Roiled by the spume of conflict, threatened by the stain of pollutants, the storied York yet flows free, guarding its great bounty
In the grand panorama of the historic York River, the diminutive marsh periwinkle is as nothing--and as everything. Time out of mind, the puny, ubiquitous snail has glided among the cordgrass and arrow alum of the river's tidal wetlands and never erected to its passing a monument more substantial than the fragile form of its white spiral shell. Yet in the sweep of the river's saga the periwinkle's place is as enduring as the granite Yorktown Victory column, its slippery, shiny trail as integral a part of York's storied landscape as the networks of battlefield trenches.
For more than 400 years historybook heroes have come to the York to perform their parts in the dramas of human dominion and political supremacy. The periwinkle has haunted this stage the better part of 40 centuries.
If most men took their bows and went marching into the wings, some paused long enough to notice that the York River valley is an amphitheater for the productions of life itself, a coliseum for performances in which the stars have been fiddler crabs and catfish, great blue herons and snapping turtles, and, yes, marsh periwinkles. Every croaker, mullet, and spade fish; every cattail, hibiscus, and marshmallow acts its pivotal part in the exquisitely scripted interplay of species that ecologists bill as the balance of a river's natural environment.
A walkon, man arrived about 4,000 years into the opening act, and, as they say, stole the show. Red, white, and black, man became with his impudence and his exploits the stuff of the York's facts and fables; his story became the river's history. Nevertheless, man's doings are but subplots, superfluities in a broader, essential epic.
Told out of the context of the York, isolated from the river environment, the chronicles of the river's massacres, battles, and wars are but facts without nuance. It was, after all, the river that was worth fighting for.
The York collects itself off the tip of modern West Point at the confluence of the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi to run 33 miles southeast. Between Guinea Neck and Tue Point it spills into the vast shallow protein soup of the Chesapeake Bay. An average of two miles wide and 20 feet deep, the river drains 2,661 square miles of a Virginia watershed that stretches west to the Blue Ridge. Rising and falling with the sea, the York is the silvery backbone of an intricately reticulated and extraordinarily delicate network of life.
Perhaps 6,000 years ago, the modern York began to water salt marshes and timber stands. Rich with oysters, sturgeons, and blue crabs, the river was a fat natural sideboard supporting a perpetual feast, a food chain.
Long before Europeans came, protoAlgonquians had taken their place in the estuary system. Mounds of oyster shell still betray their village sites. Oysters remained a primary resource, to become the foundation of York watermen's livelihoods, until disease wiped out most in the 1980s. Sturgeon, once abundant, vanished in the 19th century. Now threatened is the blue crab, pressured by overharvesting. Eel, prized in the Orient, has become a profitable alternative. The food chain is losing links.
By the time the first white settlers, a Spanish Jesuit missionary party of 10, reached the York in 1570, the valley was the preserve of mature kinship groups like the Pamunkey, the most powerful of the 28 tribes in what would become Tidewater's Powhatan empire. Living in proud, powerful bands, the Pamunkey had a culture as sophisticated as their circumstances required. Denominated savages by the meddlesome Jesuits, the Indians regarded the intruders as they did mayflies and, when priestcraft became too troublesome, swatted them with about as much compunction as they would any noisome pest.
Of the Spanish party, two youths survived the slaughter. One was a Spanish lad rescued the next year; the other an Indian Christian apostate baptized Don Luis, who grew up to be, some historians suppose, the implacable enemy of the English, the werowance--approximately "chief"--Opechancanough.
When in 1607 the English fetched ashore on the south side of the peninsula formed by the York and James, the chief of chiefs was Powhatan. Another Pamunkey, he was the sire of Pocahontas.
Captain John Smith said it was at the York River village of Werowocomoco on modern Purtan Bay that Pocahontas saved his brains from a Pamunkey headsman. Smith had two or three more adventures on the York, all as hair raising, including a challenge of Opechancanough to single combat on a York River island. As usual, Smith was scrapping over food.
The English had arrived with gold fever and suffered recurring fits of pointless prospecting. They never quite cured themselves, but their hunger demonstrated to them the greater value of Virginia's ready natural resources--most of which they were equally inept at gathering. Most of Smith's York trips were to buy, extort, or steal Indian maize, beans, meal, and meat--native commodities the tiny Jamestown band could or would not otherwise acquire in quantities sufficient to their bellies.
To this period dates the first map of Tidewater, and thus the York, the simple sketch Tindall's Draught. A prominent feature is Tindall's Point, now Gloucester Point opposite Yorktown, where the river narrows to a milewide natural anchorage. Inexplicably, a close copy of this sensitive document found its way to Spain, England's bitter enemy. There is a smell of espionage about the matter.
Some believe "Tindall" a misrendition of settler George Kendall's surname and credit him as the draftsman. Indeed, there is no better explanation for the map's title. As it happens, Kendall, soon shot for mutiny, had in England been an "intelligencer," a spy. Coincidentally, Tindall's Draught includes the 10,000acre tract of modern Camp Peary, a tightly guarded Central Intelligence Agency training base.
