Opinion?Letter to US Census Dept.

Hi everyone!

Some time ago I wrote a letter to the Census dept. in US. I read and study about the way they make the Census and I was so dissapointed and made me feel unconfortable and treated with racism. I want your opinion. This was the letter I sent. (I have the answer and it is a BIG shame coming from a gov. department).

Thank you for all your opinions in advance.

Iker

-------------------------------------

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a Postgraduate (BSc & BA) European interested about the question of race on the U.S. Census. I have done many essays about this subject, speaking about the European way to make the Census and fortunately is faraway from the way is using in US. I hope you will not be offended or hurted in your national proud with my words. Receive my apologise in advance just in case. I must excuse about any mistake I could be writing using my English, as you can imagine is not my mother tongue. I hope this email could be reading for the director or one of the important people that works in the Census board of directors.Take this email like a serious and important complain.

From the European point of view the question of race on the U.S. census is in itself racist, not to mention meaningless in a purely scientific sense.
The question of race on the U.S. Census has extremely racist beginnings. But I will be focusing only in one issue (believe me that every single word in the Census is shameful).
Go ahead, as Spaniard (European, Northen Spaniard, Cantabrian) I cann't accept the way that race and origin is mixed to clasify people in a census.
Why do you make a different category in origin to Hispanic when you are doing a diference by race indeed? Why are you trying to do that abnormal and insane? Why people who are descended from Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, etc. are not broken down into countries of origin for the census?..... I think I have the answer...but I prefer to keep for myself because will be felling embarassed for all the people who wrote the census and people that could think in that shameful way.

And in all this madness we can see other mistakes on purpose.
In the Census we can read:
Definition of Hispanic Origin: Hispanics or Latinos are those people who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 questionnaire -"Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano," "Puerto Rican", or "Cuban" -as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino." Persons who indicated that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" include those whose origins are from Spain, (WHAT????EXCUSE ME???) the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Dominican Republic or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on.
Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before ttheir arrival in the United States.
People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic should not be added to percentages for racial categories. Tallies that show race categories for Hispanics and nonHispanics separately are available.

Race: 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, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

So, what happend them to a Spaniard in the case that will be classifing her/himself. Why must do a double selection (by race and origin)?. It is a white because he is European....but why must write origin. He or she is European. The words Hispanic or Latino have been wrong used on puropse.
If you use Latino with the meaning of people who identify with that origin, why dont you include in the definition of origin the Frenchs, Italians, Portuguses, Belgians, Romanians, Swiss people, etc.
I think the word Latino or Hispanic is being used with a racist way to divided in categories people from Northamerica (Mexico), Central America and South America....and at the same time you are including Spaniards to dont make angry all the "Latinoamericans" or whatever you want to call them.

In conclusion. I am very angry and dissapointed with the way you work with the Census in US. I think it is a humiliating treatment to your own citzens that is inconceivable from our European point of view. And at the same time is affecting to other countries like us. All these things show a big lack of culture or a desire to do the things in that wrong way on purpose (or a mix of both things).

The only group that was made that differentation was (wrong called)Hispanics making a strange "box" to include inside people that speak Spanish. Imagining that you make that group with people that speak English. Could you imaging a British being compared in all areas for a Census like a Jamaican only because Jamaica was a British colony and they speak English and things like that??? Dont you think that it is unsuitable, disrespectful and the most important fully wrong for a census that really want to work with useful information...not data mixed in a box? This case could be using also with French and their ex-colonies and the people that live in US coming from that countries...etc.
To include only a European country like Spain in a big box were the principal link used is the language I think is not correct. What happend with Portugueses for example? And that segregation dont help Spaniards, 1st of all because the number of them living in US is so small that it is not more than a 0,0000000001% and if they need the support of the Census with any problem will be more useful if you create a box where the origin will be Europe, because I think that in US dont know yet that Europeans we are part of the European Union, where we live, work, study, etc in different parts of the European Union no matter where you were borned. It means that a French and a Spaniard for example are the same than a Texan and a Californian, will be "stupid" to separete. And if one of the Censu´s reasons to make a divison by origin is to help minorities, I think to include Spain in that box (as I said) is like if yo! u mix a British with a Jamaican, or a French with a Polynesian.
To make the things right is not so difficult, only need to have cultured and common sense.

And remember: our race (your and mine) have a scientific name for modern humans, it is actually Homo sapien sapiens, but unfortunately I don't think that will fit on the form you work with.

Thank you for your time. I will be waiting to receive an answer coming from you.

