Uptown Notes

Regarding #1–prisoners counted as “residents” of communities but of course disfranchised from voting in that community, or the one they came from. Ugh.

I’m a cracker. Crackers are the settlers and decendants of Georgia’s and Florida’s swamp regions. As far as I know, the settlers were all caucasians. Most people today think of cracker as a racial epithet. But if that were the only option on the census form, for a socially and financially disenfranchised group, wouldn’t filling out the form and selecting cracker work to re-enfranchise?
If every black person (Read that; American citizen and person of color whose heritage is primarily from Afrrica) ensured they were documented by filling out the census, and register for the vote, I think you’d find that they are the majority in the US. Too bad some will let one word deny them the power of being properly represented.

As much as it would thrill me to think that if all folks of African descent (read Black) filled out the Census that we'd be in the majority, I doubt that. There is some great work being done now to address undercounts among Black folks, particularly the systematic undercounting of Black men. I fully acknowledge that all of these categories are socially constructed, which mean that carry meaning and refer back to particular historical moments. It is not always the easiest to redefine and re-enfranchise using language that was used to oppress, but many do try. thanks for responding.

yes, felon disenfranchisement is a really big issue too. I have a close friend who runs a national advocacy campaign on it and she has suggested to me that often times one of the largest barriers is getting folks to know when they are “re-enfranchised” vs. the state that continue to disenfranchise people de jure. Maybe i'll get to that in another post soon.

At least as of few years ago when I checked out the way the census counts prisoners, 98% of prisoners were counted in senate districts that were almost totally white; 69% were in Republican assembly districts and 7 of those districts wouldn’t have existed if not for the prisoner populations. Of course, these “representatives” aren’t voting the interests of the prisoners that enabled them to get elected – for example, a few of them have consistently blocked reform to the Rockefeller drug laws for years – which is how a huge percent of the NYC folks got upstate in the first place. Plus,since most government funding formulas are based on population and/or income level and about 66% of prisoners upstate came from NYC, loads of money moves to rural white areas for schools, roads, capital improvements, foster care, etc. A prisoner’s almost nonexistent income is calculated into formulas for entitlement programs, low-income housing and other grants based on poverty levels. And to add true insult, counting these NYC mostly nonwhite prisoners as members of these almost exclusively white upstate communities totally skewers the racial stats, allowing grant allocations for programs to assist “minorities.” Check out http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org for more up-to-date info.

At least as of few years ago when I checked out the way the census counts prisoners, 98% of prisoners were counted in senate districts that were almost totally white; 69% were in Republican assembly districts and 7 of those districts wouldn’t have existed if not for the prisoner populations. Of course, these “representatives” aren’t voting the interests of the prisoners that enabled them to get elected – for example, a few of them have consistently blocked reform to the Rockefeller drug laws for years – which is how a huge percent of the NYC folks got upstate in the first place. Plus,since most government funding formulas are based on population and/or income level and about 66% of prisoners upstate came from NYC, loads of money moves to rural white areas for schools, roads, capital improvements, foster care, etc. A prisoner’s almost nonexistent income is calculated into formulas for entitlement programs, low-income housing and other grants based on poverty levels. And to add true insult, counting these NYC mostly nonwhite prisoners as members of these almost exclusively white upstate communities totally skewers the racial stats, allowing grant allocations for programs to assist “minorities.” Check out http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org for more up-to-date info.

At least as of few years ago when I checked out the way the census counts prisoners, 98% of prisoners were counted in senate districts that were almost totally white; 69% were in Republican assembly districts and 7 of those districts wouldn’t have existed if not for the prisoner populations. Of course, these “representatives” aren’t voting the interests of the prisoners that enabled them to get elected – for example, a few of them have consistently blocked reform to the Rockefeller drug laws for years – which is how a huge percent of the NYC folks got upstate in the first place. Plus,since most government funding formulas are based on population and/or income level and about 66% of prisoners upstate came from NYC, loads of money moves to rural white areas for schools, roads, capital improvements, foster care, etc. A prisoner’s almost nonexistent income is calculated into formulas for entitlement programs, low-income housing and other grants based on poverty levels. And to add true insult, counting these NYC mostly nonwhite prisoners as members of these almost exclusively white upstate communities totally skewers the racial stats, allowing grant allocations for programs to assist “minorities.” Check out http://www.prisonersofthecensus.org for more up-to-date info.

(continuation of tweet convo)

what middle easterners & afrolatinos “are” racially (& thus how they should be counted) takes us directly up to the umbrella issue of the Census race question (& OMB definitions) itself. the question as constructed conflates Race, ethnic group & nationality in an attempt to quantify that which can't be quantified.