Until mid17th century, the north shore of the York was the Powhatan stronghold. By Smith's count, Opechancanough's village at Pamunkey Neck--modern West Point--numbered 300 bowmen. Through a bloody miscalculation, the Pamunkey began to lose their grip on their York domain in 1622. That year Opechancanough masterminded the massacre of more than 350 Virginia settlers, illustrating to the English their vulnerability.
Partly to protect its northern flank from further assaults, in 1630 the colony offered 50 free acres to every person who would settle at Chiskiack in the following year. A few miles above modern Yorktown, it was once an Indian village and very near the Jesuits' camp. Captains John West and John Utie got 600 acres each at the mouth of King's Creek for accepting care of the farmers who began to clear fields between King's and Felgate Creeks. Governor John Harvey opened York plantation, on which stands today's Moore House, and a few miles upstream, George Read patented the site of today's Yorktown. Captain Nicholas Martiau, an ancestor of George Washington's, also moved into the neighborhood.
Three years later the English built a palisade--a log fence--across the Peninsula between the head of Queen's Creek on the York and Archer's Hope Creek on the James. The idea was to protect lives and livestock from the depredations of marauding wolves and Indians. It was a remarkable, if simple, bit of early environmental engineering.
In 26 years of struggle, the colony had never got on its feet. The problem seems to have been the lack of a reliable source of palatable protein. The palisade contained cattle turned out to pasture and helped make Virginia a more attractive and survivable habitat for humans. To its construction is credited the establishment of the village of York, the peninsula's second town, and Middle Plantation--later Williamsburg--its second capital. Jamestown was its first.
The first English child born on the York, John West, Jr., arrived that year. He was 11 when Opechancanough rose again, killing perhaps 500 colonists, most on the York. This massacre backfired, too. In 1653, after the inevitable rounds of retaliation, the Pamunkey submitted to a treaty that forced them to a reservation on the tributary that bears their name. Today 50 or so mixedblood descendants remain, living on 1,200 somnambulant acres of farms and homes that were once the most sacred piece of Pamunkey property, the site of the religious center Uttamussackpamaunkee.
North, on the Mattaponi, is Virginia's other reservation, home to the remnant of the tribe that gave its name to the York's other source.
With the peace of 1653 came prosperity--of a sort. In the colony's first decade, a native plant, tobacco, had become Virginia's economic mainstay. A pricey sweetscented variety grew particularly well along the York, and the commerce its cultivation created long underwrote many a prominent Virginia family.
As its markets expanded, so did settlement. The Wests moved to Opechancanough's old lands in 1650--hence the name West Point. A fort was dug at Gloucester Point in 1667. A road inland opened. Plantations rose.
Tokens of gentry wealth--18thcentury Rosewell's ruins, wellpreserved Elsing Green, and a score more mansions of merit--dot the river valley.
If the farms enriched the planters, they impoverished the land's sandy soils. Tobacco exhausted the nutrients, and run off from plowing began to silt in creeks and streams--a colonial version of what environmentalists call nonpointsource pollution. In the course of 400 years, some shipdeep streams turned to brooks; others just disappeared. Habitat loss had begun.
Though slaves began to reach Virginia in 1619, most of the farm laborers in the 17th century were English indentured servants. They enjoyed some privileges of race, but their lot could be miserable, and to many the future looked worse. At the end of their indenture most males were turned out with few possessions and fewer prospects.
York County records preserve a coroner's jury's hardhearted memorial to one man's escape from voluntary servitude:
The 10th of June, 1661. The jury setting upon the body of Walter Catford, who, for want of Grace, tooke a Grindstone and a Roape, and tyed it about his middle and crosse his thighes, and most barbarously went and drowned himselfe contrary to ye law of the king and this country, whoe is found guilty of his own death . . . The said Walter Catford was servant to Mair Thomas Beale at ye time of his death.
Other members of Catford's class chose selfhelp over selfdestruction. The year of his suicide a handful of York County servants, angered by poor rations, plotted an uprising. In 1663, other insurrectionists tried to combine with servants from Middlesex and Gloucester Counties. Sporadically, the York's late 17thcentury farmers, most exservants, indulged in plantcutting riots intended to maintain tobacco prices by reducing supply.
The most spectacular revolt to sweep the servant's class was gentryled Bacon's Rebellion in 1676. Conceived as an Indianfighting force, gentleman Nathaniel Bacon's extralegal army threatened Governor William Berkeley's rule. Nowvanished Gloucester Town on the York's north shore became the fulcrum of the struggle for authority, and was in Bacon's hands when he died of flux, as dysentery was called.
Berkeley, thus sure of victory, recorded Bacon's death:
His usual oath which he swore at least a Thousand times a day was God damme my Blood and God so infected his blood that it bred Lice in an incredible number so that for twenty dayes he never washt his shirts but burned them. To this God added the Bloody flux and an honest Minister wrote this Epitaph on him:
Bacon is dead, I am sorry at my heart
that Lice and flux should take the hangman's part.
The hangman was not cheated of a crop of other necks, among them that of Thomas Hanford, reputed to be the first Virginiaborn victim of a Virginia gallows.
