The U.S. Census collection is underway, with its supposed improved
(and harmonised) separate questions on race and ethnicity. The only
ethnicity asked about is whether person is Spanish/ Hispanic/ Latino
or not, with a sub-category showing where they're from. There are 14
races to choose from (most of which look like nationalities--Korean,
Vietnamese...) plus 'other' for write-ins. It would be interesting to
see the range of optional answers given. 

See the commentary below for journalistic musings. (It really is
ridiculous that they shortened 'African American' to African
Am.' because I've seen the short form and there is plenty of space to
spell it out. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/infoquest.html) 

BTW, maybe the definition of Census needs to be changed, I thought it
was a total count. According to the U.S. Census Bureau website, the
not overly ambitious national goal for a 'response rate' is 70%!
http://rates.census.gov/

Robin Rice

---------- Forwarded message ----------
>###############
>
>U.S. Census Cultivates Fiction of Race
>By Courtland Milloy
>
>The Washington Post, Sunday, March 19, 2000; Metro Section, Page C01
>
>A question on my U.S. Census survey asked: What is your race?
>
>The possible answers have been expanded this year to 17 and include space to
>write in "some other race," such as "cablinasian," as golfer Tiger Woods
>likes to call himself.
>
>A Post colleague, who is white, said he was going to check the black
>box--just for the hell of it, I suppose.
>
>"What are they going to do, put me in jail?" he asked.
>
>I called the census help line to find out and, sure enough, there was a
>button to press just for people with "questions about the meaning of race."
>
>"The concept of race reflects self-identification," a recorded voice said.
>"It does not indicate any clear-cut scientific definition which is
>biological or genetic in reference. The data for race represents
>self-classification by people according to the race or races with which they
>most closely identify."
>
>If that didn't make sense, try figuring out whether you are
>"Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" or just a plain old Chicano, Puerto Rican or
>Cuban.
>
>At any rate, my white colleague would not go to jail for being black. As far
>as the Census Bureau is concerned, if a white person feels closely
>identified with blacks, so be it. He can be black for a day (or a decade, as
>the case may be).
>
>It did make me wonder though: How do we really know who's who out there? And
>does anybody really care?
>
>In 1995, The Post, Harvard University and the Henry J. Kaiser Family
>Foundation conducted a survey in which most white people expressed the
>belief that blacks made up 23.8 percent of the U.S. population, nearly twice
>what the census says.
>
>Maybe they were right. Maybe what they were saying is that they realize that
>there is no such thing as a "white" person, that we are all "colored" to one
>degree or another with blood from ancestors who can't be accounted for but
>which we all know have their origins in Africa.
>
>The race category on the census form that really caught my eye was the one
>that supposedly applied to me. It came with three names attached: "Black,
>African Am., or Negro." I thought all of those were separate categories,
>with African Am. being some kind of airline.
>
>African American, on the other hand, is the name most "people of color"
>prefer, according to recent opinion polls; black is no longer the in word.
>And speaking of the n-word, what about all of the black rappers who go by
>that? I can already smell an undercount.
>
>As for "Negro," I hadn't seen one of them since 1968.
>
>Race. What a mess.
>
>Seeing all of the official racial distinctions based on a certain skin tone
>here and particular texture of hair there was to bear witness to a nation
>gone bonkers over a figment of its imagination.
>
>Race, as we all know by now, is a biological fiction. It simply doesn't
>exist. Genetically, human beings are 99.9 percent the same. But we sure do
>make an awful lot of that .1 percent, mostly a cesspool of racism.
>
>Last week, the U.S. Census Monitoring Board and the accounting firm of
>PricewaterhouseCoopers released a study estimating that certain metropolitan
>areas stand to lose $11 billion if the bureau repeats the undercount of
>1990. African Americans were undercounted by about 4.4 percent, and Latinos
>were undercounted by 5 percent, the study noted.
>
>A national campaign is now underway to get African Americans and Latinos to
>fill out the census forms. But getting an accurate count of people is one
>thing; counting by race is something else.
>
>What is the point?
>
>A 1992 poll by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found
>that most Americans, including blacks and whites, have virtually the same
>concerns, hopes and dreams. We all want to support our families, send our
>children to good schools and have adequate health care for the elderly.
>
>Blacks are as likely as whites to invoke the virtues of individual
>responsibility, according to a Gallop poll, with more blacks than whites
>believing that black people must work harder to solve their problems and
>improve the lives of their families and themselves.
>
>Earlier surveys by the Census Bureau found that blacks are the most cohesive
>group in the United States when it comes to reporting racial data. Only a
>handful of blacks report themselves as whites, compared with 18 percent of
>Latinos, the surveys show.
>
>However, this race-based cohesion obscures some fundamental truths about our
>common humanity. And by emphasising petty distinctions, we sometimes
>overlook similarities that could form the basis for powerful anti-racist
>coalitions.
>
>One reason for the racial count in the census is supposedly to give the
>government a measuring stick to monitor civil rights violations, such as
>discriminatory lending practices by banks and mortgage companies. If we know
>how many blacks are living in an area, the theory goes, we can tell if they
>are being represented proportionally in politics, education and employment.
>
>However, this leaves us with a most destructive paradox: By combating racism
>this way, we also give credence to the false concept of race, which is at
>racism's root.
>
>And yet, not to acknowledge race is to allow the forces of racism to go
>unchecked.
>
>What a mess.
>
>© Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company
>
>###
>
>Mark-David RICHARDS
>[log in to unmask]
>
>




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%