The original purpose of the race box was to count slaves as 3/5 of a person (for congressional representation). Since we no longer do this, why is the race box still there?
There is a lot of history / context / baggage packed into a single question on the census, but I think our concern with race is fairly obvious when you consider our history . The US has always been concerned with figuring out its racial composition, since slavery and all its multitude of consequences (Jim Crow, lots of poor blacks leaving the south for Northern cities) have made it so important. Think of all the money and power that used to go with whether you were white or black, or whether you could treat an employee (or slave) as white or black, or whether your state had a lot of black people or not who only got you 3/5 of a representative!
It is starting to seem anachronistic to worry over race (thank god!), but that history is really very recent; think about bussing riots in the 1970s, etc. Also, a huge number of government programs have a mission to try to fix racial disparities (successfully or not), and they need information on basic racial population composition.
That said, I can't wait until nobody cares about race anymore. The litmus test on this will be whether ("inter") marriage matters; in coastal cities among college educated people, it isn't really news if one's parents are asian and white, or latino and white, but it still elicits comment and introspection if they are black and white...
I think the big dividing lines today depend on education and family cultural background, but I am not sure how a decennial census might track that.
I think the big dividing lines today depend on education and family cultural background, but I am not sure how a decennial census might track that.
The Census Bureau also continually sends out the American Community Survey to a subset of the population. It asks much more detailed questions, so the data may already exist.
Right. My point was that the job of decennial is basically to get a 100% count of bodies and residences, and that is hard enough without going into sociological detail.
The original purpose of the race box was to count slaves as 3/5 of a person (for congressional representation).
I don't think this is correct. While the vast majority of slaves were black, some were not, and some blacks were free. Can you cite a source justifying your claim about "the original purpose" of the census?
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years,
It is? Are you sure it isn't shorthand for "native peoples that live in the US but are not citizens"? Do you think that children of indians and white folk who lived amongst the colonists would have been counted as indians in 1790?
the race box was originally used to count free people, indians, and slaves.
Perhaps I am missing it, but I don't see a "race box" in the 1790 form. And even if it was there, it still wouldn't change the fact that the constitutional text mandating census is phrased in terms of slaves and free people without any mention of color. So again, I can't see how your cite is relevant to your original claim.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned
among the several States which may be included within
this Union, according to their respective Numbers,
which shall be determined by adding to the whole
Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not
taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The
actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years
after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United
States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years,
in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
After the 14th amendment, Indians were still not counted, but all others were counted as whole persons.
So, if you wanted to ask if somebody was indian or not, that's fair, since they are, legally, still considered in many ways to be a sovereign people from the United States (which is why you have casinos and fireworks stands on reservations)
Asking any other question regarding race, in my opinion, is inappropriate. Our government should be color blind.
It isn't like it is there to incite racism so it is much more likely that the racebox is in place because that is what a census is for, tracking information.
But why does that information need to be tracked? Is there any real utility to having it? (I'm asking seriously - I really have no idea what it might be used for).
"Information on race is required for many federal programs and is critical in making policy decisions, particularly for civil rights. States use these data to meet legislative redistricting principles. Race data also are used to promote equal employment opportunities and to assess racial disparities in health and environmental risks."
The original purpose of the race box was to skew the distribution of congress critters in a certain way (unfair) way. From what the Census says, it sounds as if they are still doing that.
I don't think this is true. As I understand the history, some states deliberately crafted legislative districts to reduce the voting power of particular racial groups. This lead to law suits and as part of court mandated settlements, the aforementioned states have to monitor racial composition of their districts to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the court rulings.
In other words, some racists tried to screw over minority groups, the courts slapped them down, and race data is needed to verify ongoing compliance.
Say you have a region predominantly party X, but party Y is in power at the time of gerrymandering. The redistricting process will split the region amongst several districts, so that instead of getting 4 Y districts and 1 X district, you get 5 districts which are 60% Y and 40% X.
This process is completely legal, except when the region is also significantly represented by some politically favored racial groups. I.e., we give some races special legal protection from gerrymandering, but not others.
"Overemphasizing the genetic contribution to complex human disease or behavioral traits can promote not only racism, but also a naive genetic essentialism - the notion that genes determine health status or behavior [28-30]. Such essentialism is particularly dangerous in clinical translation, where a focus should be maintained on the individual rather than the group [31]."
Yeah--- it's hard to read, but the census form on that page did indeed distinguish "free white males" from "free white females", "other free persons", and "slaves". If the sole purpose of the question were to count slaves and non-slaves for the purpose of the Constitutional enumeration, they could've just had two checkboxes.
Much more about this issue in the context of college admission, including tracking the number of students officially reported as "race/ethnicity unknown" via mandated college reporting to the federal government:
I liked the 1900–1920 ones best. There's no point in trying to pretend that the categories are scientific/natural or otherwise given. Might as well let people just fill in whatever they self-identify as. Would probably yield more interesting and insightful results in the process.
What privileges one definition of "race" (or of "ethnicity") over another?
"The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature."