Rivers served for highroads of commerce in colonial Virginia, and settlement patterns followed them, a straggling manner of habitation that fostered riverbased trade and goaded government to a series of attempts to legislate towns into existence. Yorktown was the product of such an effort in 1691. Laid out as a 50acre seaport on Read's land, the town had 85 lots and a 5acre public waterfront.
Beside a protected harbor within sight of the bay, Yorktown's situation made it among the few colonial tidewater towns to thrive. It developed in two tiers--wharves and seamen's bars and brothels on the beach, merchants' homes on the bluff. In 1715 the Yorktown Customs House rose, and in 1722 came the fabled Swan Tavern, which met travelers' needs 20 years before Williamsburg's Raleigh. By the account of a visitor in 1742, the town was an oasis:
You perceive a great Air of Opulence amongst the Inhabitants, who have some of them Houses, equal in Magnificence to many of our superb ones at St. James's . . . .
The Taverns are many here, and much frequented, and an unbounded Licentiousness seems to taint the Morals of the young Gentlemen of this Place . . . There are some very pretty Garden Spots in the Town; and the Avenues leading to Williamsburgh, Norfolk, &c., are prodigiously agreeable.
The transportation advantages attracted General Charles, Earl Cornwallis to Yorktown in August 1781. The place seemed to him safer than Portsmouth, the port the British seized when they opened their Virginia campaign. General Washington and his French ally the Comte de Rochambeau saw in the decision a chance to trap Cornwallis, and they took it. They marched from New York--following a now wellmarked route that traverses some of Virginia's most picturesque byways--shipped the army down Chesapeake Bay, and linked up with a French fleet that had sailed from the West Indies.
When French menofwar appeared off the Virginia Capes on August 26, the British Navy faced a predicament. Unless a relief fleet dispatched by the English could spring it, Cornwallis's army was trapped in the York. The rescue flotilla arrived September 5, but could not drive off the French force. Cornwallis was doomed.
Bottled up in the river with him was a mixed assembly of 71 other English vessels. They were now almost useless, and he ordered about 40 of them scuttled to forestall any allied amphibious attempt. At least 29 are still on the bottom. Twentiethcentury reclamations of artifacts and information from them began in 1909 and have continued, periodically, under the guidance of archaeologists.
Washington marched on Yorktown September 28 and on October 9 began a bombardment described by American Surgeon James Thacher:
The bomb shells from the besiegers and the besieged are incessantly crossing each others' path in the air. They are clearly visible in the form of a black ball in the day, but in the night, they appear like fiery meteors with blazing tails, most beautifully brilliant, ascending majestically from the mortar . . . . I have more than once witnessed fragments of the mangled bodies and limbs of British soldiers thrown into the air by the bursting of our shells.
Cornwallis was insulted from within as well, for in his camp lurked a spy. The Marquis de Lafayette had accepted the offer of slave James Armistead to infiltrate Cornwallis's headquarters camp posing as a runaway. For weeks he smuggled out intelligence--for which he won freedom, a pension, and the indulgence of the general's last name.
On October 17 Cornwallis proposed to surrender his command--a quarter of the British army in America. Subordinates drafted the capitulation agreement, executed two days later, at the Moore House. The table tradition says they used has since been removed to Elsing Green, but there is a more poignant reminder of the battle in a small enclosure in the yard, a headstone inscribed:
In Memory John Turnerwho departed this lifeOctober the 13thin the year of our Lord 1781Aged 30 YearsAh cruel ball so sudden to disarmAnd tare my tender husbandfrom my ArmsHow can I grieve too muchWhat time shall endBy Mourning forSo good So kind a friend.
It wasn't apparent that Yorktown was the last major battle of the Revolution. Washington said the victory was "an interesting event that may be productive of much good if properly improved, but if it should be the means of relaxation and sink us into supineness and [false] security, it had better not have happened."
Some in Yorktown almost wished it hadn't. Nearly half its houses destroyed in the bombardment, occupied in turn by British, French, and Americans, the community was a shambles. Merchant David Jameson said:
As soon as it was known that preliminaries of Peace were agreed on the Soldiers then stationed at York became very licentious, and no vigilance or exertions of the officers could keep them within bounds, very few nights passed without Robbery or gross insult being committed by them.
As he left, Washington ordered the American earthworks destroyed to safeguard his garrison, and farmers obliterated most of the British defenses. The river wrecks decayed, and damaged homes were razed or repaired. The troops left; normalcy returned.
Fire destroyed much of the lower town, the seaport, in 1814, but handier anchorages were already capturing Yorktown's trade, and it was slipping into the dusty life of an ordinary Virginia village.
Lafayette returned in 1824 for the anniversary of the battle, and that was about the biggest affair along the York until 1862, when General George McClellan led the Union Army up the Peninsula in an illmanaged march on Richmond. The Rebels remodeled the last of Yorktown's British fortifications--erasing most of the remaining originals--and stalled the Yankee advance. The invaders dug in. Captain Henry Blake of Massachusetts wrote:
The redoubts and file pits of the Revolution, which had diminished until they were only 20 inches in height intersected those of the Union army at several points. A few metallic relics, corroded by the rust of eighty years, were brought forth from their hiding places in the earth.
