|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2010 14:35:37 GMT
There are several points of view about collecting ethnic statistics, and just about all of them are used by the various countries of Europe.
French law completely forbids the collection of statistics concerning ethnic or racial origin, as well as religion, except for some very rare exceptions for certain scientific studies. That’s one of the reasons that you will find such wide variations in articles about France about the number of Muslims of the percentage of immigrants. However, a recent modification of the law will apparently permit census data regarding nationality and country of birth, and there is a proposal to also allow information on the national origin of one’s parents.
In the UK, the situation is the opposite. There is no law restricting the collection of data, and the Office of Statistics collects data on ethnic origin, religion, employment, education for the census and also for statistic like “victims of crime.”
Most of the other countries are situated between these two extremes. The Netherlands and Greece are closest to the UK. Ethnic origin is closely tracked in Greece, and the Netherlands uses ethnic origin in its crime statistics.
In Romania, ethnic origin is only recorded in the census data, which also has questions concerning religion and maternal language.
Spain and Portugal are the same as France – ethnic statistics are forbidden by law except for scientific studies.
Italy keeps track of nationalities both for the census and for crime statistics. Germany also tracks nationality but not religion or ethnic origin.
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia do not oblige residents to declare their ethnic origin, but it may be declared optionally. For example, for a population of 38 million in Poland, 470,000 residents declare that they are not Polish.
Sweden keeps track of the country of origin for population and education statistics. Employment statistics keep track of the continent of origin, but not the country or religion.
Considering the number of wars, ethnic massacres, pogroms, nights of Crystal or Saint Bartholomew, purges, and all of the other things that have happened in Europe over the centuries, this will always be a touchy subject and there is quite a bit of room for debate.
Perhaps because I am completely used to it now, I approve of the French system which turns a blind eye on differences (or at least tries to). In any case, there are so many ethnic mixtures in the world now that it is really unfair to make people choose. French children with one European parent and one African or Asian parent are generally not going to look completely European, but should they automatically be called black or Chinese? Names often give away a person’s ethnic origin, but should everyone called Mustapha be considered a Muslim? I think it’s best to let each person define himself individually and not affix labels on people from childhood that will inevitably affect their lives.
At the same time, I do understand that ethnic statistics are often used to try to help various groups rather than to discriminate against them. If you can’t find the people, it’s hard to help them!
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Feb 5, 2010 19:01:18 GMT
Considering the number of wars, ethnic massacres, pogroms, nights of Crystal or Saint Bartholomew, purges, and all of the other things that have happened in Europe over the centuries, this will always be a touchy subject and there is quite a bit of room for debate. ... At the same time, I do understand that ethnic statistics are often used to try to help various groups rather than to discriminate against them. If you can’t find the people, it’s hard to help them! I've actually been puzzling over this ever since you first mentioned on the forum that France did not collect such statistics. Previous to that, I'd never given it a thought. I suppose all statistics are collected because they might be useful or might provide insights into social, economic, etc. aspects of the society. And I suppose the US, as a country of immigrants, might have thought it useful to keep track of the ethnic make-up of the country. But as you point out above, people often aren't of one single ethnic background. I just looked at a copy of a 1790 census from Maryland, & it's a simple head count of both men and women. I presume they were all heads of households or property owners. The 1900 census from Missouri asks for country of citizenship, where born, and where each parent was born. It also wants to know "Occupation, trade, or profession of each person ten years of age and over", education, and ownership of home. There is nothing about race or ethnicity. The 1910 US Federal Census asks for race. So obviously the US has had different ideas over the years about what was important to know about its residents. From the list of countries in the OP, it would appear that what each country now asks in the census is a conscious attempt to avoid any taint of negative events in that country's history. The US, perhaps because of its image as "the great melting pot", just comes right out and asks pretty much anything. (which begs the question, if we're all melted together, why would we have separate ethnicities, etc.) I guess I lean towards thinking that the census should be used as an opportunity to collect as much data as possible. And racial/ethnic statistics do serve to show that countries are no longer exclusively made up of the "real" or formerly traditional ethnic majority, which is a perfect world would lead to more acceptance of everyone, rather than less.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2010 19:20:52 GMT
All I know it the 'other' box on these kind of forms is being used more and more often. Perhaps the day will come when it won't matter anymore?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2010 21:32:50 GMT
Do you consider your kids to be ethnically Canadian (if you have to choose), or definitely "other"? (And, if so, --- why? Meaning: should "Canadian" children not have Indian blood?)
