Question 9

I read an article in the Daily News (4/14) about the Census and Question 9. It was in the New York Viva section so I'm going out on a limb and assuming that the author --Dolores Prida -- self-identifies as Hispanic/Latina. She urged Latinos to complete Question 9, despite whatever anxiety, confusion, or misgivings they may have, and send in the form.

For those of you who don't know, for the census, after establishing that you are "Person 1," and answering some innocuous questions, you get to Question 9 (of 10). Question 9 asks: "What is Person 1's race?" The first option is "White." The next is "Black, African Am, or Negro." Next is American Indian or Alaska Native" with a row of boxes in which you are to declare your "enrolled tribe." Then follows a variety of Asian heritages including Asian Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian. Then a range of Pacific Islander options -- Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, and Other Pacific Islander. For these "other" categories, in case you're unsure of what you are, the form offers suggestions: Hmong, Laotian, Fijian, Tongan and, in both cases, "and so on." I wonder how many people declare their tribe as "and so on." I was tempted. But since so many people have genealogical feet in many camps, Ms. Prida suggested in her article that "mixed" should be added to the mix.

Anyone who looked at me would say "unquestionably white," But I also had a problem with this question. I don't know much about my genealogy. It's entirely possibly that I'm 2% or 20% or some greater or lesser perc ent "other" if "other" means "other than white." And I object to classifying people by their appearance, even if a person's appearance seems to suggest a specific ethnic/racial/cultural/national heritage, perhaps especially if that is the case.

I doubt my appearance suggests that I grew up in a black neighborhood and was one of maybe half a dozen so-called white kids in my class at school. I sometimes look at old class portraits and think Let's play "Find the Minority." I doubt anyone would leap to the fact that some of my family is in Zimbabwe. Does that make me African American?

My appearance is more likely to suggest Northern European heritage. I have red hair so it's often assumed that I "am" Irish. I've never been to Ireland. As far as I know, no one in my family has been to Ireland in several generations. Red hair = Irish. Except that Scotland has the highest percentage of redheads per capita of any country in the world. So far as I know, no one in my family hails from Scotland, and anyway red hair =Irish. Everybody knows that.

Then there's my great grandfather (mother's side) who was Lithuanian, or maybe Polish. He was actually from the old country, but whether he was from the part of Lithuania that started out as Poland, then became Lithuania, then became Poland again or from someplace in that part of the world that held fast as"Lithuania" I don't know. Toss in some of the other "hails from" in my background and you get an unwieldy string of hyphens: Irish-Welsh-Polish/Lithuanian-German-American (except that, late in his life my father replaced German with English, I think because he had written to a "Find Your Family Crest" site in the back of magazine and that's what they told him. And having paid $39.95, who could argue?). Are the Welsh and the Germans sufficiently alike to constitute a race? Would Ms. Prida say my combined heritage constitutes "mixed race"? Is it a purely biochemical categorization, or does culture or national identity play a role? And what does "white" mean anyway? If someone knows that I am "white" what is they actually know about me?

I don't know why this matters so very much. I grew up in a black neighborhood, so my friends were black. My brother was less sanguine about this situation and sometimes called me a nigger-lover. It was a long time before I realized this was supposed to be insulting and/or cautionary. Aren't we supposed to love one another? Isn't that the whole point of living?

According the census site, a question like Question 9 has been asked on the census since 1790. More recently than the 18th century, it is intended to help monitor compliance with the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts, to assess fairness of employment practices, and to plan and obtain funds for public services. These are good things -- fairness, civility, service, voting. But must they be allotted according to how you look? Irish-Welsh-Polish/Lithuanian-German-Americans are under-reported and therefore under-represented. I should start a movement. And yes I know that this is not how the world is. The fact is we do judge, characterize, and allot based on how people look. I guess my question is: why have we not moved further along the path of humanity from the 18th century? Why is the government still asking this question as a form of barter?

So I -- who am usually the whitest person in any room -- being Person 1, checked "other" and wrote in "human." I expect that a Census worker will come to the door to clarify the answer, but as best as I can understand it, it's the only answer that makes any authentic sense.

[note: thanks to wee Davey over there in Scotland, for the encouragement to start up again.
and for her fans -- as she often does, Stella has gone walkabout. I imagine she's working on something Goldworthy now that the weather has gone all balmy.]