The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Iceberg, Weisberg, Goldberg, What's the Difference?
Government-dictated racial and ethnic classifications fail to account for the diversity within categories.
One of the stranger phenomena related to the official government racial and ethnic classifications we have all gotten used to (Hispanic, White, Black, Native American, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander) is the way people treat them as true sociological or anthropological classifications. Ironically, when the government established these classifications (with minor modifications in the interim), they came with the warning that the "classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature."
Nevertheless, when Steven Spielberg wanted to show he was being "culturally sensitive" to Puerto Ricans in casting West Side Story, he hired a half-Columbian, half-European actress to play Maria because, after all, Puerto Ricans and Columbians are both "Hispanic." This is like showing respect for Quebecois culture by hiring someone of half-Walloon and half-Mexican descent to play a character of French Canadian origin.
Similarly, when Michelle Malkin, a Filipina American, published her book defending the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, many critics tut-tutted that they couldn't understand how an "Asian American" could write a book defending racism against other "Asian Americans." (E.g., "Her take on the racial politics of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II is quite outrageous, especially for an Asian American. Even though she has a white name, it doesn't make her so.")
I found it remarkable at the time that it did not occur to any of of these critics that few people think of themselves primarily as "Asian Americans." (Indeed, I've since learned that research shows that fewer than forty percent of "Asian Americans" accept that identity even as a secondary one.) Many Filipinos, meanwhile, have resented (to put it mildly) the brutal Japanese invasion, occupation, and defense of the Philippines during World War II. So, if we looked beyond the government label of "Asian American," it was perhaps less surprising that a Filipina American wrote a book defending mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II than if a white author had written it. (Note: I am not suggesting that Japanese Americans should have been deprived of rights thanks the actions of the nation of Japan; rather, I'm just saying that to the extent these policies were a reaction to anti-Japanese hostility arising out of World War II, if you think of someone as a "Filipina" rather than as an "Asian American," the notion that she would be especially unlikely to defend Japanese American internment becomes much less viable.)
Four side notes. First, the West Side Story remake was entertaining, but wholly superfluous given the original. Second, the joke that gave me the post title's can be found here. Third, Malkin has since more explicitly gone off into far right racist looney land, and that may be explanation enough in retrospect. Finally, if you are interested in how our arbitrary classification came about and spread through society, you will want to check out my recent book on the subject.
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
I suppose this is a form of stereotyping.
No, it's a form of logrolling. Oh, you meant some of the content, not the post as a whole (read the last sentence).
Never mind.
"One of the stranger phenomena related to the official government racial and ethnic classifications 'we have all gotten used to'....
Speak for yourself, because I for one have not gotten used to it. People should be free to "classify" themselves however they wish; the government should not be.
Yes, to the extent people mobilize around their ethnic background for purposes of mutual uplift or support, that can be good (especially when the other groups are mistreating your group – eg, forming black fraternal organizations in the face of hostile whites, etc.). But for the government to take differences into account, and slice and dice the community into racial classifications, that is a Bad Thing.
As you can guess from my name (and I do use my real name for comments here), some of my ancestors were from Germany. They came to the US (Brooklyn, and what could be more American than that!) to get away from the Prussians, so come the World War guess which side they were on.
I also have ancestors from England (starting in 1620) and Ireland (post US Civil War -- although a collateral ancestor may have served as a paid-substitute for a Union draftee and died of disease in camp).
My father served in the Army Medical Corps during WWII, stationed in the US. After the German surrender, he was ordered to the West Coast to ship out, presumably for the Invasion of Japan. As the saying goes, Thank God for the Atom bomb!
Yes, I am glad someone defends the Japanese internment. It was thought to be a reasonable military policy at the time.
If you really want to get a heated discussion going among a number of groups just make a definitive statement declaring that Filipinos are actually Hispanics.
Don't quit your day job. Adding that third name (Weisberg) destroys the rhythm of the joke.
Some comedy, like much of show biz, uses the rule of 3.
Some does. This doesn't.
I think conservatives have largely given up on comedy (and movies, and twang-free music, and non-religious television), ceding the fields of art, entertainment, education, culture, and science) to the liberal-libertarian mainstream.
Remember when clingers tried to build a Daily Show for downscale, bigoted wingnuts?
That one lasted about eight hours, even on Fox.
If you want to know the legitimacy of the term Asian-American, get to know a Korean and ask about the Japanese. You'll get an ear-ful.
As I’ve often said regarding these posts, a basic criticism of Professor Bernstein’s approach is that all classification systems fail to capture the whole picture, miss a lot of nuance, and lead to results that might be thought unjust or absurd in particular cases. Boundaries of all kinds - municipalities, time zones, much more - are often arbitrary and might be better done otherwise. As Justice Holmes famously said, night and day differ only by shades of gray, there is no sharp line between then. Numerous legal categories have this problem where the law dichotomizes something that is really a continuum, with all kinds of arbitrariness.
