This diary is follow-up to last Tuesday's "What is Your Race & Ethnicity" poll, wherein many of the comments suggest that they do not "get" the issue of Race in America. It may also be relevant to some of the Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama discussions.
Another issue is that many commenters do not understand some basic issues about how surveys/polls are done and used.
I suspect that most liberal/progressive White Kossacks DO "get it", and that the vehement commenters who suggest otherwise are a vocal, self-selecting, non-representative minority (and some are just trolls). Many commenters do get it and just also like to discuss their family's Ancestory, that is ethnic background and/or countries of origin; hey, that's cool... me too. And, of course, by far the largest group were folks who just voted in the poll and did not comment at all.
However, I do think it is important to further discuss some of the claims and objections that some of the commenters made:
- "Why didn't you do it this some other way"
- "I am Human race"
- "It is racist (or something like that) to even ask about race."
- "If we stop talking about race, race problems will go away."
- "I am Irish, Jewish, Italian, etc... not White."
Let us look at a summary of the poll results. Of poll respondents:
- White: 82% reported that they are White Non-Hispanic, compared to 69% of the general U.S. population in Census 2000. In addition 4.7% reported that they are Biracial or Multiracial but would most likely be perceived by others as White, compared to 1.9% in Census data
- Black: Only 4.2% reported that they are Black including all categories compared to about 13% in Census 2000
- Hispanic: Only 4.5% reported that they are Hispanic compared to 12.5% in Census 2000
- Asian: 4.0% reported that they were Asian, compared to 4.2% in Census 2000
- Native American: 1.1% reported that they were American Indian or Alaska Native, compared to 1.5% in Census 2000
- Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 0.08% were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, compared to 0.3 in Census 2000
Before going any further, I feel a need, just as a matter of FYI & due diligence, to state where I am coming from (what you see depends on where you stand):
- I am White, Jewish, second generation upper middle class and raised as a (cliche) wealthy NYC liberal Jew. My parents were both born in the U.S.; my paternal grandparents were born in the Ukraine; my maternal great grandparents came from Poland, Germany and Ireland.
- However, unlike most of the folks who fit my cliche background, I am also a public health doctor (medical epidemiologist) who deals professionally on a day-to-day basis with the issues of health and health services for minorities, the poor and other underserved populations (e.g., rural, persons with HIV/AIDS, etc.).
- Also unlike most White people in America, in my immediate work office, I am the minority: of 18 people, there are 2 White Non-Hispanic (the other is of Irish ancestory); 7, including the Boss, are Black Non-Hispanic; 2 Black-Hispanic & 3 White-Hispanic (Puerto Rican & South American ancestory), 4 Asian Non-Hispanic (Chinese, Indian & Phillipino ancestory).
- I have academic training in survey methods, and I use surveys and data methods in my daily work. I use social-demographic data, including race and ethnicity in my daily work.
Surveys, Polls, Politics & Census Data:
- Any survey data only makes sense if it is compared to something. It does not mean much if it just stands alone by itself. 82% of reporting Kossack said they were White? So what? It only makes sense if it is compared to something else.
- One comparison is to be compared to some other group. For example to the general U.S population. By such dKos seems to be a lot whiter than the U.S. in general. Hmmmm.... What does that suggest?
- The other kind of comparison is to compare the same group to itself over time. What is the internal trend over time. In 2004 82%% of Kossacks also reported that they were White... hmmm not much change... what does that suggest...?
- If one wants to make the first sort of comparison, then one has to ask the questions in the same way as the questions were asked to the comparison group. You cannot make your own questions, including your own categories of answers, and then make any sort of comparison to another poll or survey that asked the questions in a different way.
- Likewise, If one wants to make the second sort of comparison, then one must ask the same question the same way each time.
- Of course the best scenario is often that one asks the question both in the same way as others have and in same way that you have over time.
