Chapter 1 - Why the question? - Beyond There, There be Dragons

Beyond There, There be Dragons

At this point one has to ask how much of the aforementioned text is exercise in philosophical banter and how much provide substantive pragmatism

In 2000 a new census study was completed for the United States. The census study does more than provide fun trivia. The census is the basis for such things as financial allocation of tax dollars, the redistricting for voting purposes and ultimately the defining methodology used to create political influence within or our American Society. No matter what one thinks of the policies and political influence of the United States, one must ultimately accept that the United States is one of the most influential identities in the world. The United States has recently demonstrated during the second Gulf conflict, right, wrong or indifferent, that militarily and politically the United States can influence the lives and well beings of people throughout the world. Given this source of power, it only stands to reason that the policies of such a power should be created using the most accurate methods possible. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recognized the growing hybridization and variation of human phenotypes in the United States. Furthermore in an effort to optimize the census information an exhaustive study was conducted and detail procedures developed to classify individuals by race and ethnicity. The result is little more than laughable.

Old Standards. In response to legislative, programmatic, and administrative requirements of the federal government, the OMB in 1977 issued Statistical Policy Directive Number 15, "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting." In these standards, four racial categories were established: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White. In addition, two ethnicity categories were established: Hispanic origin and Not of Hispanic origin. Although the Census Bureau has traditionally used more categories for decennial censuses, those categories collapsed into the four minimum race categories identified by the OMB, plus the category Some Other Race.

Reason For Changing the Old Standards. The racial and ethnic makeup of the country has changed since 1977, giving rise to the question of whether those standards still reflected the diversity of the country's present population. In response to this criticism, the OMB initiated a review of the Directive. This review included (1) organizing a workshop to address the issues by the National Academy of Science, (2) convening four public hearings, and (3) appointing an Interagency Committee for the Review of Racial and Ethnic Standards, which later developed a research agenda and conducted several research studies. The result of the Committee's efforts was a report describing recommended changes to the Directive. The members of the Committee included representatives of more than 30 agencies that covered the many diverse federal requirements for data on race and ethnicity. In 1997, the OMB accepted almost all of the recommendations of the Interagency Committee, resulting in changes to the standards.

What Are The New Standards And When Do They Take Effect?
In October 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced the revised standards for federal data on race and ethnicity. The minimum categories for race are now: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White. Instead of allowing a multiracial category as was originally suggested in public and congressional hearings, the OMB adopted the Interagency Committee's recommendation to allow respondents to select one or more races when they self-identify. With the OMB's approval, the Census 2000 questionnaires also include a sixth racial category: Some Other Race. There are also two minimum categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race.

The new categories were used by the Census Bureau for the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal in spring 1998, and will be used on the Census 2000 questionnaire. The new standards are effective immediately for new and revised data collections by federal agencies, and all federal agencies must implement the new standards by January 1, 2003.
-- Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Special Population Staff

The attentive reader notes in this portion of the OMB report a clear distinction is made between race and ethnicity. Furthermore in the more extended report one will note problems addressed in the old standards was that race and ethnicity could not be held in the same context but rather as two separate items of concern.

But what came of this new study? The OMB report states that input came from over 30 government agencies and that the National Academy of Science is singled out as the first reference providing a sense of scientific oversight to the classification process. I will argue either these scientist are the bastions of the old guards of segregation, professional idiots or their suggestions were not heeded by the OMB policy makers. In further review of the evaluation process one can only conclude that perhaps the most believable position was the National Academy of Science has recognized racial classification to be an inaccurate process. The National Academy of Science addressed the issue and the policy makers felt changing forms and mindsets was just too difficult. Just as it took from the mid 19th century till the mid 20th century for Relativity to be known by the masses, so may it take 100 years for the policy makers to recognize that humans can not be accurately separated through any biological and anthropological taxonomic process. Within the report, a set of principles were developed to govern the new review process and in the first principle we see the rationale leaking into the process.

The racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standards should not be interpreted as being primarily biological or genetic in reference. Race and ethnicity may be thought of in terms of social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry
-- Directive No. 15, OMB

So given this first principle and the effect of new standards how do we now declare our race in accordance with a government agency. Well perhaps the new classifications created after the study is more laughable than the first. At least in the case of discussion of the classification process since 1977, the OMB recognized their ignorance of the situation. At this point, the OMB put together the 30 best members and agencies and produced a situation that is perhaps the most non-sensible determination process yet introduced into the classification process. While the United States Government is prepared to spend upwards to $100 billion to invade (or liberate depending on your point of view) people in other countries, the policy makers of the United States, such as those at the OMB, continue to classify and compartmentalize the people of the United States. What is the justification of for such actions?

