Posted: Fri 02 Nov 2007 14:41 Post subject: U.S. Census-taking and public health
I'm preparing a presentation for high school seniors on racial disparities in infant mortality. The challenging part is demonstrate the health effects of racism without perpetuating the fallacy of race as a biological category. I found a great article from the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics ("The Meanings of 'Race' in the New Genomics: Implications for Health Disparities Research" by Lee, Mountain and Koenig). The article states, "In the 1920s the United States extended this racial paradigm by instituting the infamous 'one-drop rule' by which individuals with even one ancestor of Afican orign were classifed as black." From what I've learned on this website, the one-drop rule seems to predate the 1920s, but maybe it became the definition of "blackness" for the U.S. Census Bureau at that time. Does anyone here have additional information about this or suggestions for presenting this material?
Posted: Fri 02 Nov 2007 15:11 Post subject: Re: U.S. Census-taking and public health
havefaithg wrote:
I'm preparing a presentation for high school seniors on racial disparities in infant mortality. The challenging part is demonstrate the health effects of racism without perpetuating the fallacy of race as a biological category. I found a great article from the Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics ("The Meanings of 'Race' in the New Genomics: Implications for Health Disparities Research" by Lee, Mountain and Koenig). The article states, "In the 1920s the United States extended this racial paradigm by instituting the infamous 'one-drop rule' by which individuals with even one ancestor of Afican orign were classifed as black." From what I've learned on this website, the one-drop rule seems to predate the 1920s, but maybe it became the definition of "blackness" for the U.S. Census Bureau at that time. Does anyone here have additional information about this or suggestions for presenting this material?
The socially-imposed (and until 1967, legally-imposed) endogamous barrier known as "the color line" has a profound impact on U.S. society. Anyone labeled "Black" in the United States faces much steeper obstacles: healthwise and in many other ways. The pedagogical challenge is that just who is so labeled has varied across the centuries and among regions. Is it based on your looks? Your genealogy? Your circle of friends? Your wealth? American kids tend to think that these are all the same thing but, of course they are not.
"Looks" tends to be the most important criterion nowadays, but many Puerto Ricans and Trinidadians with visible African ancestry are not considered African-American in the color-line sense. Genealogy fails because DNA tests show that between 10 and 30 percent of White Americans have Black slave ancestry from people who successfully passed through the color line generations ago, and many African Americans lack sub-saharan DNA markers. In antebellum South Carolina, it was whom you associated with that counted, and in Louisiana it was your wealth.
To answer your question, the ODR was first made statutory in 1910 Tennessee and was adopted by most states in the following two decades. The most famous--and harshly enforced--such statute was that of 1924 Virgina, which is what most people point to. But the ODR had been followed informally (without legal basis) for many years before then, especially in the Ohio Valley.
Posted: Fri 02 Nov 2007 22:54 Post subject: Re: U.S. Census-taking and public health
fwsweet wrote:
["Looks" tends to be the most important criterion nowadays, but many Puerto Ricans and Trinidadians with visible African ancestry are not considered African-American in the color-line sense. .
Are we using African American in its racial meaning, or in its ethnic meaning? If the former its used interchangeably with "black", in which case Trinidadian of visible SSAfrican ancestry is "black". If its ethnic then it becomes more debatable and increasing immigration by nonHispanic blacks is forcing a discussion of who is and who isnt African American by both American blacks and by black immigrants as well. I dont know that there has been any agreement on this.
There is no place for a Trinidadian of visible SSAfrican ancestry (who would be considered black if born in the USA) to check their race in the US census except "Black/African American". A Puerto Rican of similar appearance can check "Hispanic/Latino" section, and the Puerto Rican subsection, and I think race as well ("white", "black" and "other". Mervin Dymally ( a former congress man from California) was considered Black (by race) in the USA but in Trinidad he would be mixed (African/East Indian).
Posted: Wed 07 Nov 2007 14:56 Post subject: relevance of race to public heatlh
Thank you for the replys. Interestingly, in terms of public health, color and not ancestry determines a lot of the outcomes. African and Black Caribbean immigrants have health outcomes comparable to White Americans when it comes to markers like infant mortality. After just one generation, however, their babies are as likely to die as those of African Americans that have lived here for generations. So, while ethnicity does matter is relation to some health behaviors, Black skin is enough to predict poor health outcomes regardless, in this country at least.
[David and Collins. "Differing birth weight among infants of U.S.-born blacks, African-born blacks and U.S.-born Whites." The New England Journal of Medicine. Boston: Oct 23, 1997. Vol. 337, Iss.17; pp. 1209-1215.]
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