When it comes to basic social-economic-demographic data in the United State, the general standard is to use the U.S. Census. This is the common first benchmark used by all sorts of social scientists, pollsters, political operatives, etc. It is also the data set used to determine congressional allocation, and in part to draw congressional districts. It is also the data used to allocate many Federal grants and other Federal dollars. For any serious survey or poll in the U.S., the U.S. Census Bureau is the first (not the only) place to start looking to draw upon for questions and categories. It is not the only place. For example, in my line of work, health care and health services, many "standardized" questions (the word standardized has several different meanings) come from the Centers for Disease Control including the National Center for Health Statistics.
Therefore, if you want your survey to mean something, you should NOT just make up you own questions any which way you please.
U.S. Census as source for questions, categories and data:
When it comes to race and related questions the U.S. Census is overseen by the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB), and there is also lots of input from both Congress and lobbying by various constituent groups. The current definitions for Race, Hispanic Ethnicity, and Ancestory (country of origin), and related questions were made starting in 1997 in the lead up to the 2000 Census. They have specific meanings in this context. If the poll or survey is going to be useful it does require that not only are the questions asked correctly, but that the respondents answer in good faith.
Race:
Race, as defined by the United States Census Bureau and the Federal Office of Management and Budget, is a self-identification data item in which residents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify. The categories represent a social-political construct designed for the race or races they considered themselves to be and "generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country". The racial terms used on the 2000 US Census reflect the most preferred terms used for the group of people they include by majority consensus.[citation needed] Race and ethnicity were considered separate and distinct identities, with Hispanic origin asked as a separate question.
The racial classifications used by the Census Bureau adhere to the October 30, 1997, Federal Register Notice entitled "Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity" issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
- American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.
- White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese (Phoenecian), Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.
- Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Angolan, Negro, West Indian, Afro-Caribbean, Nigerian, or Haitian, Gullah, Creole, West African, Afro-Latin, Afro-Brazillian, Congolese, Americo-Liberian, Bantu, Guinean, Moor, Pygmy and Liberian.
- Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, Greater China (incl. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau), India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes "Asian Indian," "Chinese," "Filipino," "Korean," "Japanese," "Vietnamese," and "Other Asian."
- Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as "Native Hawaiian," "Guamanian or Chamorro," "Samoan," and "Other Pacific Islander."
- Other. Includes all other responses not included in the "White", "Black or African American", "American Indian and Alaska Native", "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" race categories described above. Respondents providing write-in entries such as multiracial, mixed, interracial, We-Sort, or a Hispanic/Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) in the "Some other race" category are included here.
- Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple write-in responses, or by some combination of check boxes and write-in responses.
Actually the controversial new category was the "Two or more races" which was pushed for primarily by groups representing non-Whites; that discussion is for another day. What I admittedly had not expected was that so many "White" commenters would object to the White category. Other should not be used because you are "Jewish and proud" or "Irish and we were discriminated against too" or "I am Human race". I will come back to this later.
Hispanic/Latino Ethnicity: Very confusingly for those who are not used to it, "Ethnicity" in Census-speak means Hispanic/Latino or Not, and is a separate question, a different axis, than "Race." By the way, this was strongly demanded by Hispanic/Latino constituent groups. According to the Census, you can be Hispanic and Black, or Hispanic and White, or Hispanic and some other combination of the "five races." You cannot be "just" Hispanic/Latino.
In U.S. Census terms (and hence the terminology used widely by people who do surveys and polls) In U.S. Census terms, "Ancestory" is the word used for what some might refer to as ethnic origin or country of origin... German, English, Irish, Italian, Swedish, Polish, etc. There is a nice discussion and lovely maps of this on Wikipedia:
The majority of the 295 million people currently living in the United States are descended from European immigrants who have arrived in the past 500 years. Latin American immigrants from countries to the south, and African American people, most of whom are descended from slave labor, form the next-largest ethnic groups. The Native American peoples who were displaced by the Old World immigrants now form a small minority in the population.