that is, the Census says choose all that fit from: White, Black, AmerIndian & 11 Asian “racial” (ethnic group) options (the conflation of definition should be clear…)…….but a middle easterner (hardly a homogenous group itself!) is no more White than an afrolatino is Black (in the American social definitions of the words)……and what is the Race of a latina with a Lebanese mother & Jamaican father of English, African & Chinese descent raised in the suburbs of Virginia (or projects in Paterson)?–to the Census Bureau they are merely White, Black & Chinese but too much detail (statistical 'granularity') is lost in attempting to shoehorn them into our antebellum American definitions of Race…..and these examples are not red herrings–they are more common than the stats reflect……as a more personal example, one of my sons has peach skin, straight hair & blue eyes. his mother is afrolatino. according to the Census we're supposed to call his Race merely White & Black but i honestly feel disingenuous checkmarking Black since it goes against the spirit of the law (namely, affirmative action efforts), but by the Census definitions it's true, and by my love for my wife & her heritage it is also true. many latinos are in the same boat–they are 'euroafrolatino' (insert Cablinasian joke here)……this is what i meant about overcounting of afrolatinos as Black (not whether afrolatinos as a *whole* are under/overcounted)……i.e., i've read no papers on over/under-enumeration of afrolatinos so can't speak f/ that angle, only f/ my experience within the group, which is that the afrolatinos (& afrohaitians & garifunas (i used to live in MIA lol)) i've known are all aware that it's advantageous to be labeled on certain paperwork as Black & game the system accordingly….that leads me to assume overcounting of that Race *within* the afrolatino grouping. i could be wrong.

the numerical problem lies in attempting to quantify that which can't be: like u know, Race both does & doesn't exist–biologically, there's no mutually-exclusive set of phenotypes that can define Race (& if you can't define it you can't count it…) and yet in social practice Race clearly exists in many settings (insert example here). society's conflation of Race with ethnic groups/castes/socio-economic groups should not be codified into official numbers, though, and the split of the Asian Race into 11 ethnic groups/nationalities lays the fallacy bare…

power flows downhill, so i assume that the main reason the Bureau keeps the race question (however modified) is to maintain the numerical power of Whites and Blacks…..i.e., if Race was broken up into ethnic groups, which is basically what Race is a proxy for, Whites would dilute out into 'of German/Norwegian/Greek/Syrian/Egyptian descent'; Blacks would become 'of African-American/Haitian/Jamaican/Dominican/Garifuna/Nigerian descent'; and AmerIndians would split into 'of Navajo/Cherokee/Nez Perce descent'. Such a recognition of ethnic diversity outside of Race would dilute the numbers for White Leadership & Black Leadership so both groups of Leaders hold hands (from a distance…) to maintain the facade of more racial polarity than there is.

pretty sure i'm preaching to the choir here…..so how do we get the Census Bureau to drop Race as a category?

Rousing response, and good sources listed for (my) further research, thank you. We definitely agree on the difficulties of reconciling the necessary wide shot w/ nuance.

Didn't say Afrolatinos were “not Black” flat-out, though, but that they were no more Black (as in of African-American heritage & culture) than middle easterners were White (as in of WASP heritage & culture). I.e., to shoehorn either group into American definitions of Race loses important granularity.

Hear you loud and clear on the latinos counted as White in 2000–that's my point on the limitations of the r & e classes as currently constructed: a Hasidic Jew is hardly White in the WASP sense in his interactions in American society but he is classified as such by the Census? I can't agree with that oversimplification. Too much nuance is lost. Or, a Mexican-American of strong Mayan blood is supposed to pick just White (or Black) as their “Race”? umm, no. (If they happen to pick Native American we've now over-counted NatAms in the American/5-category sense of the word meaning Cherokees, Navajos, Inuits, etc….)

If we expand Davis' “Who is Black?” to “Who is <any Race>”, we see the concept of Race itself as always evolving. In reading newspaper & even scholarly works from the 1800s, one often runs across mentions of “the Irish race” or “the German race”–usages that, through time & mixing, have fallen away. In this amorphous vein, the AMEA's work to include multi-racial possibilities in the 2000 census was overdue & valuable in attempting to show more granularity in the numbers… (And I was surprised & dismayed when the numbers printed that only 2.4% of us chose that option–my impression is that more of us than that are mixed…)

I agree with Unesco's “Race Question” statement from way back in 1950 in saying that 'race', an imprecise concept that's facilitated vast social damage, needs to be replaced with 'ethnic group'. To me, with that definition we get more granularity in our numbers that respects people's heritages. To wit, going forward, Afrolatinos could be an ethnic group, African-Americans could be an ethnic group, Hasidic Jews could be an ethnic group, etc. The point would not be to get lost in labels that we attempt to keep for eternity, but would be to reflect the reality of the nation's demography as it changes. As one group melds into others we can combine them. E.g., if there is significant political impetus within an “Afrolatino” ethnic grouping in the Census in future years to be identified as Afro-Puerto Ricans & Afro-Cubans & Afro-Dominicans, then allow that…whatever gives us the truest picture of our society…

You're right, i sounded too much like Connerly in my tongue-in-cheek question of ending the Race question. i should've phrased it 'how do we keep the r & e question relevant to the current demographics?', so, to keep it moving to the next locus of agreement, your last sentence says: “I see the Asian categories as an exemplar that Black categories should follow.” So what categories would you break up Black (and, I assume, White and Native American) into?

If you have time, as two asides: what are your opinions on (1) Obama only checking Black on his census form? (maybe you've already posted on this…) and (2) what people who don't “look” like a certain Race but who are mixed with that Race should check on their census.

Productive discussion, thanks.