Yours Sincerely,

Iker

Iker: Favor de no ofenderte, pero al mejor han tenido problemas en el entendimiento de la carta...debes buscar ayuda para traducirla más claramente. Me ofrezco si quieres.

As far as the race issue goes, the census tracks this since the country was based on immigration and migration. The government also has many special programs that are minority-focused and funding for these programs is based on percentages and figures gleaned from the census.

There are other reasons I'm sure, which are unknown to me, but these are a couple that I'm aware of. Remember too, that not all people are given the same census form, and just like any American job application, disclosing race information is voluntary.

Race relations in the United States is a complicated subject. It would be nice to not have to worry about races, but it is necessary for the Census. By asking about races and incomes we can see income discrepancies, or use the information to help find other social problems. Are they doing it perfectly? No, but is there a "perfect" for something as subjective as this? Would you require that people submit their family tree´s to the government in a nazi-esque way? Or just ignore the race issue and possibly leave social problems undiagnosed? I think that they are doing a pretty good job to create information that is usable. If things were too complex, analyzing the information could become very difficult, or be too varied to provide useful results.

Do I think that it is very silly that my spanish gilfriend was "white" in some surveys and "hispanic" in others? Yes, it is very stupid, but I doubt that there is enough spaniards in the US at this point screw up the information too much. They bunch together many people that have different cultural backgrounds, but how detailed would you like their groupings? You could take races, countries, regions, cities, or neighborhoods, but what would provide the most useful and relevent information?

I also doubt that your hostile tone helped much. It sounds very much like a complaint more than anything from someone who is not involved in the process itself. Maybe you could have gotten a better response if you had also focused on one peticular topic, such as the catagorization of Spaniards along with latinos. An organized arguement, possible solutions to the problem, and/or specific questions to be responded to would have helped also.

I agree with Iker inasmuch as the point where Spaniards are considered Hispanic. From what I gather, they were added to that category when Mexican nationals, as well as people from South American, and Central American nations, etal, were claiming to be of Spanish descent, to avoid being classified as Hispanic. The reason? They didn't understand that the census wasn't a tracking system to net people by race. So, the census bureau added Spain to the Hispanic registry, removing the nation from the Western European bloc, based on this situation. It does create a somewhat false rationalization, but like both CaliBasco & Roe indicated, the whole intent of the census is to insure voting districts, and social reform programs that will enhance equality for everyone, and not to create racial division. If anything, the intent is the total reverse.

Wolf (Who doesn't check Native American, even though I'm 1/32 Indian... But I could.)

Iker,
I sympathize with your frustrations over the intrusive cenus question regarding racial identity. You suggested Homo Sapien Sapien, be advised that the form allows for respondents to mark "other" instead of marking one or more of the dozen or so options that the census burea offers. There were many Americans, including myself, who marked "other" for racial identity and then filled in the blank space provided with the "human race".

Other poster have mentioned that the governemt uses the demograghic number in order to assure that political power is equitable allocated amongst the "racial" groups. Of course, the method of counting is often as political as the counting methods used in the state of Florida for elections. Needless to say, every group wishes to achieve the highest count posible and that every special interest group desires to manipulate the census numbers in order to strengthen their political and economic power. Interesting to note, that just as our recent presidential election required a Supreme Court decesion to resolve the counting method to be used, likewise the census bureau has often been subject to Supreme Court edicts regarding its methodology.

One final note, the last census (they are conducted every 10 years in the USA) was the first that allowed for multiple marking of race. That is to say, that a Spaniard could mark "Hispanic" and "white" if he so desired. The USA has a increasing "bi-racial" or "multi-racial" population and the Census Bureau wishes to represent this trend in its tallies. Although, I reget the idea of differnt races and aknowlege that all the difernet ethnic groups of the world have had at least some contact with outsiders. That contact, in my point of view, would permit everyone to mark all the boxes of the census. In order to save engery, I prefered the "human race" selection.

Iker,

Finally another Spaniard who have sent a letter to the US Census. I also sent them a letter some months ago but had no answer (I didn´t need an answer I just wanted to express my reasons to them).

I agree 100% with you Iker. I don´t like the use of the "Hispanic" name either. Hispanic means people from "Hispania", ie, the Roman people of Spain, so Hispanics in a true sense are the Spaniards that lived in Spain 2000 years ago. I don´t think you can tell that there is something in common between Mexicans, Ecuatorians, Peruans Native Americans (which is what most "hispanics" are),.... with the HispanicRomans that habited Spain 2000 years ago.

I also said "WHAT?" when I saw in the www.census.gov site that Spain was excluded in a place of that website when doing a classification. I don´t remember well but it was something like "All European countries excluding Spain". I said Wow.

