An Essay On What They Call Us

  *Sub-Saharan African entries are classified as Black or African American with the exception of Sudanese and Cape Verdean because of their complex, historical heritage. North African entries are classified as White, as OMB defines White as a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

  According to this definition, black Sub-Saharan Africans living in the United States are considered African American, but Moroccans, Libyans, Egyptians and Ethiopians would be defined as White, regardless of complexion or ancestry. And the dark-skinned descendants of Africans who identify as Hispanic, the black Cubans, Dominicans, Brazilians, Puerto Ricans and Costa Ricans would also be defined as “not Black.”

  The black-skinned descendants of all these “non-Blacks,” even though they were born in the United States and are thoroughly “Americanized,” would be considered “not Black,” unless of course, they have been arrested or they are sought after for committing a crime. Obviously, law enforcement in America does not share the Census Bureau’s distinction. If perpetrator’s skin is black or that person looks “Black,” then a black person committed the crime. This unfairly skews data and statistics relating to crimes committed by Blacks as a percentage of Blacks in the U.S. population, and it misrepresents percentages of Blacks in prison populations.

  If a black Cuban man robs a bank, and his image is caught on security cameras, the all-points-bulletin issued would describe the robber as a “Black male...” rather than a “Hispanic male...” In 2011, when a man who was a descendant of black-skinned “non-Black” Dominicans was arrested in New York for plotting terrorist bomb attacks, law enforcement described him as a “black male.”

  Of course, the results of the U.S. Census are by no means scientific. They do not suggest an accurate portrayal of the racial make-up of the United States of America. The data are used by the political parties to determine congressional, state and local voting districts and by departments of federal and state governments to monitor various disparities and changes among groups over time. The racial categories have little to do with genetic make-up or ancestry and more to do with self-identity. Thus the findings are subjective and the resulting statistics are specious and can be used to support premeditated biases. Respondents are asked to answer questions using pre-selected descriptors based on the government’s subjective criteria for assessing racial and cultural groups in America.

  “African American” is perhaps a better group descriptor than “Black,” as millions of Americans with black African ancestors do not have black skin. But that would mean the term “African American” has less to do with race and/or culture than it has to do with an inclusive ancestry. As such, the meaning is vague at best and does not accurately define a distinct racial group in America.

  Hispanic – A Government-Grown Minority

  Self-enumeration with the U.S. Census began in 1960, where respondents were sent an “Advance Census Report” to be filled out without the aid of Census employees, who later picked up the forms and transferred the information to forms that could be read by Census computers. This self-enumeration meant respondents, when asked which racial group they identified with, were given the following choices: White, Negro, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Part Hawaiian, Aleut, Eskimo, (etc.). This self identity was subjective, making the Census more indicative of culture than race from that year on.

  And yet “Hispanic or Latino,” which millions of dark-skinned descendants of Africans are called, is even more non-descript. The Census did not consider the category until 1960. It had never been included because those words do not identify a race at all. Rather, they indicate a shared culture of language. By the suggested racial guidelines of the Census, Mexican Americans were White, and Central and South Americans were White, although there was room for these groups to self-identify as American Indians, along with a tribal name. Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Cubans were White.

  In 1970, the ever transforming guidelines and categories of the Census shifted to include the creation of a “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin” question. Respondents were asked, “Is this person’s origin or descent –” with the following choices: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, Other Spanish and None of these. By lumping together into one group all persons with Spanish surnames, along with Spanish speakers and the Americanized descendants of Spanish speakers, the government had created a new minority for purposes of political expediency.

  The 1980 Census and the 1990 Census added more ethnic sub-categories, including Asian Indian and Guamanian, though by that time there was a greater emphasis regarding “ancestry.” They included questions that would cause respondents to identify “Hispanic or Latino” origins, further defining the minority to include Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican Republic; Central American: Costa Rican, Guatemalan, Honduran, Nicaraguan, Panamanian, Salvadoran, Other Central American; South American: Argentinean, Bolivian, Chilean, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Paraguayan, Peruvian, Uruguayan, Venezuelan, Other South American; Other Hispanic or Latino: Spaniard, Spanish, Spanish American, All other Hispanic.

  Not surprising, by the 2000 Census, the “Hispanic or Latino” category was “the fastest growing minority in the country,” a group that included Blacks, Whites, Asians and mixed people from diverse and distinct backgrounds, cultures and ethnicities. In many cases, the only connection they had was the Spanish language and histories relating to Spanish exploration. It seems unfair to the group to deny the individuality and interests of sub-groups, since the peoples from Asia were able to identify under the “race” category as Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese and Asian Indian.

  To suggest that the interests, concerns and challenges of the Puerto Rican community are similar to those of the descendants of Bolivians in America beyond a mere shared language is impractical. The ancestry is different and the culture is different, right down to the dialect of Spanish that they speak. And how much in common does the descendant of a black-skinned Dominican have with the children of a fair-skinned Spaniard from Madrid? This category, more than any other, suggests the true intent of some the most powerful operators involved in the federal government of the United States, and that is to capitalize on and to politicize race, ethnic heritage and culture in America.

  The Audacity of Unity

  These government operators perpetuate racism, bigotry and class warfare by dividing and defining us, by categorizing us, labeling us and naming us, by comparing us and pitting one group and its opinions, interests and/or vulnerabilities against those of another. And what do they call it? Demographics – the numbers, all broken down, analyzed, trended and sold for the benefit of major corporations, big advertisers, the news media, insurance companies, political parties and government agencies. Sure, they avow they are acting for the good of the people, and on rare occasions, they do.

  But these divisions and categories are meaningless to the average American, the awakening, still groggy ninety-nine percent – the true “fastest growing minority in America.” To this group, these divisions are tools and levers in the hands of the wealthy and the guardians of power that discourage and interfere with the concept of true community and unity. As long as hard-working people, students, the elderly, the poor, the disenfranchised, the unemployed, the unfortunate, the laid off and the homeless of all races, cultures and ethnicities continue to be pitted against each other and manipulated to distrust and to blame each other, this ninety-nine percent minority will never realize and utilize its enormous potential for power and its ability to effect change.

  And what is their goal? They are ordinary Americans who seek ideals and principles that are innately human. They want basic dignity, opportunity and fairness. They want the security of a home for quiet peace. They want safe, reliable schools and resourceful teachers who will train their children for success in a world that becomes more competitive each day. If they or their families get sick, they want to know that adequate medical
care is available, without having to wager the health and well-being of a child, a parent or themselves against a mortgage, suffocating debt or financial solvency. They want fairness and honesty from those who employ, police, adjudge and represent them. They want jobs and the opportunity to contribute to a greater community, and if absolutely necessary, to be thy brother’s keeper. These things have nothing to do with race or ethnicity and all to do with a healthy and successful community.

  An American Culture

  During the 1700s, a theory was advanced, suggesting that over time all the races, nationalities, ethnicities and cultures in America would eventually fuse or “melt” together to form one homogenous culture, a unique American culture. In essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson’s idea of America, he endorsed a society that merged

  the energy of Irish, Germans, Swedes, Poles, and Cossacks, and all the European tribes, – of the Africans, and of the Polynesians, – [and] will construct a new race, a new religion, a new state, a new literature, which will be as vigorous as the new Europe which came out of the smelting-pot of the Dark