After about a month, Confederate General Joe Johnston, perhaps remembering Cornwallis's dilemma, ordered a withdrawal. McClellan passed upriver, took West Point and established a supply port at White House on the Pamunkey, as he had at Yorktown. George and Martha Washington had honeymooned there, and a fine brick manor built on the foundations of the original house had descended in Martha's family. Living in it at the time were Mrs. Robert E. Lee and her daughter Mary. Before they left they tacked a note on the door:
Northern soldiers who profess to reverence the name of Washington, forbear to desecrate the home of his early married life, the property of his wife, and now the home of his descendants--A granddaughter of Mrs. Washington.
The soldiers reduced it to a pit of brick rubble. Another landmark, Yorktown's Swan Tavern, disappeared in the explosion of a Union ammunition dump, but something constructive seems to have come of the campaign, nevertheless.
In McClellan's ranks marched a Connecticut soldier, Elisha Benjamin Andrews, later president of Brown University. In 1893 John D. Rockefeller, Jr., entered the Rhode Island school, and Andrews became his mentor. It is not hard to imagine the veteran sharing with the young student stories of the Peninsula Campaign. Perhaps from Andrews he first heard about Yorktown and Williamsburg.
In 1881 Yorktown celebrated the centennial of Washington's victory. President Chester A. Arthur came for the dedication of the Victory Monument, and the sponsors christened a landscaped victory park, but most travelers recorded how shabby the town had become.
Railroads had steamed into Tidewater after Reconstruction, making going concerns of burgs like Walkerton, West Point, and Aylett, but bypassing Yorktown. Whatever prospects it had left as a entrepot seemed to be lost.
The Southern Railway made West Point its terminus, and a fullfledged town emerged. The Terminal Hotel--with 14 saloons roaring around it--became the most popular destination in the region. In 1913 the community also became the site of a Chesapeake Corporation pulp plant, still among the largest industries on the York, and a small shipyard.
West Point's bloom faded eventually, first with the removal of the railroad terminus to Newport News, then under the ravages of devastating fires in 1903 and 1926. By the time of the second blaze, World War I had changed everything, anyway.
The DuPont chemical company opened a naval explosives factory near Yorktown at Penniman, now the U. S. Naval Supply Center, Cheatham Annex. Workers reported in droves, military bases opened, and warships returned to the river. From Williamsburg, Mary Coleman wrote:
the old era vanished entirely. Rumors of rising land values as a result of the advent of munitions works, training camps, etc., battleships in the York River, soldiers' wives seeking board and lodging, all created a chaos that one can hardly believe now. Roads improved. There was frantic construction of every kind. Eating houses and bootlegging establishments sprang up everywhere.
Between the world wars came a revival of interest in the colonial era. Colonial Williamsburg, the Colonial National Historical Park, the Colonial Parkway, and scores of other historical preservation efforts began. In the 1930s, the National Park Service reconstructed American lines at Yorktown, and the city began to transform itself into a national museum.
The approach of World War II redoubled the pressures of slapdash development--a Navy Mine Warfare School opened at what is now the Coast Guard's Reserve Training Center, as did the Seabee training base that became Camp Peary, and the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, now a nuclear weapons depot, got its start. But much of the area's native beauty and many of its natural resources survived.
The York is among Virginia's cleaner rivers, thanks to the stewardship of industries, installations, and individuals on its shores. That is not to say that there are no threats. Nutrient runoff from farms and developments, wetland loss, petroleum washed from mall parking lots and suburban streets, dirt from construction sites are among the worries to be resolved. And they are being addressed.
Farmers using environmentally friendly "best management" practices are reducing fertilizer pollution that is to lifechoking algae as gasoline is to fire. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act is stopping wetland destruction and regulating development in sensitive areas. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, among others, is trying to see that as much mind is paid the river's natural history as its social and political history. "Save the Bay" is the slogan.
On the river a forest of masts shines whitely in the summer sun. The wind is washing off the bay, tossing lines of seaweed against children splashing in the waves at a Yorktown beach. A tall steel bridge arches above them to the left; to their right dashes a sailboat on a closehauled reach, turning up a filmy jellyfish in its roiled wake.
In the sweltering heat, an old man relaxes on a bench in the shade of a tree, watching his grandkids. Yards away, on the muddy bottom, sprawl the ribs of the wreck of H.M.S. Fowey, the ship that carried Dunmore and his stolen powder from Virginia, that led the British evacuation fleet out of Boston Harbor, that escorted Benedict Arnold into the Chesapeake.
Upstream, on the western horizon, a white plume rises from a paper factory stack. It towers above a mountain of pine logs that marks Opechancanough's old stronghold. Downstream, a bobbing line of crabpot floats leads the eye to the broad, broad bay. Captain Smith must have rounded the headland just there for his first glimpse of the York.
Colonial Williamsburg Journal Vol. 17 , No. 1 (Autumn 1994).
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statisticsand Administrative Reporting (Sept 1997)
The Statistical Policy Division, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines federal standards for the reporting of "racial" and "ethnic" statistics. In this capacity, OMB promulgated Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting in May, 1977, to standardize the collection of racial and ethnic information among federal agencies and to include data on persons of Hispanic origins, as required by Congress. Directive 15 is used in the collection of information on "racial" and "ethnic" populations not only by federal agencies, but also, to be consistent with national information, by researchers, business, and industry as well.