Even when you go to the US Embassy in Spain to ask for a travel or to live in the US they (the americans working in the US Embassy) tell us to fill just "White" in any classification when We go to the US. They even know that We are not Hispanic.

Someone told me that the use of the "Hispanic" term was used with political sense, ie, to make a politic party that could gather all the votes from "Spanish speaking people".

I don´t like the confussion that this term creates, I don´t like that they use a cultural designation (cultural??, what do have in common people from Barcelona or Madrid with the people of Bolivia or Dominican Rep.?) to classify all the people down the border. In fact most Americans think that a Mexican with a "Juan Perez" name is due that he descends from Spain when it´s not true. Almost all Southamericans (independtly that they are pure Native American, pure black, ...) have Spanish names and surnames because the Christian Church in their lavour to evangelize all the indians gave the names and surnames to them during XVI and XVII centuries. So someone that is Juan Perez from Mexico is probably a Native American and Juan Perez from Spain is a caucasian white Spaniard.

I write all of this because a friend of mine went some years ago to California during the summer to look for a temporal job while she was learning English. When looking for the job she was constantly rejected in telephonic interviews because her name was like "Sara Rodriguez" which showed like she was another Mexican Native American immigrant from Mexico she was a Spaniard that just wanted to earn some money to pay their expenditures while learning English.

Also, when I was in Illionois learning English some summers ago, the family where I was hosted told me some day that there were some "Spanish" that wanted to meet me. I said: "Some Spaniards are living near me?, and they were native people from Nicaragua. No offense to them, I of course spoke to them but but after 2 minutes I didn´t know what to tell them.

These are just some examples of the missuse of the "Hispanic" term which it doesn´t really mean anything. Imagine that George Bush had been born and raised in Mexico. He will also be "Hispanic" because he would be speaking Spanish as his mother language and because he has been born in a "Spanish speaking country". Any of the people of this forum if have been born in Mexico would be also "Hispanics" like also are Hispanics German or Swedish people that have been born in Argentina and that have their names like Juan Lussenhoff.

When an average american think about Hispanics they have in their minds the look of a native american or mestizo Mexican and when they hear something about Spain they just think in a prolongation of Mexico or Peru. This just shows the bad use of the "HIspanic" classification.

I hope they change it in the future. I don´t want to offend any people from LatinAmerica but I don´t want either that the image of my country (Spain) or the images of Spaniards is almost always misconfused with what the Mexicans or Bolivians do in the US.

Spaniards are Europeans, our culture is Western culture, our race is in the majority white caucasian, and our past History is common to the History of any other European country and our future History will be the same as the History of any other European country.

I couldn't agree more with ERT.
Especially on his comments about people been born in a country but from parents of a different country.
My case is really ridiculous.
I was born in Puerto Rico. My mother is from Asturias (white/blonde/blue eyes) and my father is from Zaragoza (Aragón), but he lived in Madrid for several years. My father has fair skin with green eyes and light brown hair...when he had hair :-) You see the point?
I work in Denver, Colorado, where the "Hispanic" population has grown significantly in the last 10 years. Most of them are Mexicans looking for a better life here in the USA. The average American (in Denver) get confused when they see me. "Sure", they say "he's American or white or whatever" until I start talking or say my name. Then the odyssey starts. Sometimes I feel like I have to teach a little bit of history but most of the time I just ignore the silly comments (it gets old!).
Then here's the other side of the coin...
When I visit my relatives in Spain, Spaniards (especially on the North) get confused because they hear my accent and they don't know what to make out of it. "Where are you from?, you don't look this or that, you look like us" Sometimes they think I'm from the Canary Islands because of my accent.
Then I have to teach a little bit of history again. I'm laughing just remembering these things.
My relatives in Oviedo just say "He's a Caribbean Spaniard"...then we all laugh.
Which box do I check on the census?
One that really has nothing to do with me. I just pick a different one every year. This last census I was Asian.
Saludos a todos,
Ernesto Cortés

Hola Iker,
Since you are asking for opinions: I agree with you that the term "Hispanic" (or Latina/o)is very controversial here in the U.S. It is an arbitrary definition, lacking in coherence and logic. Primarily used for socio-political purposes by bureaucrats and politicians to define a group of people.

Using the term Hispanic, thus, becomes a pragmatic, arbitrary basis for identifying a group of people. Why, For example does the category of Asian or Pacific Islander,clearly includes a mixture of racial groups, does not specify the corollary "regardless of race" ?

Bizarre!

Do I think you as a Spaniards should be lumped in this category? No. Not if the category is to be used to address socio-political issues in the U.S., such as bilingualism, education, employment, housing, poverty and political representation.

