I know this is very common in the US but as an European this is still a weird concept for me to keep track of a person's ethnicity at all.
Does this have any implications whatsoever in terms of benefits or something? Otherwise I'd just let it be.
Spaniard here. I did some remote work with a North American company and in my profile my race was "Latino". I tried to explain I'm caucasian but it was futile.
I had that exact conversation at work a few days ago. Someone was insisting that Spaniards are Latino, so I asked them if Spain is in Latin America or Europe. That was the key to them eventually figuring it out.
When I was in similar situations I'd point out similaities to them. So e.g. if spaniards are latinos because they speak spanish, then people from the UK are all Americans because they speak English.
Dependent on the level of education, you might have to flip them both ("US people are all english") because they might actually believe that English people are US-emmigrants.
I'm American, and of Spanish descent. On all my paperwork it says Latino, people here often don't get the difference because they forget Spain exists.
people here often don't get the difference because they forget Spain exists.
Except when they call all Latin Americans "Spanish" 🤦♂️
There are definitely white Latinos in the US, it's a race vs. ethnicity thing. But definitely no Latinos from Europe!! 🤣
They were wrong. Spaniards are definitely not considered Latino here.
I’m mostly Sicilian and Irish but my great grandmother on my mom’s side is Spanish. People usually don’t know where I’m from so just settle on thinking I’m Jewish, but I had people think I was Latino more recently. I’m more used to it happening to my mom because she’s a lot more tan than I am.
I'm Australian and the one that really gets me is when Americans refer to indigenous Australians as "African American" because of their skin colour. They're in no way from Africa or America, but nice job appropriating our native people.
How often do Americans refer to aboriginals as African Americans? This is not a common situation.
It happens enough for me to have noticed it a few times. It probably helps if you work with Americans in Australia.
It's like people overcorrecting and using "whom" when "who" really would be correct. Ditto "you and I" vs "you and me". People get corrected enough times to be embarrassed, but still don't have any interest in correct usage, so they just blanket apply what they think is the rule rather than trying to actually learn any of its nuances. It's not a perfect analogy, but I can imagine people just reverting to "African-American" as a no-thought safe bet when referring to brown people.
I work for an American company and during global meetings when US HR are bringing up race, it feels really weird. Especially when you see that the percentage of white people stays the same and it's minorities competing with each other.
I believe it’s a legal thing where HR has to track the ethnicity (if applicant discloses) due to equal employment. Basically the US federal government wants to know if a company is discriminating against a protected class during hiring and employment
Europe has a different history with heritage and bloodlines of indigenous people so it makes sense it’s not as big of a conversation there.
In Aus, we’re a settlement too, therefore conversations of heritage matter a great deal. Speaking in practical terms, there can be potential benefits to identifying as indigenous in the form of welfare due to the disadvantages indigenous people face.
An extra reason (or even the main one) is that we have a bad history when it comes to racial registration. The countries that suffered the worst during the Holocaust were the ones that had a registry of the Jewish population that the Nazis could just look into when they took over.
The downside is that it's much harder to identify racial profiling at work for example. It's also basically impossible to see if violence on POC is more prevelant.
If they came to power again but with access to people’s 23andMe or Ancestry results, things would get really scary very fast. Most white people I know who took it aren’t actually 100% white, including myself. I’m a little bit black. It’s just not enough that I would justify changing what I’m listed as on documents.
What a frightening perversion of something designed to be innocent, or even helpful.
Keeping track of race is entirely optional.
You’re 100% free to decline including it on any personnel file or application (with the exception of acting/modeling). It’s also self-identifying.
Consider that as a multi-racial pluralistic society - our values will be different than a European country whose major ethnic groups are the indigenous people.
We have an unfortunately long legacy of systematic racism issues. Communities or color experience slower emergency response times, fewer school resources and teacher pay, redlining and gerrymandered districting, food deserts, fewer public transportation options, and often fewer per capita polling stations on Election Day.
Until race stops being an observable factor for community outcomes, we still have a lot of work to do.
Many organizations see and understand this. As part of their sense of corporate social responsibility, companies make a good faith effort to hire from a ethnically diverse pool of candidates. If all your candidates are white - a company needs to ask itself if that’s a reflection of their own hiring biases or if that’s a systemic issue within the talent pool? It’s good to know these things - because industry surveys are constant - which help local leaders, non-profit organizations, colleges and universities, and governments do their jobs.
Meeting diversity goals is good for a variety of reasons. Importantly in capitalism, it’s good to investors because customers tend to prefer supporting diverse companies. Perhaps more importantly than that, different backgrounds offer different modes of thinking when it comes to problem solving. Crowd sourcing from a bigger idea pool is good for productivity.
Over here (Austria) asking about race or processing this information in regards to a job wil land the employer in hot water really quickly, since it opens them up to racism claims.
I used to work for an organization that provided legal, educational, medical and social services to inner-city children and their families. These families were mostly Black and Latino.
If we were hiring for a job that had an equally qualified black and white candidates, the choice is clear. In order to be successful, you need to have good professional relationships with clients. It is far more effective if the client can relate to one's lived cultural experience. It's also very important for at-risk children to see relatable adults succeed in a world that has been systemically unfair to them.
In Austria, this hiring process may be considered racist. But here, we recognize that there are a lot of fringe benefits when hiring for diversity.
In fairness, race is not something that's discussed unless it's directly related to the role. As stated above, you are free to check "Prefer Not To Say" if an application asks about race. Most of the time, that information is used for census and surveys.
