The census form for 2010 features a word more often heard in 1966: Negro.
For many New York blacks, the word conjures visions of Jim Crow and segregation - even if the Census Bureau says it's included to ensure an accurate count of the nation's minority residents.
"It's a bad vibe word," said Kevin Bishop, 45, a Brooklyn salesman. "It doesn't agree with me, doesn't agree with my heart."
Pamela Reese Smith, visiting the city yesterday from Rochester, said the term was outdated.
"I don't think my ancestors would appreciate it in 2010," said Smith, 56. "I don't want my grandchildren being called Negroes."
Question No. 9 on this year's census form asks about race, with one of the answers listed as "black, African-Am. or Negro."
Census Bureau spokesman Jack Martin said the use of "Negro" was intended as a term of inclusion.
"Many older African-Americans identified themselves that way, and many still do," he said. "Those who identify themselves as Negroes need to be included."
Some people don't really care for this term.
Quote:
The form was also approved by Congress more than a year ago, and the word has appeared on past forms.
The use of Negro began disappearing elsewhere with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as black or African-American became the preferred terms.
Although Martin noted that some older blacks still use the term, younger blacks feel it's a term that's passe.
"If you look back in the day when Jackie Robinson was playing, it was called the Negro Leagues," said Ryon Goulbourne, 28, of Mount Vernon.
"The N-word branched out of Negro. ... These days, African-Americans wouldn't like the term."
Greg Melvin, 41, of Queens said he wasn't offended by the word's inclusion on the form - he just didn't think it was proper.
"They don't need it," he said. "It should just be black or African-American. It's definitely unnecessary in this day and age."
The thing is, I believe there are a lot of black Americans, such as President Obama, who may identify as "Negro" and not as "African-American" because the latter phrase usually refers to the descendants of slaves. Not every black person in the country is a descendant of a slave.
Throughout my life I've rarely met blacks who self-label as "African-American." I've been told this was because they "have never been to Africa." I think they prefer the word "black."
Since all the options appear on the same line/checkbox of the census, it's a non-issue in the end.
The thing is, I believe there are a lot of black Americans, such as President Obama, who may identify as "Negro" and not as "African-American" because the latter phrase usually refers to the descendants of slaves. Not every black person in the country is a descendant of a slave.
Throughout my life I've rarely met blacks who self-label as "African-American." I've been told this was because they "have never been to Africa." I think they prefer the word "black."
Since all the options appear on the same line/checkbox of the census, it's a non-issue in the end.
That is kinda weird because Obama is more African-American than most, having a father who was actually from Africa.
Also weird that negro actually means black originally.
The thing is, I believe there are a lot of black Americans, such as President Obama, who may identify as "Negro" and not as "African-American" because the latter phrase usually refers to the descendants of slaves. Not every black person in the country is a descendant of a slave.
Throughout my life I've rarely met blacks who self-label as "African-American." I've been told this was because they "have never been to Africa." I think they prefer the word "black."
Since all the options appear on the same line/checkbox of the census, it's a non-issue in the end.
That is kinda weird because Obama is more African-American than most, having a father who was actually from Africa.
Also weird that negro actually means black originally.
Yeah, it is weird. The people I have met who came from a country in Africa are more inclined to self-identify as "Kenyan" or "Ethiopian" or wherever they are from, etc. In the USA, "African-American" refers almost exclusively to the American descendants of slaves.
African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa.[2] In the United States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry. Most African Americans are the direct descendants of captive Africans who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States, although some are—or are descended from—immigrants from African, Caribbean, Central American or South American nations.[3] As an adjective, the term is usually spelled African-American.[4]
What do you mean by 'they,' and where did 'they' arrive at a consensus about what 'they' want to be called?
What are 'blacks,' and why is a medium brown complected mixed race person considered one?
The reason that the wording and definitions are so confusing and sometimes seem nonsensical and culturally charged is that the concept itself is nonsensical and culturally charged.
What do you mean by 'they,' and where did 'they' arrive at a consensus about what 'they' want to be called?
What are 'blacks,' and why is a medium brown complected mixed race person considered one?
The reason that the wording and definitions are so confusing and sometimes seem nonsensical and culturally charged is that the concept itself is nonsensical and culturally charged.
I don't believe there is a consensus on how black people choose to self-identify. And I agree that the concept is nonsensical and culturally-charged.
Yeah, my point is that the Census Bureau is having a hard time getting people to respond the way they want because the data they're looking for is kind of ill-defined and weird, and there is no clear way to describe what exactly they're trying to count.
It's an endlessly repeating cycle of scapegoating or sin-eating, as a shiny new 'PC' name is given birth free of the stigma attached to the old term. Then over time, the new name gets drug through the same mud as whatever tarnished the old, until it too is seen as unusable and a new label sought out.
It's the power of magical thinking and it's not just for social minorities, but also people with disablities or 'unclean' professions. Undertakers become funeral directors, janitors into custodians, midgets...dwarfs...little people, take your pick. It's just a way to act like something is being changed without actually having to address the reasons that the group is stigmatized.
__________________
Much of MADNESS, and more of SIN, and HORROR the soul of the plot.
