The Study of Racialism

HERE is an interesting piece:


I received my letter from the census bureau yesterday and am still trying to decide what to put on the census form when it appears in my mailbox.

The very concept of "race" that is being used by the census is both inconsistent and incoherent. With regards to ancestral biology I do not have a race. Quite frankly, no one else does either. With regards to cultural identification, I identify with all races. But I assume that point would be interpreted by census bureaucrats as dishonest (because I do not have known genealogical ancestry associated with all of the races on the form and because the question itself ignorantly presupposes that racial identities are necessarily tied to bio-races). Likewise, "American" or "human" are no better acurate because they are also not races in any real or fictitious sense.

I am truly not interested in making a mockery of the census. I just can't think of any way to honestly answer the question. Thoughts?

I cannot tell anyone else what to do, but I have checked off "other" and written in "human" since 1980.

_________________
Frank W. Sweet

I have read that you can be fined. Has this never happened to you?

Never. Never been questioned, either. On the other hand I have no objection in principle to reporting voluntary ethnic group membership, so I answer "yes (Puerto Rican)" to the "Are you Hispanic?" question. Well over half of reporting Puerto Ricans do this (check off "other race" and write in something silly).

In fact, there was a Congressional committee proposal a few years ago to forbid checking off "Other race" and writing in something non-"racial" precisely because so many Puerto Ricans were doing it, that they were messing up the "race" statistics. The proposal was defeated.

_________________
Frank W. Sweet

The guests on this program talked about mixed racial ancestry's effect on the Census.

America Counts: The 2010 Census

http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/03/america-counts-the-2010-census/comment-page-2#comment-46831

_________________
http://www.amazon.com/Passing-Who-You-Really-Are/dp/0939479222/

This is question 8:



Interestingly, now that I have received the form I found this question to be far more irritating than question 9. Question 9 gives me the option of not choosing an affiliation by checking other. Question 8 does not. It demands that either you are Hispanic or you are not. What if one parent is Hispanic and one parent is Anglophone American (whether White or Black or some other)? Why must a person identify with only one particular of those origins? Why the binary?

I can't stand this question either. It's a blatant racialization of people who hail from New World Spanish-speaking countries. What if one has a Cuban parent and a Jamaican parent? And why should only "Hispanics" get to specify ethnic origin and a "race?"

All "ethnicity" or "race" questions are dichotomous. You either self-identify as Irish-American or not, no matter how you parents self-identified. Someone with two Hispanic parents can choose to be Hispanic or not. Someone with one Hispanic parent and one non-Hispanic parent can choose to be Hispanic or not. And someone with no Hispanic ancestry at all can choose to be Hispanic or not. Sorry, guys, I honestly do not see the problem (other than the obvious fact that the whole thing is silly).

Precisely the same applies to the "race" question. There is nothing that says that you must (or may not) identify as Black based on how many Black parents you have, if any. Stop taking it seriously. It wil just give you a headache.

The reason why "Hispanic" is a separate question (in defiance of most Hispanics, who consider themselves neither White nor Black, but a third "race") is because the powerful Congressional Black Caucus insists that Hispanics be forced to choose between Black or White. The reason why the "Hispanic" question even exists (but Jewish-, Muslim-, and Polish-American questions are absent) is because the Hispanic voting bloc demands it, in order to show their demographic political power, thus gaining entitlements.

If it were up to the Black caucus, they would remove all mention of Hispanic, to reduce that voting bloc to the invisible anonymity of Irish- or Italian-American. If it were up to La Raza, they would add "Hispanic" as a fifth choice in the "race" question to raise their visibility (and clout) to that of A-As. The present arrangement is a typical political compromise.

_________________
Frank W. Sweet

The wording is "of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin." The choices are yes OR no. For persons who have Hispanic AND non-Hispanic origin, the answer is not a yes or no answer. It is Yes AND no.

If they are meaning to ask about identity and not origins, then they should ask just that. But even so, they should also leave the option of allowing people to identify partially with that group and partially with some other. I'm surprised to see you promoting the binary here Frank. Why can't a person be Hispanic and also be something else (as defined under the all inclusive umbrella of non-Hispanic)?

Or is it that a person with one drop of Hispanic identity or origin is all Hispanic?


I agree that the whole thing appears rather silly on the surface. But I fear that this sort of count also leaves much room for abuses that are no laughing matter.

If it is really intended by Hispanics just as an escape hatch from the US BW binary, than it is certainly passive aggressive. For this reason, and because it excludes other US multiracials who are not Hispanic, it strikes me as a strategy destined for failure. What it does do is single out and demarcate Spanish speakers as being something different from the rest of US Americans. It groups the vast array of diverse Spanish speaking cultures together as one lump (or at least a single category with three or more sub-categories) which stifles interest in permeability.

There is much allure is in the feeling of belonging to a large extended family. And then there are many "anti-discrimination" benefits and other tribal spoils that go along with belonging to a large ethno-political bloc. But this smells a lot to me like a revamping of America's two tired "Black" and "White" system such that "Black" and "White" are replaced by "Hispanic" and "non-Hispanic."

Are we allowed to check off 2 or more boxes or do we have to check off some other race and print it in?

_________________
"Until the Lion writes his own story, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter." - African proverbs

"I am Black & I am White, and know there is no difference. Each 1 casts a shadow, and all shadows are dark." -Walter White

For this question in the 2010 Census, I selected other: write in: Multi-racial/Bi-racial. No other boxes were checked by me.

For the race question you can do either. You can check "other" and write in what you want or check multiple boxes.

For the Hispanic ethnicity question you MUST choose between either some variety of Hispanic or not at all Hispanic. You can't check multiple boxes or write in some other response.

Just for fun, this one is from the Onion HERE.

I checked both "Black" and "White". Am I the only one who went like this at seeing "Negro" included as an option?! WTF...

I didn't know people could be FINED for not stating a specified race on the Census. Ridiculous.

I was only asking about that because I have heard it as hearsay. I don't know for sure, but I don't think that there is any truth to it. Frank said that he has never been fined for not "choosing."

I would say more than that.

I am presently researching material for a presentation on the history of the census, for a Melungeon conference in June. Many researchers have searched diligently for any record of anyone ever being fined, or even charged, for violating the census. No such thing has been found. A lawyer friend (who is accredited to plead before the SCOTUS) explains that the bureau does not dare to fine or even to accuse anyone. If they did, and the person were convicted, they would appeal and all census questions other than "how many people in this household" would be ruled unconstitutional in a slam-dunk.

So, unless someone can uncover a case, I would say that in the history of the U.S. census, no one has ever been fined.

_________________
Frank W. Sweet