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Feb 6, 2010 0:11:08 GMT
I'm quite for the French approach. These distinctions are almost always arbitrary, subjective and broad enough to render them essentially meaningless. The temptation of trying to use these bad data to write policy is simply too great.
The US approach is particularly egregious where one is asked to define oneself by "race" even though the term is almost completely lacking in any scientific validity and is completely incapable of incorporating nuance. In the US someone who is of one quarter African and three quarters European extraction will generally be lumped in as African-American. If that is to be the standard of accuracy- and it is- better not to make these sort of erroneous distinctions at all. The very act of using race as a primary identifier of people for statistical purposes seems profoundly racist in itself to me.
|
|
|
Post by suzanneschuelke on Feb 6, 2010 15:22:56 GMT
Actually, the US (which requires the collection of the data from employers of any size - not just in census) requires that people have the option of choosing as many ethnicities as they want. Hispanic, which was an egregiously incorrect "race" has now been eliminated as a race and after race it is, "Hispanic - Yes or No"
I have more mixed feelings than you guys do. I wish we lived in a country where it doesn't matter but that isn't true. I think it is probably still necessary. I have read (but have no actual proof) that there are still companies in France that will not hire people of African origin. While certainly illegal; without statistics it is extremely hard to pin this down. Note, I'm not saying that US companies are any better; just that it is probably less common simply because it is much easier to get caught. A lifetime in HR and law where we are stuck with it may be part of it; but I think it still does serve a purpose.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Feb 6, 2010 17:30:32 GMT
What would people of, say, Mexican origin put down for "race"? I know there are many variations and nationalities in Mexico, but a great number of people have European (Spanish) and Amerindian origins from various Indigenous peoples. Just "multiple origins"?
It is a thorny issue - I don't like putting people in boxes either, but there is the matter of systemic discrimination (in France, largely against people of North or West African origin).
fumobici, the situation you describe goes back to the "one drop rule" which was indeed an extremely racist expression of "purity". Any known Black African "blood" classified people as "Negro". And in South Africa, as "Coloured", a separate category. But historically those people did experience discrimination, unless they could "pass".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2010 19:11:00 GMT
My company just got slapped with a very hefty fine for discrimination, but not for racial or ethnic discrimination (no problem in that department, because I am one of the minority employees there). However, each company of a certain size must have 6% handicapped employees, and we do not have any.
They didn't mind paying the rather symbolic fine in past years, but for 2010 there has been a huge increase in the penalty -- you have to pay 1500 times the minimum hourly wage for each missing employee, which makes more than 13,000€ per person.
It will be interesting to see what the situation is in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by suzanneschuelke on Feb 7, 2010 0:40:32 GMT
Someone of Mexican origin will probably put down at least two ethnicities and probably more.
That is a huge fine, Keroauc2. How many total employees does the company have?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2010 6:00:35 GMT
We're down to 60 employees locally, but that still means an obligation of 3 handicapped employees -- so we paid something like 40,000€.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Feb 7, 2010 6:09:58 GMT
Not to open an equal-opportunity can of worms, but a) where there even any job openings at your branch of the company in the last year; and if so, b) did any handicapped people apply for those jobs?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2010 11:45:16 GMT
We are obliged to address the official government employment service "Pôle Emploi" before doing any outside recruiting. Since we do have a high season, seasonal employees are recruited every year. They are first screened by the department that needs them and then sent for approval to the top manager, who turns down all of the qualified ones, especially if they are black or of Moroccan origin. (Interesting, because his last post was in Nairobi -- how he must have suffered!)
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Feb 7, 2010 16:47:22 GMT
Wow - so he alone is costing the company at least 40,000€ every year?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2010 16:59:09 GMT
Well, none of those qualified persons were handicapped, but of course he has never thought to ask for handicapped people anyway, who are probably haram or something. So yes, it is all his fault.
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Feb 12, 2010 20:34:39 GMT
The trouble about being officially blind to racial/ethnic distinction is that one is also - necessarily - blind to systemic or unconscious/unintentional discrimination. If all anyone knows about it is anecdotal and dependent on the initiative of individuals on the receiving end, a society will never be able to get to grips with it: and that builds up heads of resentful steam that tends to come out in riots.
