank "also born on the 4th of July, can you get any more Amurican than being born on Amurica's birthday?"
As a Sicilian-American Who remembers how my ancestral homeland was invaded and occupied by MENA imperialists for approximately 200 years, I support the creation of this new category, because we Sicilian Americans can now pursue them for reparations.
Spanish Americans will have an even greater claim.
Greek-American here who, according to my genetic profile, is 40% MENA. o suspect Sicilians also have similar lineage. So there you go. That would make me bi-racial. Hey, if it can open doors for me and my kids, why not?
This was analyzed in this scene. Reparations are basically, actually, and literally owed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3yon2GyoiM
Heck, around a million Europeans, from places as far away as Ireland, England, and the Netherlands, were kidnapped by MENA and brought to Africa as slaves. We can begin extracting the reparations as soon as the category is created.
If I recall correctly, this happened over a three thousand year period.
It predates the events described in the Book of Exodus.
Don' t walk to stoke Conspiracy (get it?) Theorists, but maybe "MENA" isn't the best acronym, seeing as how it, umm
brings up memories of Talk Radio in the 90's (remember Chuck Harder, broadcasting live from the Telford Hotel in White Springs FL, on AM AND Short wave, even sold a "Made in Amurica" portable SW radio, until even he couldn't couldn't make the costs work out (still works)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Chronicles
Frank
There is and should be only one classification: American. The 14th Amendment demands it and any discrimination can be more than handled under Equal Protection.
As TR said:
“There is no room in this country,” Roosevelt bellowed, “for hyphenated Americanism…German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.”...
“Any discrimination against aliens is a wrong, for it tends to put the immigrant at a disadvantage and to cause him to feel bitterness and resentment during the very years when he should be preparing himself for American citizenship. If an immigrant is not fit to become a citizen, he should not be allowed to come here. If he is fit, he should be given all the rights to earn his own livelihood, and to better himself, that any man can have.”
John Wayne said 50 years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6N4zKM2cZs
Teddy Roosevelt. Yeah. He wrote that, sure, but he was only referring to white immigrants that were part of his vision for manifest destiny. He wasn't thinking about the native peoples we "manifested" right over to get there, nor did he have high opinions of non-white races like Filipinos, Cubans, or even black Americans.
"No troops could have behaved better than the colored soldiers had behaved so far; but they are, of course peculiarly dependent upon their white officers,” Roosevelt wrote in his war memoir 'Rough Riders.'"
He probably though of those black American veterans as "good Americans" but he clearly didn't think they were equal.
Love TR, but it was freaking 1916.
Not the best era to cite for nuanced and enlightened social understanding.
Love TR, but it was freaking 1916.
Not the best era to cite for nuanced and enlightened social understanding.
So you take issue with the sentiments expressed in the quotes you're responding to? Or are you just giving straw-manning a rest for a bit so you can play shoot-the-messenger for a logical fallacy change of pace?
If every American whose ancestors were persecuted because of their religion or country of origin can claim minority status, that would leave the true Anglo descendants of Plymouth and Jamestown as the only “privileged” group. Perhaps the smallest minority of all.
Nope. The Anglos who arrived at Plymouth came here because they were persecuted first by the Anglican Church in England and then by the Dutch.
And clearly didn't learn the right lesson from that, either, given the way our society still goes on persecuting various out-groups.
And clearly didn't learn the right lesson from that, either, given the way all societies still go on persecuting various out-groups.
FIFY.
"Would actually make things worse "
So you think it's well designed to accomplish its goal?
Bingo.
If we must collect racial information on people at all, I would just ask "Race/Ethnicity? ________________" and accept whatever one- or two-word answer people want to fill in. I would write "Human."
I once worked a clerical job copying information from mailed-in newsprint forms to quintuplicate carbon copy forms. There was a spot for "Minority". It had perhaps four choices, and a fifth fill-in-the-blank spot. Someone wrote in "taxpayer". Best answer ever.
Might it be legitimate to sometimes consider historical factors? Most of this area was under the Ottoman or Persian empires until into the 19 or 20th centuries. Not only was the Ottoman Empire a great power, it and its citizens owned a lot of slaves. They actually had a lot of white European slaves, but they definitely also had a lot of boack slaves.
To the extent racial categories are intended to distinguish advantaged from disadvantaged people, it’s not necessarily completely unreasonable to classify the citizens of great independent powers, especially slave-owning powers, as being equivalent to white.
It’s of course true, as Professor Bernstein has pointed out before, that similar considerations would tend to lead to classifying Japanese as white, as indeed they generally for purposes of Southern Jim Crow laws in the last century.
Interesting thought. Many of the Christian Lebanese fled increasingly anti-Christian policies of the final decades of the Ottoman Empire. So if anything, if we go by "history of oppression," it's the Christians who should be considered non-white, and the Muslims white. Muslim activists will tell you that they have been "racialized." I find that a bit too pat. They face discrimination based on religion and perceived religious ideology, much like Catholics generations ago, not "racism.'