Directive 15 described four races (i.e., American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White) and two ethnic backgrounds (of Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic origin). The Directive's categories allowed collection of more detailed information as long as it could be aggregated to the specified categories.
Directive 15 was not clear regarding whether the race or origins of persons was to be determined by self-identification or by others, e.g., interviewers. Research has shown substantial differences of racial/ethnic identification by these two methods.
Directive 15 noted the absence of "scientific or anthropological" foundations in its formulation. Directive 15 did not explain what was meant by "race" or "origin," or what distinguished these concepts. However, the race and ethnicity categories of the Directive are used in scientific research and the interpretation of the research findings is based often on the "variables" of race and ethnicity.
Since Directive 15 was issued 20 years ago, the United States population has become increasingly diverse. Criticism that the federal race and ethnic categories do not reflect the Nation's diversity led to a review of Directive 15. Formal review began in 1993 with Congressional hearings, followed by a conference organized at the request of OMB by the National Academy of Sciences. OMB then instituted an Interagency Committee for the Review of Racial and Ethnic Standards, and appointed a Research Subcommittee to assess available research and conduct new research as a basis for possible revision of the Directive.
Among the guidelines for the review, OMB stated that ." . . the racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard should be developed using appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences." The guidelines noted, too, that "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." However, the distinction between the concepts of race and ethnicity was, again, not clarified.
The recommendations from the Interagency Committee were published by OMB in the Federal Register July 9, 1997 (Vol. 62, No. 131: 36847-36946), with a request for public comment by September 8, 1997. The recommendations included (1) maintaining the basic racial and ethnic categories from the 1977 Directive; and (2) collecting race and ethnicity data through two separate questions (p. 36943), with ethnicity collected first. The minimum designations for "race" were: "American Indian or Alaskan Native," "Asian or Pacific Islander,""Black or African-American," and "White." The minimum designations for "ethnicity" were: "Hispanic origin," or "not of Hispanic origin." To account for multiple races, OMB recommended that respondents be allowed to report "More than one race."
History and Problems with the Concept of "Race": A Biological Perspective
Anthropologically speaking, the concept of race is a relatively recent one. Historically, the term "race" was ascribed to groups of individuals who were categorized as biologically distinct. Rather than developing as a scientific concept, the current notion of "race" in the United States grew out of a European folk taxonomy or classification system sometime after Columbus sailed to the Americas. Increased exploration of far-away lands with people of different custom, language, and physical traits clearly contributed to the developing idea. In these pre-Darwinian times the observed differences--biological, behavioral and cultural--were all considered to be products of creation by God. It was in this intellectual climate that the perceived purity and immutability of races originated. Perceived behavioral features and differences in intellect were inextricably linked to race and served as a basis for the ranking, in terms of superiority, of races.
Early natural history approaches to racial classification supported these rankings and the implications for behavior. For example, in the 18th century, Carolus Linneaus, the father of taxonomy and a European, described American Indians as not only possessing reddish skin, but also as choleric, painting themselves with fine red lines and regulated by custom. Africans were described as having black skin, flat noses and being phlegmatic, relaxed, indolent, negligent, anointing themselves with grease and governed by caprice. In contrast, Europeans were described as white, sanguine, muscular, gentle, acute, inventive, having long flowing hair, blue eyes, covered by close vestments and governed by law.
In the 1800s, the first "scientific" studies of race attempted to extract the behavioral features from the definition of race. However, racist interpretation remained. For example the origin of racial variation was interpreted as degeneration of the original "Caucasian" race (the idea of a Caucasian race is based on the belief that the most "perfect" skulls came from the Caucasus Mountains). Degeneration explained the development of racial differences and racial differences explained cultural development. Biology and behavior were used to gauge the degree of deterioration from the original race. Measures of intellect were an important part of these early studies. In some cases, the degree of facial prognathism, bumps on the skull as interpreted by phrenology, cranial index, and cranial capacity were used as measures of intelligence. IQ is just the latest in the list of these so-called "definitive" features used to rank races.
The clearest data about human variation come from studies of genetic variation, which are clearly quantifiable and replicable. Genetic data show that, no matter how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different racial groups.
One of the basic principles about genetic transmission in families is that different variants are transmitted to different offspring independently. The more generations of mixing, the more likely such heterogeneity in geographic origin of genes within the same person will be. Fixed sets of traits are not transmitted across generations as many people assume. Rules like the "one drop of blood" rule show clearly how vague and social, rather than biological, are categorical terms for people.
Modern humans (Homo sapiens) appear to be a fairly recent and homogenous species. Regardless of ancestral geographic origins, humans maintain a high degree of similarities from a biological perspective. Admixture, even among and between highly isolated populations, has resulted in widespread, worldwide distribution of genes and thus human variation.
It is because people often share cultural identity and geographic ancestry that "race" or a system of terms for grouping people carries some information that can be useful for biomedical purposes (as in assigning resources for disease screening). For example, sickle cell hemoglobin is a health risk associated with black or African-descended populations and PKU or phenylketonuria is a health risk associated with white or European-descended populations. Despite being loaded with the historical or colloquial connotations, such terminology may in practice be about as effective as any other questionnaire-based way to define categories of people that capture at least limited biological outcomes.
