Tuesday,
April 18,
Who are We?
:"2,000 Flavors and Counting": The Census: Americans and Italian
Americans
The
ANNOTICO Report
Those
that know Not from WHERE they came, can Never
Really know Who they are!!!!
You
hear of it OVER and OVER again. Adopted Children that even
though they have had Very comfortable lives, have this intense drive to
find out who their Biological parents are.
Genealogy
is reported as the THIRD most popular Topic on the Internet. Only behind Sex and Gambling. Now THAT'S Popular!!!:)
A
Nation also deserves to know. The
I
therefore Disagree Vehemently with the author of the
article below.
Kirsanow uses imperfection, subjectivity, and changing
attitudes as the basis of his objections and disparaging to ANY identification.
Any High
School Journalism or Debate teacher would have given him an F minus for Logic.
Personally,
I would like to see the Census Questionnaire
give people MORE opportunity to identify themselves in more multicultural
ways.
For
instance, if a person STILL "identifies themselves"
as of Irish, German and ITALIAN heritage, then they should be given the
opportunity to do so, by the percentage in their "bloodline",
or better yet the percentage they "feel" of their ethnicities, NOT
merely as Caucasian or European, or ONLY ONE EUROPEAN Choice!!!
Knowledge
is Power, and the more Knowledge the greater Power to address Issues.
Advocating Ignorance is Not a Solution.
I
am constantly, and almost daily surprised and amazed by people who are not
"easily recognizable" as of Italian heritage, (I call them
"submerged" Italians:), [by marriage, or 'americanization'
of name], but who strongly identify with
the Italian portion of their heritage, through traditions, language,
expressions, foods, pilgrimages back to regions of their origin in Italy, etc,
or recounting stories of parents and grandparents that bring a fond tear to
their eye.
What
do you think???
2,000
FLAVORS AND COUNTING
The
more race categories you add, the more pointless they are.
The
National Review
By
Peter Kirsanow
Discussions
concerning racial categorization almost inevitably devolve into the surreal.
And so it was at last Friday's U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights briefing on the 2010 census. Although the next
enumeration is four years away, the U.S. Census Bureau is conducting a series
of
test censuses to "improve" the census questions
pertaining to race and ethnicity. "Improvement" in this regard means
more precise and accurate racial/ethnic data that may better inform the
governmental programs and policies that rely on such data.
The
problem with any such data collection is that classifications based on race
and/or ethnicity are inherently arbitrary, unscientific, and
inaccurate. Consequently, their utility in informing
government programs and policies is, if not marginal, then at least suspect.
The
problem isn't the Census Bureau. The agency does a remarkable job collecting
and disaggregating mountains of information (at a cost of over $10 billion)
pursuant to directives received from Congress and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). The problem is that race and ethnicity are extraordinarily
malleable concepts that evade precise biological, anthropological, or
sociological definitions. The law, on the other hand, has been remarkably
resourceful in defining "race" sometimes hilariously, frequently illogically,
but too often tragically so.
The
original census in 1790 had but three racial categories: White, Black and
Indian. These categories satisfied the Article I, Section 2
requirements pertaining to the apportionment of
representatives and direct taxes among the states.
The
number of classifications expanded in the late 1800s to account for the
increased Chinese and Japanese populations. The number of categories remained relatively
stable throughout most of the twentieth century. By 1978, there were still only
four "race" categories (White, Black Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian
or Pacific Islander), as well as one "ethnicity" category (Hispanic).
Since
then the categories have multiplied rapidly. By the 2000 Census respondents
could choose from 126 categories.
The
rapid proliferation of racial and ethnic classifications does little to dampen
suspicions that the categories are, at a minimum,arbitrary and probably specious: Someone may have
been Black of Hispanic origin in 1990, but today that person might be Cuban of
"some other race." The accuracy of longitudinal comparisons becomes,
therefore, more questionable.
Moreover,
why limit the number of categories to 126? Anthropologists and sociologists may
not be able to agree on the exact number of
ethnicities, but the lowest figure seems to be around 2,000.
Any number below that has less to do with demographic accuracy than with
politics...
Outside
of antidiscrimination statutes, few governmental programs make specific
reference to race. Rather, the types of programs that employ racial and ethnic
data are generally those designed to address disparities in, e.g., education,
income, housing, health care, etc. disparities that
are a function of factors for which race/ethnicity are imperfect proxies.
Even
the collection and application of racial and ethnic data for civil rights and
antidiscrimination enforcement are inconsistent. Consider: Title VII of the
1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, sex,
color, religion, and national origin. Yet the census seeks no data on color or
religion. Nor does the census collect precise protected-class information
directly applicable to other civil-rights laws. (It was suggested at the
hearing that the census doesn't inquire into religious affiliation because the
topic is too controversial.
Perhaps. But it's unlikely
Tocqueville or Myrdal would concur that religion is
prohibitively more controversial than
There
was no evidence adduced at the hearing that any specific governmental program
or policy has been improved demonstrably by the
atomization of racial and ethnic classifications in the
census. Ward Connerly, one of the witnesses, mischievously
advocated that a
multiracial category be added, for the express purpose of
causing the whole regime to collapse upon itself. But even Connerly
acknowledged that in today's hyper-racialized
society, that's unlikely to happen any time soon.
*
Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights. He is also a member of the National Labor Relations Board. These
comments do not necessarily reflect the positions of either organization.
The
ANNOTICO Reports are Archived at:
Italia
Mia: www.italiamia.com (Community)