Catholics come in nearly every flavor of human. If there is a proxy-race for Catholic, it's probably white. While Muslims do come in every flavor as well, people of middle-eastern decent seem to get the brunt of that discrimination even if they're not personally Muslim. Bosnian-American Muslims don't get the same treatment. Divorcing it from race in this case seems too simple.
Didn't MLK talk about "character content" and NOT "skin color"? The Gooferment should do the same.
imho
"Well, I’m not a , I have never played one on TV, and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but here's a simple thought."
Call me crazy, but if an Arabic man wants to identify as "MENA" instead of "white", I don't see why anyone, including Bernstein, should stop him. And if enough such men want to do so, then there's nothing wrong with adding that as an enumerated category rather then leaving it to folks to write-in under "other".
And Bernstein's final paragraphs really hit home that this isn't good-faith opposition, this is self-interested fear about losing slices of pie.
Call ME crazy, but he appears to say the exact opposite:
Okay, you're crazy.
The final three paragraphs are Bernstein trying to seal the deal on why "American Jews should oppose this change [...]". That wasn't a neutral incidental, that was a "look at this terrible thing that could happen!"
Yeah, stitching together via various word fragments a prejudicial story that fits ones priors but is in direct contradiction to the explicit words on the page is the very hallmark of sanity. Carry on.
... I've never been called insane for reading three paragraphs in order in context of each other (particularly when there's a topic sentence, a "firstly", a "relatedly" and a "finally" keeping them linked together), but hey, there's a first time for everything.
The reading part is on you. All the rest of us know are the words you decided to place in quotation marks as supposedly relevant to your (decidedly non-quoted) hot take.
Just stop. If you want to break people down into groups for your own purposes or amusement, knock yourself out. It's a free-ish country. But the Government needs to STOP. If you are an American citizen, that's all the Government needs to know about you. If you are a lawful immigrant, that's all the Government needs to know about you. It doesn't matter where your ancestors came from. It doesn't matter how dark or pale your skin tone is. This whole discussion is about who should qualify for "affirmative action" benefits. The answer is: NOBODY.
OMG, Merrick Garland just issued a warrant (NAL, are warrants "issued"??) for your arrest for being a "White Supremericist" (your bad, Black Supremercists totally cool with "General" Garland) Don't you realize Afro-Amuricans deserve preferential admission to Professional Schools?? how else could we ridicule Clarence Thomas and (real) Dr. Ben Carson?? No way they made it through with their wits like those Geniuses Bill and Hillary Rodman... Expect the Jackbooted Thugs within the hour....
Frank
I agree the MENA business is not a good idea, but I would like to suggest that this particular phrase:
In the late 1970s, when the federal government created our modern racial classification scheme, is more than a little odd.
I agree the MENA business is not a good idea, but I would like to suggest that this particular phrase:
In the late 1970s, when the federal government created our modern racial classification scheme, is more than a little odd.
Yeah, it's really odd to refer to something that was created in 1977 as having been created in the "late 1970s". Truly bizarre.
Is Prof. Bernstein's objection to classifications by government limited to the American government?
If so, why?
If not, I doubt he has thought through the predictable consequences of his position.
Did you think through the predictable consequences of buggering Penn State football players?? You had to know a few would turn you in no matter how threatening your appearance (Your face gives me the willies, I can imagine what your "junk" would do)
Frank
Of course, it's right there in the text, lets see.....
"Actually"(do you get paid for using "Actually"??)
it's "Likely" (see above) OK, you used "ensure" correctly, to bad thanks to Pete Booty Judge (on 6 months medical leave for "Monkey Pox") you can't find Somnolent Joe's Ensure on the shelves.
"Actually Likely" ??? c'mon (Man!) used up your "Basically" quota for the month??
Frank
70% of Hispanics self identify as white. They see themselves as whites who came from Spanish speaking countries, just as some whites came from Polish or Italian - even Arabic - speaking countries.
The classification demands are an obvious attempt by Progressives to divide and conquer.
That does not require the plethora of classifications in the present system which is based only on current political vote scrounging.
OK, I've only explained this like eleventy gazillion times, I say "Amurican" because Disgraced PMS-NBC Host Chris Matthews pronounced it that way, same reason I say "Hillary Rod-man Clinton" as (Reverend) Jesse Jackson (of "Hymie-Town" fame) pronounced it that way,
and Yes, 25,000,000 lesser(fewer, whatever) Black males does result in quite a few fewer(lesser, whatever) crimes, and No, 25,000,000 fewer(lesser) Asian-Amuricans wouldn't have the same result (probably improve the Motor Vehicle Accident rate)
Frank "Equal Opportunity Insulter"
Rhoid is right. Without Roe, there would be 60 million more Democrats, 20 million being diverses. Imagine the bastardy and crime rates.
il·lit·er·ate
adjective
unable to read or write.
imbecile.