If OMB were to revise the categories for data on race and ethnicity by modifying Directive No. 15, a sizeable number of Federal agencies and others would have to change data collection forms, computer programs, interviewers' and coders' manuals, and other related materials for their data systems
-- Directive No. 15, OMB

So which is it? Is racial classification important enough to make accurate or is it too expensive to concern ourselves with. I think a review of racial classification actually provides the answer to this question. Amazingly given the definition according to the OMB, the best decision they have made was to not spend the money on changing the databases. Racial Classification as of January of 2004 is defined in the following manner:

White refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race or races as White or wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

Black or African American refers to people having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicated their race or races as Black, African Am, or Negro, or wrote in entries such as African American, Afro American, Nigerian, or Haitian.

American Indian and Alaska Native refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America),and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. It includes people who indicated their race or races by marking this category or writing in their principal or enrolled tribe, such as Rosebud Sioux, Chippewa, or Navajo.

Asian refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East ,Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. It includes people who indicated their race or races as Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, or Other Asian,or wrote in entries such as Burmese, Hmong, Pakistani, or Thai.

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicated their race or races as Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, or Other Pacific Islander, or wrote in entries such as Tahitian, Mariana Islander, or Chuukese.

Some other race was included in Census 2000 for respondents who were unable to identify with the five Office of Management and Budget race categories. Respondents who provided write-in entries such as Moroccan, South African, Belizean, or a Hispanic origin (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban)are included in the Some other race category.

In the US Census question and answer documentation the question is specifically put “How does the Census Bureau define race and ethnicity?” The answer is simple but not significant:

Census Bureau complies with the Office of Management and Budget's standards for maintaining, collecting, and presenting data on race, which were revised in October 1997. They generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country. They do not conform to any biological, anthropological or genetic criteria

Consider for a moment the ramifications of this tautology. Race is a reflection of the social definition and the social definition of the individual creates race and ethnicity. For instance, those living isolated in the South see the world in a much different perspective from those in the Cities of the Northeast. Since these two groups maintain different social norms and definitions they can only maintain the same definition of race when there is a common thread. Where there is a common thread, then they can no longer be uniquely separated. Hence I would argue in the stricter consideration of the term race in the South being black becomes much easier to delineate than in the North. This delineation has no other basis other than regional thought and therefore those within the locality maintain a distinct ethnic difference. So specifically when we look to resources such as the dictionary for the definition of race what we find further inflames the situation put forward by the OMB.

race:
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

Since the OMB went to the specific process of excluding biological, anthropological and genetic conditions of determination we are forced to remove definition one and three from the social definition of race. This leaves us the only option of a group united on the basis of common history or nationality or geographic distribution. Given this one would assume that perhaps the forms should read North Westerner, South Westerner, Southerner… Or perhaps it could read American. Clearly this is inline with the definition implied. As each clarification statement reads “people having origins”. But what does it mean to have origins. This is the question at hand.

So already the US Government as indicated that there is really a need to pursue this information and in so attempting to pursue it they have created a definition that is ambiguous at best and ridiculously incorrect at worst. The OMB states in its report that this information is essential to insure compliance with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the constitution and the Civil Rights act. Likewise for congressional reapportionment. However, this issue is so poorly handled at the present the reapportionment has led to such recent events as the debacle with the Texas legislature in 2003. In this case 53 Democratic State representatives held up in a series of hotel rooms out of the state. The cost to Texas was estimated in some cases to exceed $1 billion dollars to Texas residents. The costs were not limited to Texans either. To find the members a manhunt was launched using the assets of Homeland Defense and other federal law enforcement agencies. All because the census data indicated a need for reapportionment. What dictated this alteration? Hispanic population changes. The Census department reclassified Hispanic as not a race but rather a ethnicity. Furthermore the organization took the word race which was initially developed as a form of taxonomic classification based on biology and anthropology and altered its meaning to deal with ethnicity. At this point the whole process is more confusing than it was before 1977.

Why the question? The answer is simple. To date we the people of the United States allow our policy makers to create classifications that lack not only scientific basis but even clear definitions. Countless dollars and human time is wasted on a concept that was in the past scientifically inaccurate and to date has yet to be defined. Moreover, we allow this maligned concept to dictate our voting processes and eligibility to wages. In attempting to comply with the 14th amendment, we have created a society that is willing to create stratification based on points of origin. When does that origin start? Is it a hundred, or thousand or ten thousand or a million years back. Why does this origin weigh so heavily? I think even those in the OMB would agree it is more than just the origin. Furthermore, they state clearly it is an attempt to use local social definitions to satisfy the requirements. Yet the purpose of the definition is to demonstrate that no two social conditions are the same. Racial taxonomic classification must be addressed if we as Americans ever want a truly equal society. I know of no other way to demonstrate my origins except through Anthropology and the science behind it indicates my origins are from Africa. Perhaps, at this point we should review how we arrived at this conclusion. In the following chapters I attempt to do just that. Why am I black? Because the OMB definition states that I am. By the way, I am damn proud of it.