I have to critique a paper on asthma in the South Bronx and I am not sure if the terminology is correct.

Does anyone know the "modern" phrases? Whats PC? whats accurate

When describing ethnicity they talk about Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. They then subdivide the Hispanic people into Puerto Ricans, Mexicans and Dominicans but always refer to "Blacks". So does this mean that the Hispanic contingent is always immigrant? Should the Black Group be called African American? The White group didnt exist as noone in the survey population identified themselves as White.

The authors were trying to establish that ethnic origin was a risk factor for asthma, but I am not convinced that these divisions would do that.

Any experts out there care to comment please?

That can be difficult... as the terms 'race', 'ethnicity', 'populations', etc are fluid and ambiguous; their definitions can carry so many different social meanings.

IMO, stick with the terms as they are in the original paper that you're critiquing and just make it clear in your paper that that is what you are doing. ... that you're using the same social/ethnic categories for clarity in your paper and that whether these categories are PC, or not, is not the purpose of this paper.

Hey fellow student lady (I am also at the end of term paper point lol)

I would keep in mind how recently the paper you are working on was written and would certainly refer to African American rather than black. However, my first point of call would be to drop a line to the class instructor and clarify with them, at the end of the day, this covers your butt and shows a sensitivity to the issue.

I find here, that they are nowhere near as racially aware in southern Alberta as they should be....I have to physically nip myself to keep quiet when people refer to blacks with the type of tone that I refer to mould in....

But anyway, good luck, and Ill join you in a cyber toast at the end of term

Mrs Miggins xxxx

Thank you both for your comments. We have been told to comment on the papers use of language; is it correct, and can it indicate any bias. I wondered if they were giving attention to detail to the Hispanic population then they were more interested in these results, for whatever reason.

Other papers I have seen indicate that some Hispanic people have a high incidence of asthma so that could be why they focused. I dont understand the "Hispanic" thing anyway, if anyone could explain that to me.

Four more weeks, at college, four weeks work placement and then done

In the US, the term "Hispanic" typically refers to people from the Americas whose native language is Spanish. Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Ecuadoreans, etc.

Your paper might have avoided the term "African American" when describing the population mix of the South Bronx because a lot of the Black population there are from the Carribean (e.g. Jamaica).

Well thats my point, why subdivide one group, the Hispanic, and not another,the Black, or the White? Does it show that they were more interested in the Hispanic results?

Am I being naive in wondering why the Hispanic name arose? In Europe we dont have that description for Spaniards, Portuguese? Is the term used to describe someone from Spain who lives in the USA?
edit
I've just looked this up in Wikipedia. The Hispanic name was coined by Montoya, a New Mexican senator, who wanted to differentiate the Spanish speaking population of the USA. It doesnt describe race but a culture. Portugeuse culture is Lusitanic.

Fwiw, the "hispanic" americans I know prefer to be called latina/latino.

I laughed the other month as I heard Lewis Hamilton be called an "African American driver" on US TV

It says in Wikipedia that a CNN reported referred to rioting Parisians as African American

Oh, in that case, then pull apart how the authors define 'Hispanic', 'Black' etc...

It's hard for me to really understand exactly, as I haven't read the paper but from what you've written I get the sense that the authors in the original paper are, in a sense, comparing apples and oranges. They are trying to find out if "ethnic origin was a risk factor for asthma" yet it seems that they are comparing 'race' vs 'ethnicity'... ie, Blacks vs Hispanics.

Race and ethnicity are very similar but there are differences and they are especially important to keep in mind when studying populations, cultural groups, etc... Conflating the two concepts can hide key differences, information, etc...

For instance... what if (pretend time!) both Blacks and Hispanics of Dominican origin shared a similar rate of asthma? By not breaking down the 'Blacks' into country of origin as they did the Hispanic, they are missing important information which could introduce bias into their results.

If I'm following correctly what you've said about the paper...

You are following, thanks. My notes say "this isnt like for like" If you group people as White when looking into Coeliac disease you would miss that Irish people have a higher incidence.

thats great, so they arent using the correct terminology in two ways, the PC way, and as a way of comparing populations.

Exactly.

Perhaps you could define 'race' sort of like an arbitrary category of people often on the basis of physical characteristics as skin colour, hair texture, facial features ... or whatever.... and 'ethnicity' as an arbitrary category of people often on the basis of cultural characteristics ... or whatever... and then discuss how comparing the two is problematic.

And hand in your paper with a bottle of gin attached! A+ all the way!

Can you mark my paper please?? hic hic