For the first time in 27 years, the U.S. government is changing how it categorizes people by race and ethnicity.

For the first time in 27 years, the U.S. government is changing how it categorizes people by race and ethnicity, an effort that federal officials believe will more accurately count residents who identify as Hispanic and of Middle Eastern and North African heritage.

The revisions to the minimum categories on race and ethnicity, announced Thursday by the Office of Management and Budget, are the latest effort to label and define the people of the United States. This evolving process often reflects changes in social attitudes and immigration, as well as a wish for people in an increasingly diverse society to see themselves in the numbers produced by the federal government.

  • @EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
    5•7 months ago

    Today the United States has a thriving, if somewhat tenuous, black middle class. By conventional measures of income, education, or occupation at least a third of African Americans can be described as middle class, as compared with about half of whites. That is an astonishing–probably historically unprecedented–change from the early 1960s, when blacks enjoyed the “perverse equality” of almost uniform poverty in which even the best-off blacks could seldom pass on their status to their children.

    From the second paragraph of your first link. It basically agrees with what I said. And nothing in that link about how the whole government is against them.

    Did you just spam a lot of links without vetting them in a desperate attempt to make your point look valid? This is shamefully dishonest.

    But hey, Barack Obama was elected president. Institutional racism solved. The government is helping black people now.

    Holy shit you’re still lying about my position. Why so grossly dishonest?

    Are you okay?

      • @EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
        5•7 months ago

        You had a chance to actually prove me wrong. And what did you do? Nothing and then lie about what I said.

        • Flying Squid
          -1•7 months ago

          I literally gave you a whole bunch of links. You apparently only read two paragraphs of one of them. I mean the paragraph immediately after the one you read might have given you a clue. So you either didn’t read the links or you did and you’re being dishonest about what you read.

          You, on the other hand, have brought up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and absolutely nothing else, which you claim is proves something about the government in 2024.

          By the way, I never lied about what you said, because all the times you claimed I lied about what you said, I never claimed you said it.

          • @EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
            3•7 months ago

            I admit I did not read all of your links. I read the first one, as I said none of it supported your point, and stopped there because after doing so it was apparent you did not actual read your own links to see if they supported your claim. You lied and claimed I stopped at the second paragraph. So claiming you didn’t lie is hilarious.

            Of course, I quoted the article to show how it did not support your point. What did you do? Oh yeah, providee zero explanation as to how it does support your point. Of course you avoid doing so because we both know it was a disingenuous gish gallop.

            • Flying Squid
              1•7 months ago

              You read two paragraphs of the first one. You quoted the second paragraph out of context as if it did not.

              And you still have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your claim. The Civil Rights Act being passed 60 years ago does not prove your claim about anything about the government in 2024. Because it’s an entirely different government and almost everyone in the government in 1964 is dead now.

              Let me know when you want to provide actual evidence about the U.S. government in 2024.

              Or when you bother to actually read a single link I provided to the end. Because you sure didn’t read the one you claimed you did read after paragraph 2.

              And I like how you’ve suddenly dropped the “you’re lying about what I said” accusation when I pointed out that I never claimed you said any of it. “I was wrong about that” would be the honest response. I won’t be holding my breath.

              • @EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
                2•7 months ago

                No, I read the whole thing, even explicitly pointing out that there was nothing in it that supported your original claim. I just quoted the part that contradicted your claim.

                You still have yet to actually explain how it supports your point.

                • Flying Squid
                  0•7 months ago

                  How about this- I’ll explain how it supports my point when you provide the evidence bout the U.S. governments actions on systemic racism in 2024, which I’ve asked for multiple times.

                  Again, I won’t be holding my breath.

                  • @EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
                    1•7 months ago

                    You are trying to shift the burden of proof. I didn’t just point to the CRA, but even that’s enough to demonstrate how your point is wrong by comparing now to when the vast majority of the government was actually working against black people. You then shifted your point, provided nothing that supports it, and now demanding that I prove you wrong.

                    That’s not how it works, sorry.

                    But I would like to point out how I’m still the only one who has provided something to support my point, while also being able to explain it.