Having done a lot of HR in my life, you'd be surprised how many hiring managers are passively racist.
I've seen applications rejected simply because the hiring manager doesn't want to embarrass themselves mispronouncing a name. Or they assume communication language skills without ever talking to someone. Or they not-so-sublte, "I can just feel this one won't be a good fit".
Like, "Really, Bob? What's on Fatima's resume gives you that impression? She's clearly qualified."
I wonder how much worse the racial wealth gap would be if 'equal opportunity employment' wasn't a thing.
I understand what you mean, that in some specific situations hiring for a specific race can be a benefit, but in cases like that you can hire for something similar that is legal again here too. E.g. you could hire by experience with certain communities, for example. Or you can hire for "sympathy". "This person is personally a good fit to our company and the role". With that point you can hire whoever you want.
This is also the Achilles heel of the anti-discrimination laws, since the hiring manager can just say "The applicant's personality wasn't a good fit" to anyone they want to discriminate against.
And yes, I have personal experience with how racist and sexist some of my bosses have been so far.
In one company, my boss was directly excluding any applications by women for IT roles, because "they would distract the boys in the IT department". Even though all "the boys in the IT department" were in long-term relationships. (Btw, I also really hated it that he called us "the boys" even though we were all ~30).
My company in the UK insisted that I fill in a diversity profile covering a lot of what is generally considered highly sensitive information. Well the only mandatory field was the date completed... so that is all they got.
Fortunately, people of non-European ancestry are treated fairly in Europe, so there is no need to keep tabs if they are being the subject of job loss more often. In the US, people of color and particularly migrants can be discriminated against, instead of welcomed with open arms like they are in Greece, Italy, and France. If there were discrimination in Europe, you could end up with concentrations of ethnic groups in the suburbs of cities like Paris. The people there might protest or riot after perceived injustices, and we wouldn't want that.
No difference in benefits, the point is for companies to make themselves accountable that they are helping to improve the racial gap among their ranks. You can’t know that you’re improving, if you don’t keep track of the data behind it.
As long as you aren't accepting any undue benefit for the mistake, I wouldn't worry too much about it. An error like that without consequence isn't really a big deal. If, on the other hand, they were giving you special tax status or something, or if you applied for a promotion and you got the promotion in part because of affirmative action whose benefit you weren't entitled to, that could be a problem.
I think it's probably more likely HR purposely 'fat fingered' it to pad their minority stats for equal opportunity employment. Maybe I'm just cynical.
Nah my job is terrible I'm barely getting the due benefits lol. Thank you though. I figured I'd have to do something malicious for it to matter, but I've never even thought about this stuff.
It is kinda odd that they ask at all.
or if you applied for a promotion and you got the promotion in part because of affirmative action whose benefit you weren’t entitled to
Yeah how unfair would it be if they were incorrectly given a promotion on the basis of their race.
Your job might have keyed it that way to meet diversity quotas. Don’t rock the boat unless someone else brings it up first.
Maybe they're fudging their diversity numbers
It wasn’t done intentionally on your part. Why draw attention to yourself? Just forget about it.
Besides, if your employer did do it on purpose, it won’t help to let them know that you know. They’ll just fix it, remember that you’re a potential troublemaker, and mess with someone else’s record instead. I see no upside for you.
Are you a female Senator from MA?
I’d keep it. Workplaces have been brazen about promoting and hiring and firing on the basis of race lately. This should give you a significant advantage. It’s unfortunate that the law allowed companies to racially discriminate, but here we are.
what difference does it make now? 99% of white americans claim native american ancestry as if we fucked these people into extinction. everyone i know is related to a cherokee or blackfoot princess through their great great great grandparent....i even heard the same story in my family. once i got my dna test results that said "0% native american" i started to wonder exactly how many indian "princesses" there are. if you change it, best case scenario everything stays the same and worst case scenario you get fired for lying on your application. doesnt seem like a good move to rock the boat.
That 99% claim seems ridiculously high to me. Do you live in Oklahoma or something?
Ohio, the oklahoma of the north.
Unfortunately, some companies (especially if you're working for a small company), will list their employees as different ethnic backgrounds to pass off as being an equal opportunity employer. Depending on where you are, what company or institution you are working for, that can be a legal requirement or add a level of credibility if in the past that has been an issue (if they were sued for discrimination It's helpful to pull up a record showing, they're hiring people with multiple diverse backgrounds). It can also provide certain tax breaks too.
Yeah they could be lying to the EEOC to cover up discrimination in their hiring process. So it's up to OP to decide if that is what might be going on.
I would love to get all these magical free perks people ITT seem to think we are getting for being native. Where do I sign up? Last time I checked the majority of people on reservations don't even get clean water
I wonder if they took NA to be short for native American. Wouldn't put it past some people. Not a hard mistake if you're not familiar with the term.
You can only obtain federal Indian benefits if you have a CDIB (blue) card, and sometimes you will also need a tribal enrollment card. You would have to verify your ancestry with the tribe to get those. Calling yourself Indian on the forms won’t hurt anything except risk termination if they claim you lied on you application.
Why not just ask them to remove the self identification and leave it at that? You don't have to say you or they got anything wrong - just that you do not want that on your file. I feel like that would be the better option and avoid any possibility of termination later for them claiming you lied to them.
Lean into it. See if you can get your Native American card and leverage that for some of that casino money
I would suggest you forget about it. It’s not that important in the grand scheme of things. Unless your job specifically requires a certain ethnicity which I can’t really imagine what job that would be apart from a Hollywood actor.
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!