One more census rant...

[sbell111]

The government is not immune from being incorrect. Why would Chinese be a race but not Estonian, or Cambodian, or Portuguese? Either every nationality is a race or they aren't.

If you wish to get picky, there are no separate 'races' in the human population. That being said, the typical method of determining racial breakdowns does allow for 'Chinese' breakouts.

That being said, your true point is lost because the form does not limit you to the few races that are listed. If one's race is not listed, he/she merely checks off one of the 'other' or 'some other race' boxes and enters the appropriate race.

I also don't see why we have to select only one sub-category.

You don't. Question 9 clearly states that you are to mark one or more boxes.

Why does it matter if someone is both caucasian and Hispanic but not if someone is both caucasian and Scandinavian. Both are subsets of the overall race.

The form doesn't list 'hispanic' as a race.

If your question is about question eight (hispanic origin), then you should realize that this exists because the hispanic population in the US is so large that additional information about it is useful. If the scandinavian population in the US was significant, they might include a question which asked you to choose between Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and 'other'.

I just don't like the inconsistency, that is all. I do think that more data the better because going as deep in the class tree as you can yields more complete information but you don't only choose some sub-classes and not mutually exclusive sub classes. That is poor data collection.

I disagree, mostly because no one is limited to a few subclasses, since the form allows people to enter whatever races they identify with. I also think that you are considering question eight to be a sub-category of one of the races listed in question nine. This is a mistake, since all hispanic individuals will not self-identify with the same race in question nine.

 

[sbell111]

I can sort of understand why someone might say that. With so many people self-identifying as "Mexican-American", "African-American", "Chinese-American" or the like, it makes sense that someone might automatically include "American" with their race.

People identify that way as their national heritage. However, question nine isn't asking about national heritage. 'Mexican-American', 'African American' and 'Chinese American' are not races.

 

[sbell111]

I received the long form in 2000, and responded with one question answered, number of people. I responded this year, with number of people, but also some of the other questions answered (for genealogical purposes). But as far as the constitutional purposes of the census (apportionment of taxes and congressional seats), the only information needed is number of people. The rest is irrelevant.

If I ever receive the American Community Survey, it will be properly filed... in the trash.

Regarding the bolded bit, the courts have clearly disagreed with you. (Cases cited earlier in this thread)

 

[sbell111]

I like my privacy, and it's none of their business.

And a question back to you, why do they care about race? Its not needed for the apportionment of congressional seats, unless you agree with the practice of gerrymandering, which I don't. Race, age, date of birth, home ownership status, etc, are all irrelevant! For that matter, so are name, gender, relationship, etc. And that doesn't even touch on the intrusive information requested in the American Community Survey. The only relevant piece of information is number of people.

That's a good question and one that you should ask of Thomas Jefferson, since he is the one that included the race question.