On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 02:00:50PM -0700, Thaths wrote: > Are Surinamese living in the Netherlands considered Allochtoon or Autochtoon?
very interesting question, since they're as dutch as anyone else pretty much. i think officially they're not allochtoon, since their parents were born in the netherlands, but unofficially they are; autochtoon is not an official term at all, so they probably aren't considered that. similarly with the indonesians. > The US does suck at representation of ethnic minorities. Do you happen > to have the numbers for Canada and the UK? i wonder why we have this tradition of providing footnotes on silk, when we also have this tradition of commenting without reading linked articles :-) but here are all the other figures from the economist (yesss!) article: "$country: $perc-in-parliament / $perc-in-population" britain: 2.3 / 9.5 canada: 7.8 / 15.9 france: 0.4 / 12.6 germany: 1.3 / 4.8 netherlands: 8.0 / 10.9 new zealand: 21.5 / 31.5 US: 15.9 / 31.0 actually, it's only the US and canada where indigenous people are excluded in the count of ethnic minorities; in new zealand maoris are included, and in france the % in population is an estimate since the french census in a fit of "if you believe it it will happen" doesn't collect any data on ethnicity or religion. so the countries with the best representation-to-population ratio are netherlands, well above new zealand, well above canada and the US which are at about the same level (so much for canadian multiculturalism) followed by germany (guess they're not such racists), rather lower in the UK (no discrimination, we browns just make more money in the corner shop than in parliament) and then, far behind, france (can't you see we're all equal? that's why you can't even notice any difference in the skin colours in parliament!) -r >