"Race" as a concept is controversial because of the numerous instances in human history in which a categorical treatment of people, rationalized on the grounds of biology-like terms, have been used. Common examples of this include arguments about which "race" is more intelligent, better at mathematics or athletics, and so on. The ultimate use of categorical notions of race have occurred to achieve political ends, as in the Holocaust, slavery, and the extirpation of American Indian populations, that, while basically economic in motivation, has received emotional support and rationale from biological language used to characterize groups. The danger in attempting to tie race and biology is not only that individuals are never identical within any group, but that the physical traits used for such purposes may not even be biological in origin.
The American Anthropological Association recognizes that classical racial terms may be useful for many people who prefer to use proudly such terms about themselves. The Association wishes to stress that if biological information is not the objective, biological-sounding terms add nothing to the precision, rigor, or factual basis of information being collected to characterize the identities of the American population. In that sense, phasing out the term "race," to be replaced with more correct terms related to ethnicity, such as "ethnic origins," would be less prone to misunderstanding.
Social and Cultural Aspects of "Race" and "Ethnicity"
Race and ethnicity both represent social or cultural constructs for categorizing people based on perceived differences in biology (physical appearance) and behavior. Although popular connotations of race tend to be associated with biology and those of ethnicity with culture, the two concepts are not clearly distinct from one another.
While diverse definitions exist, ethnicity may be defined as the identification with population groups characterized by common ancestry, language and custom. Because of common origins and intermarriage, ethnic groups often share physical characteristics which also then become a part of their identification--by themselves and/or by others. However, populations with similar physical appearance may have different ethnic identities, and populations with different physical appearances may have a common ethnic identity.
OMB Directive 15 views race and ethnicity as distinct phenomena and appropriate ways to categorize people because both are thought to identify distinct populations. Although this viewpoint may capture some aspects of the way most people think about race and ethnicity, it overlooks or distorts other critical aspects of the same process.
First, by treating race and ethnicity as fundamentally different kinds of identity, the historical evolution of these category types is largely ignored. For example, today's ethnicities are yesterday's races. In the early 20th century in the US, Italians, the Irish, and Jews were all thought to be racial (not ethnic) groups whose members were inherently and irredeemably distinct from the majority white population. Today, of course, the situation has changed considerably. Italians, Irish, and Jews are now seen as ethnic groups that are included in the majority white population. The notion that they are racially distinct from whites seems far-fetched, possibly "racist." Earlier in the 20th century, the categories of Hindu and Mexican were included as racial categories in the Census. Today, however, neither would be considered racial categories.
Knowing the history of how these groups "became white" is an integral part of how race and ethnicity are conceptualized in contemporary America. The aggregated category of "white" begs scrutiny. It is important to keep in mind that the American system of categorizing groups of people on the basis of race and ethnicity, developed initially by a then-dominant white, European-descended population, served as a means to distinguish and control other "non-white" populations in various ways.
Second, by treating race and ethnicity as an enduring and unchanging part of an individual's identity, OMB and the Census ignore a fundamental tension and ambiguity in racial and ethnic thinking. While both race and ethnicity are conceptualized as fixed categories, research demonstrates that individuals perceive of their identities as fluid, changing according to specific contexts in which they find themselves.
Third, OMB Directive 15, Census and common sense treat race and ethnicity as properties of an individual, ignoring the extent to which both are defined by the individual's relation to the society at large. Consider, for example, the way that racial and ethnic identity supposedly "predict" a range of social outcomes. The typical correlation is that by virtue of being a member of a particular racial or ethnic group, imprisonment, poor health, poverty, and academic failure are more likely. Such an interpretation, while perhaps statistically robust, is structurally and substantively incomplete because it is not the individual's association with a particular racial or ethnic group that predicts these various outcomes but the attribution of that relationship by others that underlies these outcomes. For instance, a person is not more likely to be denied a mortgage because he or she is black (or Hispanic or Chinese), but because another person believes that he or she is black (or Hispanic or Chinese) and ascribes particular behaviors with that racial or ethnic category.
Current OMB Directive 15 policy and federal agency application of the Directive that does not take into account the complexities of racial and ethnic thinking is likely to create more problems than it resolves. Racial and ethnic categories are marked by both expectations of fixity and variation, both in historical and individual terms. Attempts to "hone" racial categories by expanding or contracting the groups listed in Directive 15 and on the Census form or by reorganizing the order in which questions are posed, will continue to miss important aspects of how people actually think about race and ethnicity. Similarly, treating race as an individual rather than relational property almost certainly compromises the value of the data collected. Finally, by ignoring the differences between self- and other- strategies for identification, Directive 15 and the Census application creates a situation where expectations about the nature of the data collected are violated by the way most people use common sense to interpret those same questions.
Overlap of the Concepts of Race, Ethnicity and Ancestry
A basic assumption of OMB Directive 15 is that persons who self-identify or identify others by race and ethnicity understand what these concepts mean and see them as distinct. Recent research by the US Bureau of Census and other federal agencies, supported by qualitative pretesting of new race and ethnicity questions and field tests of these new question formats, has demonstrated that for many respondents, the concepts of race, ethnicity and ancestry are not clearly distinguished. Rather, respondents view race, ethnicity and ancestry as one and the same.