And yet we need categories, as imperfect as they nearly always are, to function. We have to abstract characteristics considered essential, rightly or wrongly, to making a decision.
Categoriz
But it's not just that the classifications are inexact, they were created hapharzardly with little thought and almost no public discussion, and were explicitly not intended for many of the uses for which they are currently being used. They were also created in the 1970s, when US demographics were very different. So it's not like "well, these are the best we can do, so we have to live with them."
"and were explicitly not intended for many of the uses for which they are currently being used. "
Curious as to what uses they were created for?
It's worth noting that this isn't unexpected or unusual. Social security numbers were explicitly stated at their creation that they would not be used for identification. Well, how did that work out in the long run?
You should read my book, or at least my law review article, but they were created for the federal government to have uniform classifications and definitions for data collection, mostly for civil rights enforcement. The classifications, for example, came with a warning that they were not "anthropological," though we use them that way now, and that they were not intended to be used for eligibility, which they are (for affirmative action), and that they are not scientific, but they are now required in biomedical studies by FDA and NIH.
Do you have a better set of classifications, or do you propose to eliminate classifications. Do you propose a colorblind government and colorblind society.
(Our vestigial bigots love the term colorblind, mostly because better Americans have put them on the defensive and they won't want to be known publicly as bigots anymore.)
I prefer the NBA..totally merit based..no blaming "racism" if your tribe isn't well represented. Get rid of all classifications.
The NBA is a great example of what America should be
The parts of the CRA that deal with the private sector are in violation of liberty and should be overturned. Govt should not discriminate or pass laws forcing one to and it ends at that. You have the right to discriminate in your personal and economic decisions....anything else is immoral.
No more special privilege for the superstitious?
I can guarantee that if they want public input or public discussion on how many different options there need to be, you would end up with several thousand of them making the exercise mostly moot by the end of the process.
Porn, Banking, and Child Sacrifices?
That would be my guess.
Your blood libel can fuck all the way off.
It's not libel if it's true.
So, you agree it's libel.
20 years ago Malkin was entirely readable.
Does everyone go nuts as they get older or are they chasing fringe money?
why have any classifications? Social outcomes are due to culture in America today unless the govt forces the issue (and in that case it is discriminatory against usually European Americans). As an American of Italian ancestry, when I entered the corporate world after B school, often as the only Italian in the department. At Xerox I had a very nice run-in promotions (4 in 3 years at one point) unit wait for it.."diversity" showed up and all of a sudden, we had hard %'s by race/gender for each grade (and new "marginalized classes" were added over time). I was now "white" (with the little "w" always) and my promotions stopped. I even had a hilarious conversation with an HR VP, that Xerox needed to have "diversity" as Black folks think different than White folks. It was hard not to laugh in her face. I left and never looked back. No one should ever be classified by their religion or race or gender or what not by govt or their place of employment.
The Japanese spy in the Japanese consulate in Hawaii up and after the Pearl Harbor attack was an Imperial Japanese Navy intelligence officer passing as a civilian diplomat. In his memoir he said he never successfully recruited any Japanese-Americans to spy for Japan because the ones he felt out thought of themselves as Americans first. Hawaii sent very few Japanese-Americans to internment camps. A high percentage of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast were sent to internment camps. In retrospect, internment probably saved them from rampant racism, if the film "Hell to Eternity: The Guy Gabaldon Story" is as accurate as I think it was in portraying civilian reactions against Japanese Americans following the Pearl Harbor Raid.
Interesting...I CTRL-F'd for the phrase "can't see race" on this page and all I found was your comment. And of course the present comment commenting on your comment.
It is not the government's job to "combat the discriminatory acts" of private actors.
All the 13th amendment does is prohibit slavery/indentured servitude except as punishment for a crime for which the subject was properly convicted. It says squat about private discrimination.
You may be thinking of 14A.
Nothing in the 13th Amendment requires the government to take notice of race. It abolishes slavery, regardless of race. Anyone who enslaved white people, brown people, yellow people or red people runs afoul of the 13th Amendment.
Nice try, though.
But 13A is absolutely not a license for the government to prohibit all possible discriminatory acts by private actors.
True. But both same sex marriage and opposite sec marriage are discriminatory acts by private actors. Picking someone of a particular sex to marry is just as much an act of discrimination as picking someone of a particular sex to employ. Or picking a particular wine to have with dinner (“discriminating palate”). Nothing in the 13th Amendment prohibits any of that or suggests that the acts of selecting a particular marriage partner, employee, or wine based on whatever characteristics the chooser personally thinks desirable should be in any way illegal or wrong.
When the US government starts classifying people by those concepts, we'll talk.
You're taking a "living constitutionalist" approach to interpreting other people's words.