You are also correct,the only meaningful racial categorization is that of human! But, hey, what do I know, after all I'm a woman and everyone knows women are from Venus!

Viva los Humanos!

What I don't understand is why people would take offense to putting down their race on a census form. In my humble opinion, being able to step forward, and check the appropriate box would be a source of pride, not of discrimination. In the situation of Spaniards in the US, I'd just check "white," if that's what you floats your boat. Nobody cares, and rest assured, the real Hispanics don't really give a damn what you want to call yourself either, do they?

Wolf (Who thinks people are too obsessed with "political correctness!")

ERT writes: For the same reasons then, that a "hispanic" is a Roman inhabitant of the Iberian peninsula c.100 BC, a "Mexican" is a member of the Mexica tribe of inhabitants of Mesoamerica c.14th century and on. If I were Maya, then, should I be offended that I'm being called Mexican? To me that would be like me telling my Navajo friend she's Hopi. Not a good idea...

How about we all just call ourselves what we want and not get all ruffled when someone else with no other power of rationalization other than sight (seeing your face or seeing your name on paper) calls someone "Spanish" because they don't know that person is from Guatemala...but they do know he speaks Spanish? I'm fairly certain that just like most people who are ignorant to the facts, they don't mean any harm, they're just underinformed.

CaliBasco [Who is neither from California nor Basco, but doesn't mind when he's called either]

Like Cali, I don't mind being called anything (and rest assured I've been called things in far more languages than I'd care to discuss - ), as long as I'm not called late for dinner.

I'm tired of getting discriminated on for clothing sizes. When you wear a XXXL t-shirt like I do, I'm forced to "register" as a person who goes to "Big & Tall men's" stores. This is unfair. They make you feel like you're shopping for outfits that are too small for the Goodyear blimp. I think clothing that fits the average sized man, and below, should be identified by using things like "Wuss," for small, "Wimp" for medium, "Asi Asi," for large, and "Real Man," with stars behind it to indicate each "X" for us big guys. For the "L," change the color of the star to gold, to show we're really, really, really hunks of pure gold -

Of course, these tags, that show the real sizes, should be removable, and there should be a "medium" tag permanently attached to each garment. That's in case we want to tell someone we've lost weight, and want to prove it, even if we cast a much bigger shadow - :p

Wolf (Whose wife whapped him alongside the head when he asked her if a woman's 18W stood for 18 with a "W"addle, or Wide body. I just don't understand why women are so sensitive - )

HA HA! Wolf! Does Southwest charge you for two seats, too? I guess up where you are, it's Northwest...

Cali,

Actually I fit into a single seat, it's just that the people on either side of me have very small seats -

My biggest problem really is finding a place to stick my 13+ WWW feet without making the person in front of me feeling like I'm becoming "a little too familiar with them."

On one flight, after they'd served meals, and had extras, the attendant came back and asked me if I'd like a "second." Of course I took it. Who can resist unknown meat, with an unknown variety of potatoes, served on what may have been lettuce a few weeks earlier, followed by a green dessert called chocolate cake.

I wonder why they don't add sizes to the census. Maybe us bigger folks could get some clothes made for us if the statistics showed there's lots of us around.

Wolf (Who's idea of a diet is only getting two eggs with his ham, bacon, sausage, hash browns, and wheat toast for breakfast.)

I, for one, think there should be a separate category for New Yorkers, as we are unique. I resent being classified with the rest of the Americans when that would include, among other things, Texans. Also in California, how do you people from the nice parts deal with being lumped in with Los Angeles? Yucky.

Don't tell me you've never heard about the north vs. south war that rages in California Asterault-
SF and the rest of the northern part swear they are completed unrelated to the LA basin and south - and that portion of the state has yet to come out of the smog and lala-land attitude to discover they've been insulted!

FYI - Only a Californian by birth is allowed to say that!

And now back to the topic of the thread - :o

ERT wrote:

"I don´t want to offend any people from LatinAmerica but I don´t want either that the image of my country (Spain) or the images of Spaniards is almost always misconfused with what the Mexicans or Bolivians do in the US."

I feel a little uneasy with the term "image" and what it implies. If I accept ERT's statement using the term "image," evey time I see a Gitano that says he or she is from(born in)Spain, I will say look at that Spaniard. I am sure that does not go over well with the Spaniards. Are the Spaniards suggesting that they are the only Spanish-speaking people to mark white? My parents are Cuban/Puerto Rican and I am more white than any Spaniard I have seen except for some Basques. How did that happen?
I could be wrong to ERT's intentions. Either way it was a bad choice of a word.