It should be pointed out that the race and ethnicity categories used by the Census over time have been based on a mixture of principles and criteria, including national origin, language, minority status and physical characteristics (Bates, et al, 1994.) The lack of conceptual distinction discussed below is not exclusive to respondents, but may represent misunderstandings about race and ethnicity among the American people. Hahn (1992) has called for additional research to clarify the popular uses of these concepts.
The following outlines some of the evidence for the lack of clear distinctions between the concepts:
First, respondent definitions of the concepts. Cognitive pretesting for the Race and Ethnicity Targeted Test and the Current Population Survey Race Supplement suggest that, except for some college-educated respondents who saw the terms as distinct, respondents define all of the concepts in similar terms. Gerber and de la Puente (1996) found that respondents tended to define race in terms of family origins. Thus, common definitional strategies included: "your people," "what you are," and "where your family comes from." These concepts were invoked also to define the term "ethnic group" when it appeared in the same context. Many respondents said that "ethnic group" meant "the same thing" as "race." In subsequent discussions, the term "ethnic race" was frequently created by respondents as a label for the global domain. McKay and de la Puente (1995) found, too, that respondents did not distinguish between race and ethnicity, and concluded that many respondents are unfamiliar with the term "ethnicity." for example, several respondents assumed that a question containing the term "ethnicity" must be asking about the "ethical" nature of various groups. They concluded that the terms "race," "ethnicity," "ancestry" and "national origin . . . draw on the same semantic domain."
Second, perceived redundancy of race and ethnicity questions. In most Federal data collections, Hispanic origin is defined as an "ethnicity" and is collected separately from "race." In most recent tests, the Hispanic origin question precedes the race question. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents tend to treat the two questions as asking for essentially the same information.
For example, when Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents are asked what the Hispanic ethnicity question means, they often say that it is asking about "race." Respondents often comment on this perceived redundancy, and wonder aloud why the two questions are separate. Non-Hispanic respondents attempt to answer the ethnicity question by offering a race-based term, such as "Black" or "White." (McKay and de la Puente, 1995.)
In addition, many Hispanic respondents regard the term "Hispanic" as a "race" category, defined in terms of ancestry, behavior as well as physical appearance (Gerber and de la Puente, 1996; Rodriguez and Corder-Guzman, 1992; Kissim and Nakamoto, 1993). They therefore tend to look for this category in the race question, and when they do not find it there, they often write it in to a line provided for the "some other race" category. More than 40% of self-identified Hispanics have not specified a race or ethnic category in the 1980 or 1990 Census. Census Bureau research has shown that over 97% of the 10 million persons who reported as "Other race" in 1990 were Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 1992.)
Third, multiethnic and multiracial identifications are frequently not distinguished. Some respondents who identify as "multiracial" offer only ethnic groups to explain their backgrounds. For example, McKay et al. (1996) found that some individuals who defined themselves as "multiracial" offered two ethnicities, such as "German and Irish" as an explanation. The authors concluded that such reporting "presents the overlapping of the semantic categories of race and ethnicity. . . ." (p. 5). Other respondents in the same research who identify with only a single race category subsequently mention an additional "race" category when answering the ancestry question.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The American Anthropological Association supports the OMB Directive 15 proposal to allow respondents to identify "more than one" category of "race/ethnicity" as a means of reporting diverse ancestry. The Association agrees with the Interagency Committee's finding that a multiple reporting method is preferable to adoption of a "multiracial" category. This allows for the reflection of heterogeneity and growing interrelatedness of the American population.
2. The American Anthropological Association recommends that OMB Directive 15 combine the "race" and "ethnicity" categories into one question to appear as "race/ethnicity" until the planning for the 2010 Census begins. The Association suggests additional research on how a question about race/ethnicity would best be posed.
As recommended by the Interagency Committee, the proposed revision to OMB Directive 15 would separate "race" and "ethnicity." However, the inability of OMB or the Interagency Committee to define these terms as distinct categories and the research findings that many respondents conceptualize "race" and "ethnicity" as one in the same underscores the need to consolidate these terms into one category, using a term that is more meaningful to the American people.
3. The American Anthropological Association recommends that further research be conducted to determine the term that best delimits human variability, reflected in the standard "race/ethnicity," as conceptualized by the American people. Research indicates that the term "ethnic group" is better understood by individuals as a concept related to ancestry or origin sought by OMB Directive 15 than either "race" or "ethnicity." While people seldom know their complete ancestry with any certainty, they more often know what ethnic group or groups with which to identify. It is part of their socialization and daily identity. Additionally, there are fewer negative connotations associated with the term "ethnic group."
4. The proposed revision to OMB Directive 15 advocates using the following categories to designate "race" or "ethnicity": "American Indian or Alaskan Native," "Asian or Pacific Islander," "Black or African-American," "White," "Hispanic origin," "Not of Hispanic origin." Part of the rationale for maintaining these terms is to preserve the continuity of federal data collection.