To step back a little, this is from the preface to The Boy with the US Census that the stuff about piccaninnies came from:
Quote:
In hazardous scout duty into these fields of danger the Census Bureau leads. The Census is the sword that shatters secrecy, the key that opens trebly-guarded doors; the Enumerator is vested with the Nation's greatest right—the Right To Know—and on his findings all battle-lines depend. "When through Atlantic and Pacific gateways, Slavic, Italic, and Mongol hordes threaten the persistence of an American America, his is the task to show the absorption of widely diverse peoples, to chronicle the advances of civilization, or point the perils of illiterate and alien-tongue communities. To show how this great Census work is done, to reveal the mysteries its figures half-disclose, to point the paths to heroism in the United States to-day, and to bind closer the kinship between all peoples of the earth who have become "Americans" is the aim and purpose of
THE AUTHOR.
And this wasn't just THE AUTHOR on some kind of unauthorized frolic. This was part of a series of books published in the early 20th century designed to acquaint the reader with the purpose and roles of various government service agencies, including the census, the forestry service, etc.
Which raises the question: What exactly is the Census trying to count, and why? Can they accurately articulate what they're looking for, and if they can't, why are they looking for it?
(I'm not saying they shouldn't be keeping track of it, I'm just asking what it is.)
It's the power of magical thinking and it's not just for social minorities, but also people with disablities or 'unclean' professions. Undertakers become funeral directors, janitors into custodians, midgets...dwarfs...little people, take your pick. It's just a way to act like something is being changed without actually having to address the reasons that the group is stigmatized.
"Undertaker" was a euphemism in the first place. What task, exactly, does he undertake? Well, we don't like to talk about that, do we?
And this wasn't just THE AUTHOR on some kind of unauthorized frolic. This was part of a series of books published in the early 20th century designed to acquaint the reader with the purpose and roles of various government service agencies, including the census, the forestry service, etc.
Which raises the question: What exactly is the Census trying to count, and why? Can they accurately articulate what they're looking for, and if they can't, why are they looking for it?
(I'm not saying they shouldn't be keeping track of it, I'm just asking what it is.)
We use census data all the time at work, specifically looking for the numbers of poor, uneducated, or non-English speakers. We oversee schools that receive a lot of federal and state money to educate people, to get them their GED or teach them English. We need the data so that we know how much outreach needs to be done in each area, and so we can tell from decade to decade whether the percentages are improving. It's especially frustrating because the marginalized people we are attempting to help are often those who are frightened for some reason to give their information to the census board.
Of course whether someone has a diploma or whether they speak English is a lot easier to quantify, and more relevant, than whether they have a certain skin color or genetic makeup.
I always thought an undertaker was so called because he takes people under -- 'round about 6 feet under.
__________________
"Her eyes in certain light were violet, and all her teeth were even. That's a rare, fair feature: even teeth. She smiled to excess, but she chewed with real distinction." - Eleanor of Aquitaine
I look forward to the census year when this kind of crap is no longer counted because, due to extensive ethnic interbreeding, the attempt to do so will be pointless .
I look forward to the census year when this kind of crap is no longer counted because, due to extensive ethnic interbreeding, the attempt to do so will be pointless .
I see what you're saying, but I don't think a colorblind census is realistic or pragmatic. I think that minority groups benefit in some way by being counted. For example, to provide accurate statistics about where and how Americans live, and who Americans are.
It is harder to marginalize people when you have cold hard facts proving they exist.
And this wasn't just THE AUTHOR on some kind of unauthorized frolic. This was part of a series of books published in the early 20th century designed to acquaint the reader with the purpose and roles of various government service agencies, including the census, the forestry service, etc.
Which raises the question: What exactly is the Census trying to count, and why? Can they accurately articulate what they're looking for, and if they can't, why are they looking for it?
(I'm not saying they shouldn't be keeping track of it, I'm just asking what it is.)
We use census data all the time at work, specifically looking for the numbers of poor, uneducated, or non-English speakers. We oversee schools that receive a lot of federal and state money to educate people, to get them their GED or teach them English. We need the data so that we know how much outreach needs to be done in each area, and so we can tell from decade to decade whether the percentages are improving. It's especially frustrating because the marginalized people we are attempting to help are often those who are frightened for some reason to give their information to the census board.
Yeah, I know why they want to track that sort of information. My bro is fairly high up in the Census Bureau, and he works specifically on that type of thing quite a bit. (You're probably using some of his reports, even. I see his name sometimes when I'm looking for stuff, and I lol.) He's the one who showed me that crazy book in the first place.
Point is that that right there is one of the reasons people are hesitant to be tracked. There is a long history of both government and private industry keeping track of variously defined minority and underprivileged populations for nefarious purposes, just as there's a long history of using different terminology and taxonomies for nefarious purposes. So marginalized groups of people have always been somewhat resistant to being categorized and tracked, and they probably always will be.
My New Year's Resolution is to nitpick at taxonomies in every single thread from now on. Also: quantum mechanics.
What do we call "them people" when "black"/ "African American" becomes politically incorrect? Mocha?
I never liked that the government inquires one's "race" or skin color. I never fully understood the reason of seperating people by a physical attribute. Why should they care the color of the person filling the form. What does it change?
I always anwser those things incorrectly. As a descendant of land raping European cockasians, I prefer to mark Native American.
Often those numbers are used to help detect and combat systemic discrimination though. If we didn't live in a racist society we wouldn't have to collect them, but the reality is that we do.