Major components of the European segment of the United States population are descended from immigrants from Germany (19.2 %), Ireland (10.8 %), England (7.7 %), Italy (5.6 %), Scandinavia (3.7 %) and Poland (3.2 %) with many immigrants also coming from Slavic countries. Other significant European immigrant populations came from eastern and southern Europe and French Canada; few immigrants came directly from France. Scottish, Welsh, and Scotch-Irish Americans form large segments of the white population but are systematically under-reported due to the tendency to lump them in with the English, with whom their ancestors shared a government, or Germans with whom they have intermarried on a truly massive scale. Since French, French-Canadian and Acadian ancestries are overlapping, the number of counties with "French" as the main ancestry would also be superior if these three labels are lumped together. A large number of Americans (12.9 %) are descended from African immigrants, the majority of whom were brought as slaves, with a smaller amount immigrating since then from African nations or the Caribbean. All of these numbers, however, are inaccurate as many citizens listed themselves as "American" on the census (7.2 %) and US government statistics depend entirely on self-reported ancestry. As an example of the shortfalls of such a system, estimates of the Scotch-Irish population by ancestry place it at 15-18% of the total population, making it the second largest ethnic group in the country. People of "American" ancestry are generally assumed to be of predominately English, Scottish, or Welsh stock, though some are likely to be people of several different European ethnicities who are unable or unwilling to choose one. It is important however to realize that the census is based upon questionaires and have been compiled by answers given by a sample group therefore the answers given will reflect what the individual knows about their ancestry.
By the way, since the U.S. Census does NOT collect data by (what they consider to be) religion, there is no Census data on Jews, although there is for example on Arabs as part of the Ancestory question.
Demographic data on Religion in America is available from private sources, and is also discussed elsewhere.
But lots and lots of other social-demographic topics are easily accessed as the Census website, and I would encourage folks to browse:
So if you are asked race in a voluntary poll, hey, feel free to refuse to answer. But, please also understand why the question is being asked the way it is; why "other" or "human" is not an useful or interesting answer; and why if you are Irish or Jewish, etc... you are White in America in 2006.
Just a Few Reasons Why "Race" is "Real" and Why We Should Ask
- Black people from Africa were enslaved, families broken up, brought to the U.S. in chains, with high mortality onboard the slaveships, and kept in slavary for several hundred years. Thereafter, there was legal discrimination and separation and oppression for another hundred years. I mention this, since one would not have guessed from some of the comments in yesterday's poll. By the way Jews (my folks), the Irish, etc. came over voluntarily, as political or economic refugees. Yes, we did suffer some levels of discrimination. Oh... and we can pass. It is not the same.
- You may have noticed that there is fair amount of residential segregation by race even today in the United States. This is not true by hair color (blond, red head, brunet) and it is not true by Jewish or Irish. It is true by Black/White. Just sayin.
- The same applies for income, family wealth, primary schools, etc. etc.
- And yes, where affirmative action actually has an effect, let's say slightly different test scores and admission to selective colleges or graduate school, then there too race is real (not to get off on too big a tangent with affirmative action, but let me suggest that when pre-K through 12th grade is equalized by race, then we can talk about how unfair affirmative action is; on the other hand politically and legally, class based affirmative action may be the most vialbe option given where we are headed with the current court).
- If you encounter a police officer, the police officer does not kneejerk judge you by whether you have blond hair or brown hair, and they won't know if you are Irish or Jewish. The police officer's behavior will be different by whether or not they judge (and jury) you to be White or Black.
- Hailing a taxi cab on a street corner?
- Walking down the street with an elderly white lady coming the other way?
- It has to do with our automatic "privilege." You may not feel it. You may not have asked for it. You may think you don’t want it. You may verbally deny it. You have the privilege of doing so. But you still carry it automatically with you. And you cannot get rid of it. If you are "read" as "White", then you have it... walking down the street and in your interactions with people every moment of every day. As
As one commenter said:
I don't get why this is hard to understand for some people. I'm not on your case about it, this is more of a personal issue. It is apparent to me every single day that I have benefited from the luck of being born to two white parents. I can't do anything about it. I don't feel badly about it for myself. I don't whip myself at night for being white. There's no reason to do that. I understand the historical clash of race and culture in this country. I certainly don't choose to identify myself as a white person. That's just where I am. It was chosen for me. I would argue that every white person in America either uses their privilege or gets it put to use for them by others
And saying it is not so, does not make it not so.
