Posted on Jun 3, 2015
Should the military evolve its current race classification system?
15.2K
27
22
2
2
0
As a country we continue to become a large melting pot. Exposure to different cultures develops more well rounded perspectives of who people are in their entirety. In many situations troops with Latin backgrounds are simply classified as "caucasian", Soldiers with darker complexions are "black", and recently many asians/pacific islanders were "yellow" on their ERBs. So not only is it a bit dated, but can be quite inaccurate.
Furthermore, what is the significance of identifying individuals using this segregated system of I.D.? For instance my name is SFC Joe Snuffy, blood type O+, 70" tall with brown eyes and I weigh 180lbs. At this point the category of race is moot. Or is it?
Furthermore, what is the significance of identifying individuals using this segregated system of I.D.? For instance my name is SFC Joe Snuffy, blood type O+, 70" tall with brown eyes and I weigh 180lbs. At this point the category of race is moot. Or is it?
ERB
Ethnicity
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
0
0
0
First of all, you have to understand the difference between race and ethnicity. Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Aborigine (sometimes labeled as Uncertain or Other as they don't quite fit in any of the other groups or are not unique enough to be their own group) are the actual racial groups as classified by anthropologist (black, white, yellow, other). Within the major racial groups, there are numerous sub-races.
Take Hispanics for example. Being Hispanic is a not race classification. It is an ethnic one. In reality, Hispanics are generally (scientifically) labeled as Caucasoid and belonging to the Aryan sub-racial group if the have a strong Spanish ancestry or as Americans in the Mongoloid racial group if they have roots closer to their native American roots (Maya, Aztec etc).
Now as for why the military tracks people by race and by ethnicity, there are actually several reasons. In some rare cases, duty assignments are given or withheld as a direct result of race or ethnicity. For instance, a male of Turkish descent who has not done his mandatory time as a conscript in the Turkish military could be subject to arrest, even if he is a US citizen and serving in the US military. Obviously, this service member used in this example should not be posted to a duty assignment in Turkey.
Other times the military seeks a person of a specific ethnic or racial background to serve in a liaison position in an attempt to build rapport easier. A historic example of this was the first US mil to mil partnership to an African nation after WWII. The element consisted of 11 African American NCOs and a white officer. It actually ended up being a disaster because the country was a West African nation that supplied a large numbers of slaves to European and American slave traders in the 1700's and 1800's and they looked down an African Americans as former slaves (we're talking West Africa circa 1950s).
Take Hispanics for example. Being Hispanic is a not race classification. It is an ethnic one. In reality, Hispanics are generally (scientifically) labeled as Caucasoid and belonging to the Aryan sub-racial group if the have a strong Spanish ancestry or as Americans in the Mongoloid racial group if they have roots closer to their native American roots (Maya, Aztec etc).
Now as for why the military tracks people by race and by ethnicity, there are actually several reasons. In some rare cases, duty assignments are given or withheld as a direct result of race or ethnicity. For instance, a male of Turkish descent who has not done his mandatory time as a conscript in the Turkish military could be subject to arrest, even if he is a US citizen and serving in the US military. Obviously, this service member used in this example should not be posted to a duty assignment in Turkey.
Other times the military seeks a person of a specific ethnic or racial background to serve in a liaison position in an attempt to build rapport easier. A historic example of this was the first US mil to mil partnership to an African nation after WWII. The element consisted of 11 African American NCOs and a white officer. It actually ended up being a disaster because the country was a West African nation that supplied a large numbers of slaves to European and American slave traders in the 1700's and 1800's and they looked down an African Americans as former slaves (we're talking West Africa circa 1950s).
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Great info, unfortunately Turkish Isn't an option. Also "Home of record" would fill the information requirements for any of those situations you stated. Just because the Army wants to classify me as Black doesn't mean I fit the discription or qualifications to be a liaison or ambassador. You named several historic era reasons people used race, hence the term I used was "evolve." Give me a situation or scenario in today's Army where it can't be handled without the use of race as a discriptior and I'll retract my stance.
(0)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
I used Turkish as an example of an ethnic group and why it is important for the military to know what ethnic group you are from. The Army actually does track that information along with your race depending on what skill sets you have and what your MOS is.
Also, "Home of Record" won't cover it. Before the war in Bosnia and Kosovo, you had many towns that had a healthy mixture of ethnic groups. Today, the region is very much divided and the diversity is gone in many of those towns. You send someone with the wrong last name to the wrong region and you risk loosing rapport instantly. Another case, you have two French speaking American Soldiers born in Paris, France. One is of European descent, the other is a 2nd generation immigrant whose family came from North Africa. Both are 11 Bravos. You need a French speaking Soldier for a mil to mil training exercise to Algeria to deploy with a conventional Army unit who has a good understanding of Infantry tactics to serve as a translator. If the Army didn't know your ethnic group the most obvious selection for the job would have been difficult to pick. Yes, the white guy would have worked, but you'd get better results using the Arab guy whose family came from North Africa because the Algerian Soldiers will respond to him a lot easier since he is of the same ethnic background.
