l****h
发帖数: 271 | 1 最近加州细分亚裔的法案AB 1726 在华人社区中引起强烈反响。 到底美国现在通用的
种族分类是啥来源？基于什么标准？ 本文做个初步探讨。抛砖引玉，希望更多人研究
这个问题, 研讨亚裔细分法案的合理性，科学性。
1997年， 白宫的管理和预算办公室（federal office of management and budget :
OMB）颁布联邦政府15号行政命令（Directive 15, 类似中国中央政府红头文件），提
供关于种族分类的统一标准供联邦政府各部门使用。主要用途是给联邦人口普查局（us
census Bureau）在10年一度的人口普查中使用(2000 人口普查）。 该标准比以前标
准的一大区别是允许个人报两个或者以上的种族分类（例如同时报黑人，白人，等同于
说自己是黑白混血）。
the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 是美国联邦政府管理和预算办公
室，是美国三权分离中的行政部门中最大的一个办公室，总管联邦各级机构的绩效，预
算和执行（送钱给各部门）。因为掌管拨款，权力很大，OMB 是联邦各级部门都不敢得
罪的财神爷，OMB 有啥要求下面的部门即使不高兴也只有敢怒不敢言。
OMB 制定种族分类标准的根据是根据当时美国社会政治文化习俗的归类进行的总结。
OMB 自己都承认该种族分类标准不是基于科学的分类，不是人类学上的种族分类，不是
生理和基因学上的种族分类。
事实上，正牌的美国人类学协会（ The American Anthropological Association ）建
议 OMB 在15号行政命令中去掉 种族 (race)分类。因为该分类已经证明不是真实，天
然反应人群多样性的科学标准 。可惜 OMB 没有听取人类学家的专业意见。
这样看来，美国现行的种族分类是一个联邦政府威权部门根据美国政治文化社会习俗定
义的种族标准，自己都承认完全不是科学的基于人类学分类，不是基于生理和基因分类
的种族标准。而且受到专业人士反对。却在美国大行其道近20年。
加州亚裔细分法案的推行者想继续沿用这种政治标准来提高教育和医疗服务，完全是政
客处于政治目的，不是真的和教育或者医疗相关。大家给 health Committee的反对信
应该强调
health service不应该用 OMB 定义的 race groups, 因为该分类根本不是和健康相关
的基于生理或基因的科学分类。
参考文献：
http://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unite
Census
English original text for people who are interested in the sources.
In 1997, OMB issued a Federal Registernotice regarding revisions to the
standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity.[8]&
#160;OMB developed race and ethnic standards in order to provide "consistent
data on race and ethnicity throughout the Federal Government. The
development of the data standards stem in large measure from new
responsibilities to enforce civil rights laws." Among the changes, OMB
issued the instruction to "mark one or more races" after noting evidence of
increasing numbers of interracial children and wanting to capture the
diversity in a measurable way and having received requests by people who
wanted to be able to acknowledge their or their children's full ancestry
rather than identifying with only one group. Prior to this decision, the
Census and other government data collections asked people to report only one
race.[3]
The racial categories represent a social-political construct for the race or
races that respondents consider themselves to be and "generally reflect a
social definition of race recognized in this country."[3] OMB defines
the concept of race as outlined for the U.S. Census as not "scientific or
anthropological" and takes into account "social and cultural characteristics
as well as ancestry", using "appropriate scientific methodologies" that are
not "primarily biological or genetic in reference."[4] The race categories
include both racial and national-origin groups.[5]
The American Anthropological Association recommends the elimination of the
term "race" from OMB Directive 15 during the planning for the 2010 Census.
During the past 50 years, "race" has been scientifically proven to not be a
real, natural phenomenon. More specific, social categories such as "
ethnicity" or "ethnic group" are more salient for scientific purposes and
have fewer of the negative, racist connotations for which the concept of
race was developed.
Yet the concept of race has become thoroughly—and perniciously—woven into
the cultural and political fabric of the United States. It has become an
essential element of both individual identity and government policy. Because
so much harm has been based on "racial" distinctions over the years,
correctives for such harm must also acknowledge the impact of "racial"
consciousness among the U.S. populace, regardless of the fact that "race"
has no scientific justification in human biology. Eventually, however, these
classifications must be transcended and replaced by more non-racist and
accurate ways of representing the diversity of the U.S. population.[4]
The recommendations of the AAA were not adopted by the Census Bureau for the
2000 or the 2010 Censuses. |
|