That is why:
- "I am Human race"
- "I am Other"
- "I am {white ethnic group that has exprienced prejudice or is not WASP}
- "It is racist of you to even ask"
...Are variations of either well meaning liberal (but privileged
as only the dominant majority can be) blindness & denial.
...or just right wing trolldom.
I do suspect some of the more vehement comments to those effects are just right wing trolls. But some, alas, are our friends who don't quite get it.
- The very fact that several polls over the years have shown that dKos is in fact more white (and wealthier) than the U.S. Average or Democratic Party as a whole, should be telling you something that this is real.
- To my thinking the two most significant historical categories are Blacks... and also Native Americans (invasion, conquest, attempted genocide). But clearly there is also a significant historical reality to Hispanic/Latino in the U.S. social-political-economic-historical contest.
- Yes, there are other Visible Minorities who are not white: Asian, Indian subcontinent, some folks from north Africa and the Middle East, etc. But still, your families came here as voluntary immigrants. The history and current reality are different.
- All of us whose families came as voluntary immigrants, and especially those us who can pass for White, who "read" on the street as White (you know who you are; get real, grow up, get over it) it is not the same story... because in America, in 2006, we are White.
- Perhaps I am a little passionate about this because there is a reason to "categorize" that is in my day-to-day work: health disparities: For example, Blacks/African-Americans have higher rates of various disease, even after controlling for income. They have worse outcomes from disease even after controlling for disease stage at onset of treatment and income and insurance. There are lots of reasons why this is so. My only point here is that if one does not collect data including a race category, then one does not even notice that the problem exists, one cannot attack the problem, one cannot track the problem to see if what one is doing is have an effect, etc. That is why I think it is important.
For more info on Health Disparities check out these links:
CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/...
AHRQ: http://www.ahrq.gov/...
NAP: http://www.nap.edu/...
IOM: http://www.iom.edu/...
KFF http://www.kaisernetwork.org/...
http://www.kff.org/...
http://www.kff.org/...
http://www.healthpolicyohio.org/...
- dKos is a political site. Race is a demographic variable that matters in politics. If you are serious about politics, then you are interested in racial demographics including the five race breakdown as done by the U.S. Census, and of course, Ethnicity, Ancestory, and many others. What are the characteristics of this precinct or that district?
- Which brings us to some of the recent discussions regarding Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I have not spoken of gender in this diary. Suffice it to say that it too matters. And yes, once again there is an historically predominant group and once again there is continuing sexism. Some will say, hey I am just for the "most qualified" candidate regardless of race or gender. I would argue that is too is cop-out. I would suggest that being minority or female IS part of the potential kinds of qualifications... people having experiences that white males don’t have. It is a legitimate part of the biography, along with other supposed qualifications and experiences. Not just "all else being equal I would prefer female or visible minority." No... in fact all else NOT being equal I might prefer... because these factors also are part of the qualification; I would add in as part of mix of relavant qualifications and experiences. It is a positive factor, part of the mix of factors, that Hillary Clinton is a woman who, for example, went through what it meant to be woman lawyer in the 1960s. It is a postive factor, that Barack Obama is Black, that he is of mixed parentage, that he lived growing up in many different States and abroad as a Black person (and more unusually mostly with a White mom). Like Hillary Clinton as a woman, Barack Obama as a Black man with the history he has, brings something different and I would argue more to the table. Now that does not preclude their stance on issues, who they are beholden to, who they align themselves with, how they present themselves, what narratives they choose to discuss and project, etc. (me I tend to put the economic/class populist or progressive first, so I tend to Gore in his latest incarnation, or Edwards, maybe Obama; do I wish Conyers was running or Feingold... yup; would I put Hillary Clinton ahead of anybody this side of Bayh, nope). But do I understand and also agree with those who prioritize more than I do race or gender, so that we do not have yet another White male president... yup. Identify politics is not everything. But it is not nothing either.