It doesn't matter if analysis is done on an entirely subjective self-categorisation: that's rather the point. If it becomes obvious that people who see themselves as Calathumpians are not getting the same level of service or the same opportunities as those who see themselves as indigenous whatevers, then you have at least some basis for asking how and why this is happening, on a systemic basis. If you can only start from what happened to this (one) person at the hands of that other (one) person in authority, it's too easy to see it as a problem of individual malice, when it's much more complicated.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Feb 14, 2010 23:16:11 GMT
Sorry, Patrick ~~ I meant to answer this when I first read it. Thank you so much for your clear and beautifully phrased reply. My thinking on this was not exactly foggy, but certainly not clearly formulated either. Reading your words got me on track. Thank you for that and for so perfectly delineating the issues at hand.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Feb 15, 2010 1:44:00 GMT
Yes, I really liked patrick london's pithy analysis. I can't imagine there are such statistics in Mexico; I imagine most people are mixes of Indigenous, Spanish and other immigrant groups to varying degrees. However when the FTAA talks were underway, there was a gallery of "Mexican leaders" in business, politics etc and the faces were very different from the people you show us in Oaxaca. I can't guarantee that they were 100% European, but they certainly looked more Iberian than Indigenous Mesoamerican.
Latin countries (I'm including Québec) might not have the same stark segregation as anglophone ones do, but that doesn't mean there is an absence of deep racism. I've seen Québécois guys who were definitely Métis in northerly regions bitching about "Aboriginal privileges".
I'm just musing - don't have any solution to this.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Feb 15, 2010 2:35:27 GMT
Actually, Mexico is very aware of the different cultural, language, economic, etc. groups in the country. It is hard not to notice that most of the national leaders are of European heritage, but in fairness, this many centuries later they are as Mexican as you and I are American and Canadian, respectively. Of course there is ingrained racism here, including the type to which you refer in your second paragraph. However, I believe that INEGI's data is gathered and studied for the same reasons as similar data in the US or the UK.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Feb 15, 2010 5:00:23 GMT
Yes, interesting. I certainly consider that people of Iberian descent or any other descent (including Germanic, Ashkenazi Jewish, Asian, etc) are Mexicans like any other if they were born there or immigrated there, but there is an unbalance in terms of whom we see as national leaders, with some notable exceptions.
Yes, Mexico has admirable study centres and institutes. I read serious Mexican media when the case arises, but of course the problem is that I don't live there and I can't systematically read everything that exists in languages I can read.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 21, 2010 18:36:15 GMT
This subject came up Monday. I was at the Fiesta de Mezcal and fell into conversation with two brothers. One was pretty young and has lived in Oaxaca his whole life. The other brother was a good bit older, has lived in Queretaro the past ten years, and was much more sophisticated.
As frequently happens, I was asked about racism in the US (by the younger brother). We talked about legal measures against racism and how difficult it is to root it out of the psyche. But what stuck in the younger brother's craw was that Michael Jackson's death certificate had "Black" on it. (how he knew this I have no idea)
At any rate, I explained that it was just part of the data-recording process and had no hidden racist motive. He was reluctant to accept that until I brought up INEGI and its data gathering process. The big brother corroborated what I said.
No real point except that it's funny how easy it is to unthinkingly accept that the way they do things "back home" is automatically the correct way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2010 18:44:57 GMT
This came to mind a couple of weeks ago when the French press gloriously proclaimed "Christophe Lemaitre becomes the first white sprinter to run 100 meters in less than 10 seconds!"
I pointed out on another forum that I was very surprised that they could say such a thing in France since we have no ethnic statistics. How could the press possibly know the ethnic origin of this excellent athlete?
|
|
|
Post by tillystar on Jul 22, 2010 15:53:09 GMT
Patrick has written much more eloquently what I wanted to say. Perhaps this similar point of view is because we are both from London, where I think this is generally the accepted opinion of these types of statistics. In my job I have to collect these statistics from new recruits and no one from the UK ever questions it; but people from other countries are often outraged at being asked these types of questions. Once the reasons for the questions and the fact that their answers are kept entirely confidential are explained, people never refuse to respond – although of course we do have the odd “jedi knight” or “human being”.