Now for race. Same general scenario, looking for a French speaking US Soldier to act as a translator for a mil to mil training event that has experience in setting up complex radio systems. An 09 Lima (Army Linguist) won't cut it because the Army currently doesn't have one with the right technical skills. The training event will occur in two separate locations in Niger. At both locations, the men in the units who are to receive the training are from the Tuareg ethnic group (nomads). However, the unit in one location is completely made up of White (Arab) Tuaregs and the other unit is made up of Black (African) Tuaregs. Any French speaking Soldier would do, but if you take a African American who speaks French and put him in front of the White Tuaregs you may end up with some issues because of racial bias. You put him in front of Black Tuaregs and they will tell their grandchildren about the time that a Black American came to train them.
These scenarios are actually scenarios that are quite recent. Could you do the job with any soldier that met the basic qualifications? Yes. Could you do it better with a soldier who has a similar ethnic background or of the same race? Absolutely, simply because people tend to build relationships faster with someone they see as a member of their group.
As for you yourself, just because you are Black doesn't mean you fit the job to be an ambassador or liaison...absolutely 100% correct. But there are Black guys who do have the qualifications, and in modern Africa, they get pretty excited to see an educated, skilled black man who has authority in Black Africa nations. Do you know who they instantly distrust most often? Asians, because of the massive construction projects China has going on in Africa. In many African nations, if you are Asian they assume you are automatically Chinese and therefore corrupt.
The whole situation is weird because as Americans, those of us who are educated see ourselves as equals regardless of race. Except, in many foreign countries, they don't hold the same views and values as we do and in many cases, there is blatant outright racism involved. However, the US military can and does play the race card in many of these countries to achieve a better result.
Also, "Home of Record" won't cover it. Before the war in Bosnia and Kosovo, you had many towns that had a healthy mixture of ethnic groups. Today, the region is very much divided and the diversity is gone in many of those towns. You send someone with the wrong last name to the wrong region and you risk loosing rapport instantly. Another case, you have two French speaking American Soldiers born in Paris, France. One is of European descent, the other is a 2nd generation immigrant whose family came from North Africa. Both are 11 Bravos. You need a French speaking Soldier for a mil to mil training exercise to Algeria to deploy with a conventional Army unit who has a good understanding of Infantry tactics to serve as a translator. If the Army didn't know your ethnic group the most obvious selection for the job would have been difficult to pick. Yes, the white guy would have worked, but you'd get better results using the Arab guy whose family came from North Africa because the Algerian Soldiers will respond to him a lot easier since he is of the same ethnic background.
Now for race. Same general scenario, looking for a French speaking US Soldier to act as a translator for a mil to mil training event that has experience in setting up complex radio systems. An 09 Lima (Army Linguist) won't cut it because the Army currently doesn't have one with the right technical skills. The training event will occur in two separate locations in Niger. At both locations, the men in the units who are to receive the training are from the Tuareg ethnic group (nomads). However, the unit in one location is completely made up of White (Arab) Tuaregs and the other unit is made up of Black (African) Tuaregs. Any French speaking Soldier would do, but if you take a African American who speaks French and put him in front of the White Tuaregs you may end up with some issues because of racial bias. You put him in front of Black Tuaregs and they will tell their grandchildren about the time that a Black American came to train them.
These scenarios are actually scenarios that are quite recent. Could you do the job with any soldier that met the basic qualifications? Yes. Could you do it better with a soldier who has a similar ethnic background or of the same race? Absolutely, simply because people tend to build relationships faster with someone they see as a member of their group.
As for you yourself, just because you are Black doesn't mean you fit the job to be an ambassador or liaison...absolutely 100% correct. But there are Black guys who do have the qualifications, and in modern Africa, they get pretty excited to see an educated, skilled black man who has authority in Black Africa nations. Do you know who they instantly distrust most often? Asians, because of the massive construction projects China has going on in Africa. In many African nations, if you are Asian they assume you are automatically Chinese and therefore corrupt.
The whole situation is weird because as Americans, those of us who are educated see ourselves as equals regardless of race. Except, in many foreign countries, they don't hold the same views and values as we do and in many cases, there is blatant outright racism involved. However, the US military can and does play the race card in many of these countries to achieve a better result.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google