The term imbecile was once used by psychiatrists to denote a category of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability, as well as a type of criminal.[1][2] The word arises from the Latin word imbecillus, meaning weak, or weak-minded.[3] It included people with an IQ of 26–50, between "idiot" (IQ of 0–25) and "moron" (IQ of 51–70).[4] In the obsolete medical classification (ICD-9, 1977), these people were said to have "moderate mental retardation" or "moderate mental subnormality" with IQ of 35–49.[5]
See, Queenie, when Engrish is your Second Language, you spend a lot of time looking up words, so I've got one for you, right from the Grooveyard of mellifluous-osity, William F. Buckley (Jr.)
"Poltroon" : which be what you be, Nome Sane?
Frank
Queenie. What an intelligent analysis, bruh. Did you learn that in the schools of Baltimore?
"Basically and actually don’t mean the same thing you illiterate imbecile.
They're both words that you should delete immediately if you see them in your writing.
Ahh, "Folks" are you really Somnolent Joe? who once said "Folks, they aren't bad folks, folks!" (from May 2019, referring to Chy-Na!, who if not "Bad" folks, certainly turned out to be some "Infectious" folks)
Somnolent used "Folks" over 30 times in a 2019 speech https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/04/30/joe-biden-folks-first-2020-speech-moos-pkg-vpx.cnn
and I'm an Illiterate Imbecile, so I had to look this up, but there's a medical term called "Perseverance" which isn't a good thing medically, but it's what Somnolent Joe has,
[per-sev″er-a´shun]
the inappropriate persistence or repetition of a thought or action after the causative stimulus has ceased or in response to different stimuli; for example, a patient answers a question correctly but incorrectly gives the same answer to succeeding questions. Perseveration is most often associated with brain lesions but is also seen in schizophrenia.
Frank
You're ab-so-too-lutely correct!! How else would there be an Asian-Amurican on every NBA Team??? And quick, name every current Jewish NBA Player!!!!
Only if you believe the "disparate impact" crappola
The discrimination is anti-traitor discrimination. Most Arabs know the nature of the enemy, having personal experiences. They are very frustrated by the weak responses, the appeasement, and the collaboration of this administration with the enemy. Most middle class Arabs vote Republican, and the losers vote otherwise. Most Arabs believe in self help, and beat the ass of a diverse trying to mess with their store.
This is the correct response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lDjN2cX_2Y
Maybe, but why any Persian would want to be lumped in with Arabs in a racial or ethnic classification puzzles me.
"Could the impetus maybe be "
No, it is simple partisan pandering for votes.
Queenie meant to say, yo, actually.
What a great pickup, very useful, Queenie.
Answering my own question (lost interest in NBA when Larry Bird retired) looks like, Deni Avdija, Bueller? Bueller??
and who knew the first Bucket in NBA history was by a Chosen? Posted on July 30, 2013 by Jewish News – JNS.org.
(Jewish News – JNS.org) Oscar “Ossie” Schectman, a Jewish player who scored the first basket in the history of what evolved into the National Basketball Association (NBA), died Tuesday at age 94.
Schectman’s historic field goal came on Nov. 1, 1946 for the New York Knicks of the Basketball Association of America (BAA)—the precursor to the NBA—against the Toronto Huskies. The Knicks won the game, 68-66."
But I guess it evens out, NBA hasn't had a Goy Commissioner since 1984
Frank
Yes I am. Just like every other marginalized person who vividly recalls every injustice done to them decades and centuries ago, and continuously reminds us of them.
Are you that much of a bigot?
If African-Americans can demand reparations for acts 150 years ago, why can't Sicilians?
How about, literally, if woke? Delete too.
They're both words that you should delete immediately if you see them in your writing.
"Literally".
Great point, bruh. Queenie is just the ginchiest.
Queenie, ginchy remark. Bruh, you are basically, actually, and literally, the ginchiest.
Rhoid. Incisive, ginchy remark, bruh.
they can, and do, and I pay them (Sicilians)
Well, for one, the United States government that enslaved Africans still exists as a potential defendant in any claim.
Queenie. Ginchy remark, bruh.
I think the above excerpt answered that question (though from the other perspective):
The whole point of these classifications is to increase clout. The bigger your group, the more clout you have.
David,
Perhaps, but lumping together groups with historical animosities is a most strange "compromise" that reeks of special pleading.
Your sentence does not even parse. Moreover it is irrelevant to the point concerning Sicilians.
How do you think that's different than lumping Chinese-Americans and Japanese-Americans into the larger group "Asian Americans" (f/k/a "Oriental")? Or Argentinians and Chileans in as "Hispanic/Latino"? Or British and Irish as "white"?