<p>In the application it says what race i am</p>
<p>I am a filipino and grew up in the pacific islands of guam and hawaii.</p>
<p>for race do i put asian or pacific islander? </p>
<p>i consider my self pacific islander because i grew up in pacific islands and filipino..</p>
<p>but i dont know what to put for an option.</p>
<p>You can never go wrong with "other"...that's what I always put...and I'm white!</p>
<p>you can enter in either one- or leave it blank. It will neither hurt nor help you.</p>
<p>isn't your race more about the heritage of your parents, not necessarily where you lived?</p>
<p>rofl.. that's pretty controversial. i'd say asian,cuz u're filipino afterall~~
but being pacific islander might give u an edge =P
hey hey im from guam =D</p>
<p>lol nice what school you go?
yeah pacific islander would give me an edge thats why im deciding.
plus we dont even look asian</p>
<p>Haha. The Philippines is an island in the Pacific is it not?</p>
<p>Quote NAVY2010: "you can enter in either one- or leave it blank. It will neither hurt nor help you."</p>
<p>what are you talking about, he'll be able to get a higher application score over the whiteboys</p>
<p>In my opinion they shouldn't ask and just leave it up to a competitive basis.</p>
<p>Your race is a genetic marker. Would you say a caucasian that was born in China and raised there is Chinese? Of course not! The only way you would say you are a pacific islander is if 1 parent is a pacific islander</p>
<p>I believe that the US Census definition of an Asian is someone whose ethnic origin is from mainland asia or an area which includes Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and the Indian subcontinent while the term Pacific Islander specifically covers ethnic Native Hawaiian, ethnic Samoan, Guamanian,or Micronesian. As an ethnic Filipino- it seems that for this purpose you are Asian- even if you grew up in Nanakuli or Waianae surrounded by native Hawaiians or Samoans.</p>
<p>Yea but what if that 1 pacific islander parent was a caucasion born in China and raised there by caucasians who'd lived all their lives there?</p>
<p>What about the hispanic in Mexico who's dark as dark can be and the hispanic in Mexico who's blond and blue eyed.</p>
<p>Your argument doesn't hold water, I'm afraid. bucket's fulla bulletpima holes ...;)</p>
<p>Ahhh . . . always a pleasure to see how the USNA threads can devolve to sheer nonsense.</p>
<p>WP: explain to us a bit more your logic that, seemingly, race is only a function of skin color?
Tell us about the fourth generation Mexican, descended from Spaniards, who appears as European as can be, moves to the U.S. and has children. That child is not "Hispanic-American" because of their blonde hair? I guess Bill Richardson, because of his surname, was not really "hispanic" or was he just brown enough?</p>
<p>Even the conclusion that "genetics" is the appropriate marker for a race classification is suspect as humans, regardles of "race", share 99.9% of the same genes. Thus, depending upon the number of markers on examines, for many people, their genetics may appear the same.</p>
<p>In any event, historically, "hispanic" has not generally been considered a "race." neither has "pacific islander." </p>
<p>WP: as some others have observed, your comments can be allover the map. Always looking to stir things up, aren't you?. Sure you are not the reincarnation of others of the same ilk who have preceded you.</p>
<p>In any event, Asians and Pacific Islanders have not been "underrepresented" at the Academy and ar enot usually a targeted minority for additional recognition.
So. . .MDSU, put down whatever floats your boat. I doubt it will help you one way or the other. But, at the end of the day, most people would say that your "race" is derived from your parents, not from your physical location.</p>
<p>IF one parent is a caucasion born in China the child is half caucasion. Sort of like Barack Obama, we have, as a social construct, chosen to identify him as black [African-American] but why isn't he considered Anglo? Just black enough for you WP?</p>
<p>HUH? What?</p>
<p>We are talking about ethnicity not origin of country. </p>
<p>If you have 1 parent who is a resident of China b/c they were born there, then the parent is a Chinese citizen, NOT ASIAN for RACE purposes. If they marry an Asian person and have a child, the child could classify themselves as ASIAN.</p>
<p>However, even in your scenario...the child is still hispanic...why, because their parents are Mexican. My brother is an Albino...is he caucasian? Yes, does he have brown hair and brown eyes like my sister and I? No...it was a genetic issue, Brown Hair parents one with green eyes and one with blue, gave birth to a child with white hair and lavendar eyes.</p>
<p>I have met many parents that have brown hair and brown eyes, but the child is blond...my SIL, my neice, both of them are caucasian...that is their genetic markers. </p>
<p>Residency is not the same as ethnicity. In your theory if I moved to Mexico, gave birth and raised my kids there their entire life they would be HISPANIC...no they would not be, because I am not nor is Bullet Hispanic. NOW if my children have children with people from Mexico, my grandchildren could say they are Hispanic or Caucasian</p>
<p>BEST EXAMPLE: What is Obama...he spent yrs in Odonesia and Hawaii..do you think he classifies himself as Asian? Last I check him and Michele classify themselves as African American...isn't part of this inauguration about the fact that we have the 1st BLACK President. To You it should be the FIRST ASIAN President, he was born in Hawaii, and spent a large majority of his life there...grandmom and grandpa were residents there!</p>
<p>Bill and I cross posted...huh..what is meant to WP</p>
<p>Some things on these USNA threads are so ludicrous that a response is demanded. BP, we probably took the same amount of time to shake our heads in dis-belief.</p>
<p>I am truly scared now at what is being taught in school. If students can't distinguish between race/ethnicity and citizenship what else is missing? :eek:</p>
<p>^^^ Isn't that the truth...</p>
<p>How did this become so "complicated?"</p>
<p>what is truly sad is the fact that the USNA has a points system that awards minorities, and penalizes majority people because of many generations ago. </p>
<p>another sad thing is you're not allowed to talk about it and some will even play semantics like: it's not affirmative action.</p>
<p>how do women fit into the equation of the argument when upbringing and access to education are thrown up as an equalizer.</p>
<p>face it folks, it's affirmative action and play with the rules as they are set out, don't pretend to be above the fray!</p>
<p>While I appreciate your comments, try and view it from another perspective. </p>
<p>USNA has openly stated that they want the Brigade to mirror the fleet. Right now the percetage of women at USNA has reached the desired target, if not exceeded it a bit- thus, their numbers as a percetage of the Brigade are expected to remain relatively where they are.</p>
<p>There is a disparity in the percentage of African American and Hispanic representation in the Brigade when compared to the numbers in the fleet. USNA wants to correct that, and has been very open in its recruitment goals. </p>
<p>It is not so much about playing with the rules as much as it is a need to supply the Navy with what it needs. I trust the administration is in a far better position to know what that is than the limited view from our seats.</p>
<p>as I said, semantics. no need to explain it another way, I see that perspective and accept that the navy is trying to make the officer corps, look like the enlisted corps and they are using a sliding scale for admissions. as I said, work with the rules the way they are set forth. put down that you're a minority, you'll have a better chance of acceptance with the same criteria.</p>
<p>why do so many have such a hard time with the reality if it's spelled out in plain language?</p>