The UK has a great deal of relatively new legislation to prevent discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sexual preference and gender orientation in the workplace. I work in Employee Relations and I think most of the laws are needed and are very fair, not at all as biased to minority groups as the Daily Mail would have us believe (they are not quota based, but about the treatment of individuals); however, as the laws are newish, their limits are still regularly tested in court and I believe that if we have these laws in place, it is only fair the employer can collect the kind of personal data required so that they are able to use them in order to defend themselves if they are taken to court.
Yes, the idea of putting people into little boxes concerns me, but so does the danger of brushing these types of issues under the carpet. I think the attitude of acknowledging (and celebrating) people’s differences is far more healthy than pretending everyone is the same. I hope one day categorising people won’t be needed but we aren’t there yet and I think this is part of the journey.
Just to add - although there are no laws on collecting this type of data in the UK there are very strict laws on how this data is stored and shared.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2010 17:13:12 GMT
I think the whole subject needs to be rethought and redesigned. As there are more and more people of mixed backgrounds, race and ethnicity are increasingly diluted and misinterpreted, especially when one is in a "border" region. As everybody knows, France has a very large population of North African origin, commonly known as "Arabs." However, just try calling a Algerian Kabyle an Arab and watch the reaction. Naturally, you could not get away with labeling a Kabyle as a European either -- so should Kablye be classified as a race? Many Kabyles have blue eyes and blondish hair (albeit not Scandinavian blond) -- I am amazed constantly in my neighborhood to see people who I might think are Dutch or German to look at them, chattering away in Tamazight with their friends. Therefore, the whole concept of race seems foolish to me. Might as well use a complexion chart like they use for color tones in a paint store. That way, if you have 5 mixed children, they could all be in different categories.
As for ethnicity, that is just as difficult. I have a number of purportedly "Muslim" friends -- that's how the authorities would rate them if they were allowed to do so -- who have no religious affiliation and are totally assimilated into French/European culture. They drink alcohol, they eat sauerkraut smothered in ham hocks and pork sausage, they are in favor of gay marriage and god knows what all. Arab parents, Arab name -- ethnic statistics demand that they be labeled ethnic Arabs. Is this correct, considering all of the "baggage" that such a label carries?
And of course the same for religion. We all know people who label themselves a certain religion while conforming to perhaps 5% of the rites or rituals or values of such a religion. Should they be allowed to blurt out "Catholic" or "Jewish" when questioned, the same as the ultra devout?
All of these statistics give a totally skewed view of reality. France is always labeled as the European country with the highest Muslim population (always based on vague estimations based on immigration and such). At the same time, religious practice among Muslim citizens is estimated to be about 10% in France as of the 2nd generation, since France does not nurture or encourage religious activity. So does this mean that France has 5 million Muslims (the usual figure given) or 500,000? It is impossible to figure out.
I think that instead of the current statistics, people should be questioned on perhaps 100 or more subjects if you really want to calculate the requirements for government services, schools, religious flexibility, etc. in the population. Asking them the color of their skin or which religion into which they were born is ridiculous.
I have been outraged more than once at the current government in France which has been backsliding towards a British style system. When there have been problems in suburbs populated in great part by persons of North African origin, Sarkozy and others have called for meetings with the local imams and religious associations to set things straight. Fucking hell, when there are problems in a 'normal' city, does he ask for meetings with the priest?
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Jul 22, 2010 18:46:49 GMT
I could hardly agree more and I think said much the same earlier in the thread. Race and religion are social constructs that don't function as labels in any scientifically or statistically reliable sense. They are the product of and in continued popular use perpetuate outmoded and unnuanced concepts. People defend their continued use as coarse labels as a metric for the measurement of social progress, but I see them outside perhaps of peer reviewed academia in the social sciences primarily as artifacts of ignorance.
