Bubbles
Member
Looks like the questions for #10 (race) and #12 (citizenship) are getting updated.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/firearms/atf-f-4473-draft-121911.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/forms/firearms/atf-f-4473-draft-121911.pdf
4473 Changing
- Thread starter Bubbles
- Start date
- Status
firesky101
Member
My tablet wont download that for some reason. What did they change? I always joked with my lgs that it should say caucasian not white, how offensive.
They added a question asking the purchaser to identify himself as Hispanic (or Not) followed by a seperate racial identification question, the options for which no longer include Hispanic/ Latino. They also added a question for NIA purchasers to check-off thier exemption catagory (hunting license, sporting invite, AG Exemption).
CoRoMo
Member
So do you dealers have to chunk all the blank 4473s that you're sitting on and order new ones? Or does the ATF give you the option to run out of what you've got before changing to the new ones?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
What a strange question.
"10.a. Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or Latino"
Anyone have the foggiest idea what that's for?
"10.a. Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or Latino"
Anyone have the foggiest idea what that's for?
MtnCreek
Member
The same reason they care how tall you are and what your weight is...
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Yes but why move it from the "Race" section to "Ethnicity". Is there some political correctness thing here I am not familiar with?
ErikO
Member
I'd be happier about the 'race' question if 'human' became the only choice. Honestly, that data is what the census is for.
MtnCreek
Member
Some hispanics get really pissed if you refer to them as anything other than white. I'm not kidding.
LibShooter
Member
There has been confusion among folks filling out forms as to whether "Latinoness" is a racial or ethnic trait. Many folks of Hispanic ethnicity also self identify as white.
I read somewhere that these questions in this order are the best way to get accurate reporting. You will probably see them on other government forms in the future.
Stevie-Ray
Member
I thought Hispanics were considered "brown."
Shadow 7D
Member
Um, yeah, you nailed it, many are descended (or claim to be) from white Spaniard
but other descend from from black slaves (yeah, Latin countries have race issues TOO)
and still others from the Indians
and many are mixed, but we won't get into that, as depends on region / ethnicity what it's called.
but other descend from from black slaves (yeah, Latin countries have race issues TOO)
and still others from the Indians
and many are mixed, but we won't get into that, as depends on region / ethnicity what it's called.
MtnCreek
Member
Depending on who's asking, sometimes I check all the boxes.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
I've wondered myself every time I see that question.
Racial simplification is a bunch of crap anyways.
If you research European history you will find a large percentage of Europeans are mixed with 'black' African, middle eastern (themselves a big mix), and Asian ancestry.
From all the mixing during trade and various wars.
Notable large incidents including mixing with the hordes of Ghengis Khan,
Take a look at ancient paintaings and sculptures of Romans and Greeks, nothing like Romans and Greeks today. From color, to bone structure to hair, the genetics are very different.
This goes back to Roman slave days, the Romans were racist, and wouldn't mix with others originally, but in later times mixed with most of their slaves.
They then mixed with various cultures and armies that conquered the region over time, as well as through trade.
The French or Gaul was predominantly fair skin and hair, Celtic.
Hispania or modern Spain was much the same.
Looking more Nordic than they do today.
Yet today are predominantly black haired people of many complexions.
This goes back to the Moorish conquest, when people of black African and Arabs ruled over and mixed with modern day Spain, and France.
Before modern times wars tended to mix populations a lot more too.
From marriages, to rape and prostitution, most nations at war with armies that marched over long distances and 'lived off the land' (raped and pillaged) mixed genes.
Most of Africa was colonized, their genes have a large percentage of European ancestry since now, even if they are quite 'black' in skin color.
Just as most US blacks today, many of whom have European bone structure and are more European than African, yet are 'black' or 'African American'.
And that does not even touch the surface.
My point is that 'white' is already meaningless.
Black is relatively meaningless.
And if you go south of the border, the mixture is so massive, it is hard to even categorize.
Mexico was the melting pot long before the USA. From the large number of Natives, to the massive importation of African slaves, to often unrealized but large immigration of Asian immigrants. On top of the Spanish blood.
They call it 'Mestizo' to be mixed, and most of the population is mestizo.
Most who don't think they are just don't know enough of their history to go back far enough.
Genetics play a very large role in many things, but they are so much more complex than the simplification of 'race' as it is known in the US.
Most people don't really want to hear the truth though.
If you research European history you will find a large percentage of Europeans are mixed with 'black' African, middle eastern (themselves a big mix), and Asian ancestry.
From all the mixing during trade and various wars.
Notable large incidents including mixing with the hordes of Ghengis Khan,
Take a look at ancient paintaings and sculptures of Romans and Greeks, nothing like Romans and Greeks today. From color, to bone structure to hair, the genetics are very different.
This goes back to Roman slave days, the Romans were racist, and wouldn't mix with others originally, but in later times mixed with most of their slaves.
They then mixed with various cultures and armies that conquered the region over time, as well as through trade.