People are however very emotionally invested in these concepts as convenient means to simplify the multidimensionally complex continua of humanity into neat little piles that don't tax their mental resources. Thinking hurts and can lead to dangerous places I guess.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 22, 2010 20:04:22 GMT
I am still in agreement with the compiling of data for the reasons I originally stated -- that such data helps make up a picture of the country. Further, I agree with Patrick and Tilly that the tracking of such data can be instrumental in pinpointing not only inequities based on race or ethnicity, but also how the population perceives itself. That doesn't mean that I entirely reject what Kerouac and Fumobici are saying, as I understand their points about accuracy and what could be the perception that certain questions about background could be perceived as a government furthering concepts of "them" and "us". It doesn't matter if analysis is done on an entirely subjective self-categorisation: that's rather the point. Whereas: I think the whole subject needs to be rethought and redesigned. As there are more and more people of mixed backgrounds, race and ethnicity are increasingly diluted and misinterpreted ... As for ethnicity, that is just as difficult. ... And of course the same for religion. Of course the point can be made that people answer official questions because they think they must. However, in daily life people continue to casually refer to their various backgrounds without coercion. There was so much discussion about Obama being "half" white or black, begging the issue that in the US people of African ancestry are perceived and self-perceive as "black". Likewise, I know many atheists whose family background is Jewish. They all maintain that beyond any religious aspects, it is a culture. The UK has a great deal of relatively new legislation to prevent discrimination on grounds of race, religion, sexual preference and gender orientation in the workplace. I work in Employee Relations and I think most of the laws are needed and are very fair, not at all as biased to minority groups as the Daily Mail would have us believe (they are not quota based, but about the treatment of individuals); however, as the laws are newish, their limits are still regularly tested in court and I believe that if we have these laws in place, it is only fair the employer can collect the kind of personal data required so that they are able to use them in order to defend themselves if they are taken to court. I can understand the concern over such data being misused by a government. But really, if a repressive government were in power, it would find a way to impose its will with or without statistics. Yes, the idea of putting people into little boxes concerns me, but so does the danger of brushing these types of issues under the carpet. I think the attitude of acknowledging (and celebrating) people’s differences is far more healthy than pretending everyone is the same. I hope one day categorising people won’t be needed but we aren’t there yet and I think this is part of the journey. That is such an important part of this discussion -- the desire of people to treasure everything that's part of their makeup. My mother, who is 100% American, but also 100% of Mediterranean heritage, is outraged when her Hispanic acquaintances refer to her as an Anglo. I can see Fumobici's point about the dangers of lazy codification, but I maintain that people self-identify as a way of honoring their antecedents as well. I have been outraged more than once at the current government in France which has been backsliding towards a British style system. When there have been problems in suburbs populated in great part by persons of North African origin, Sarkozy and others have called for meetings with the local imams and religious associations to set things straight. Fucking hell, when there are problems in a 'normal' city, does he ask for meetings with the priest? Ho ho ho ~~ that just sounds like a politician being a politician: Hi, I care about "you people". Remember that when it's time to vote. Laughter aside, I agree with your outrage, Kerouac. It galls me in the US that inaugurations and other official government activities involve prayer, for instance. And there are similar instances in the US of religious figures being given de facto status as community leaders. So yeah, Sarkozy's actions can be called "backsliding". However, I'd say it's backsliding toward the bad old days of no church/state separation, but that maybe it's a bit harsh and unfair to call that a "British style system".
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jul 23, 2010 13:28:48 GMT
As Kerouac mentioned, I have a Kablye Algerian friend here who has lighter skin and hair than I do (I'm talking about the original colour of my hair, before it started to go grey). And I know a Kabyle brother and sister who are blond indeed.
I think we do have to remember that the original reason for refusing to compile racial or religious statistics in France was deeply anti-racist - a reaction against the use of such lists to persecute French people of Jewish origin (whether religious or not - Nazi ideology had nothing to do with religion) under the Vichy collaborationist regime. There is a visceral reaction to such lists, and yet nowadays some kind of statistics are essential to analyse and correct situations of systemic discrimination and ghettoisation.
I do have a hard time seeing someone of Sicilian heritage as an "anglo" - though there again there are tall, blond, pink-skinned Sicilians who are the descendants of Nordic peoples who wound up there - and became Arabic in language and culture!
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 24, 2020 17:53:00 GMT
Just noticing that opinions have not really changed in the last ten years. Not surprising, of course.
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Jun 24, 2020 18:33:44 GMT
I thought you said onions.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 24, 2020 18:49:30 GMT
Onions have probably not changed either.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jan 29, 2021 18:17:10 GMT
|
|