The French or Gaul was predominantly fair skin and hair, Celtic.
Hispania or modern Spain was much the same.
Looking more Nordic than they do today.
Yet today are predominantly black haired people of many complexions.
This goes back to the Moorish conquest, when people of black African and Arabs ruled over and mixed with modern day Spain, and France.
Before modern times wars tended to mix populations a lot more too.
From marriages, to rape and prostitution, most nations at war with armies that marched over long distances and 'lived off the land' (raped and pillaged) mixed genes.
Most of Africa was colonized, their genes have a large percentage of European ancestry since now, even if they are quite 'black' in skin color.
Just as most US blacks today, many of whom have European bone structure and are more European than African, yet are 'black' or 'African American'.
And that does not even touch the surface.
My point is that 'white' is already meaningless.
Black is relatively meaningless.
And if you go south of the border, the mixture is so massive, it is hard to even categorize.
Mexico was the melting pot long before the USA. From the large number of Natives, to the massive importation of African slaves, to often unrealized but large immigration of Asian immigrants. On top of the Spanish blood.
They call it 'Mestizo' to be mixed, and most of the population is mestizo.
Most who don't think they are just don't know enough of their history to go back far enough.
Genetics play a very large role in many things, but they are so much more complex than the simplification of 'race' as it is known in the US.
Most people don't really want to hear the truth though.
Birch Knoll
Member
Because race and ethnicity are two different things. Once may be either white or black as well as either Hispanic or non-Hispanic.
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
Uh, nobody for "Fast and Furious"? Much easier to racially profile an individual that way.
Now, race is what you ARE. You can't change it, you were born with it. Ethnicity is HOW you are, after you were born ethnicity was taught by family and, more importantly, the whole community. The food, the art, the customs, this is ethnicity. "Jew" is ethnicity for example, and not a race.
If you consider an individual that is by blood hispanic, but raised say in an upscale white neighborhood and goes to school at a private school with rich white kids and the family is whitebread American, then that person is ETHNICALLY different from the guy who grew up in SoCal in a "hispanic" neighborhood and practiced, say, Mexican culture instead.
But what about all the other cultures? Is "A" in ATF for anthropology now? What if the parents got divorced and the kid grew up with equal amounts of time in both cultures and identifies with both equally? What if he checks both? God help us.
It seems to me to be a very blunt and not very well thought out way of separating "Mexicans who identify as Americans" from "Mexicans who identify as Mexicans". Because lets be honest, this has little to do with "hispanic" which includes everything south of Texas. But putting "Mexican" on the form might be considered racist. This is just a politically correct way of asking, "Do you identify with Mexican culture in daily life?"
The question seems to play on one's feeling towards culture. You may not be proud of your race for whatever reason, but rarely is one NOT proud of their culture or ethnicity. In fact, just the opposite. For instance, I'm proud of my Native descent, what little I know of it.
So, if you can weed out the folks that identify as American from the ones that identify as hispanic (or Mexican, because that is what it is really all about, right?) then it makes racially profiling easier. Now you don't have to root through info on "American Mexicans", instead, focus on "Mexican Americans". Get it?
That is my take.
Now, race is what you ARE. You can't change it, you were born with it. Ethnicity is HOW you are, after you were born ethnicity was taught by family and, more importantly, the whole community. The food, the art, the customs, this is ethnicity. "Jew" is ethnicity for example, and not a race.
If you consider an individual that is by blood hispanic, but raised say in an upscale white neighborhood and goes to school at a private school with rich white kids and the family is whitebread American, then that person is ETHNICALLY different from the guy who grew up in SoCal in a "hispanic" neighborhood and practiced, say, Mexican culture instead.
But what about all the other cultures? Is "A" in ATF for anthropology now? What if the parents got divorced and the kid grew up with equal amounts of time in both cultures and identifies with both equally? What if he checks both? God help us.
It seems to me to be a very blunt and not very well thought out way of separating "Mexicans who identify as Americans" from "Mexicans who identify as Mexicans". Because lets be honest, this has little to do with "hispanic" which includes everything south of Texas. But putting "Mexican" on the form might be considered racist. This is just a politically correct way of asking, "Do you identify with Mexican culture in daily life?"
The question seems to play on one's feeling towards culture. You may not be proud of your race for whatever reason, but rarely is one NOT proud of their culture or ethnicity. In fact, just the opposite. For instance, I'm proud of my Native descent, what little I know of it.
So, if you can weed out the folks that identify as American from the ones that identify as hispanic (or Mexican, because that is what it is really all about, right?) then it makes racially profiling easier. Now you don't have to root through info on "American Mexicans", instead, focus on "Mexican Americans". Get it?
That is my take.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Well it's a very interesting discussion, I've learned a lot, thanks.
But, since it's just barely on topic, and the questions seem answered, let's stop now.
But, since it's just barely on topic, and the questions seem answered, let's stop now.
- Status