However, the "race" and "ethnicity" categories have changed significantly over time to reflect changes in the American population. Since 1900, 26 different racial terms have been used to identify populations in the US Census. Preserving outdated terms for the sake of questionable continuity is a disservice to the nation and the American people.
The American Anthropological Association recommends further research, building on the ongoing research activities of the US Bureau of the Census, on the terms identified as the population delimiters, or categories, associated with "race/ethnicity" in OMB Directive 15 in order to determine terms that better reflect the changing nature and perceptions of the American people. For example, the term "Latino" is preferred by some populations who view "Hispanic" as European in origin and offensive because it does not acknowledge the unique history of populations in the Americas. OMB may want to consider using the term "Hispanic or Latino" to allay these concerns.
5. The American Anthropological Association recommends the elimination of the term "race" from OMB Directive 15 during the planning for the 2010 Census. During the past 50 years, "race" has been scientifically proven to not be a real, natural phenomenon. More specific, social categories such as "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" are more salient for scientific purposes and have fewer of the negative, racist connotations for which the concept of race was developed.
Yet the concept of race has become thoroughly--and perniciously--woven into the cultural and political fabric of the United States. It has become an essential element of both individual identity and government policy. Because so much harm has been based on "racial" distinctions over the years, correctives for such harm must also acknowledge the impact of "racial" consciousness among the U.S. populace, regardless of the fact that "race" has no scientific justification in human biology. Eventually, however, these classifications must be transcended and replaced by more non-racist and accurate ways of representing the diversity of the U.S. population.
This is the dilemma and opportunity of the moment. It is important to recognize the categories to which individuals have been assigned historically in order to be vigilant about the elimination of discrimination. Yet ultimately, the effective elimination of discrimination will require an end to such categorization, and a transition toward social and cultural categories that will prove more scientifically useful and personally resonant for the public than are categories of "race." Redress of the past and transition for the future can be simultaneously effected.
The American Anthropological Association recognizes that elimination of the term "race" in government parlance will take time to accomplish. However, the combination of the terms "race/ethnicity" in OMB Directive 15 and the Census 2000 will assist in this effort, serving as a "bridge" to the elimination of the term "race" by the Census 2010.
REFERENCES
Bates, Nancy, M. de la Puente, T. J. DeMaio, and E. A. Martin
1994 "Research on Race and Ethnicity: Results From Questionnaire Design Tests." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 107-136.
Gerber, Eleanor, and Manuel de la Puente
1996 "The Development and Cognitive Testing of Race and Ethnic Origin Questions for the Year 2000 Decennial Census." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' 1996 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia.
Hahn, Robert
1992 "The State of Federal Health Statistics on Racial and Ethnic Groups." Journal of the American Medical Association 267(2):268-271. March.
Kissim, E., E. Herrera and J. M. Nakamoto
1993 "Hispanic Responses to Census Enumeration Forms and Procedures." Report prepared for the Bureau of the Census. Suitland, MD.
McKay, Ruth B., and Manuel de la Puente
1995 "Cognitive Research on Designing the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' 1995 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 435-445.
McKay, Ruth B., L. L. Stinson, M. de la Puente, and B. A. Kojetin
1996 "Interpreting the Findings of the Statistical Analysis of the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' 1996 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 326-337.
Robey, Bryant
1989 "Two Hundred Years and Counting: The 1990 Census." Population Bulletin 44(1). April.
Rodriguez, C. E., and J. M. Cordero-Guzman
1992 "Place Race in Context." Ethnic Racial Studies Vol. 15, Pp 523-543.
U.S. Bureau of Census
1973 Population in U.S. Decennial Censuses: 1790-1970.1979 Twenty Censuses: Population and Housing Questions: 1790-1980.1992 Census Questionnaire Content, 1990. CQC-4 Race.
Go to Executive Summary
See also AAA Statement on "Race"See also AAA Statement on "Race" and Intelligence
Directive 15 described four races (i.e., American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and White) and two ethnic backgrounds (of Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic origin). The Directive's categories allowed collection of more detailed information as long as it could be aggregated to the specified categories.
Directive 15 was not clear regarding whether the race or origins of persons was to be determined by self-identification or by others, e.g., interviewers. Research has shown substantial differences of racial/ethnic identification by these two methods.
Directive 15 noted the absence of "scientific or anthropological" foundations in its formulation. Directive 15 did not explain what was meant by "race" or "origin," or what distinguished these concepts. However, the race and ethnicity categories of the Directive are used in scientific research and the interpretation of the research findings is based often on the "variables" of race and ethnicity.
Since Directive 15 was issued 20 years ago, the United States population has become increasingly diverse. Criticism that the federal race and ethnic categories do not reflect the Nation's diversity led to a review of Directive 15. Formal review began in 1993 with Congressional hearings, followed by a conference organized at the request of OMB by the National Academy of Sciences. OMB then instituted an Interagency Committee for the Review of Racial and Ethnic Standards, and appointed a Research Subcommittee to assess available research and conduct new research as a basis for possible revision of the Directive.
Among the guidelines for the review, OMB stated that ." . . the racial and ethnic categories set forth in the standard should be developed using appropriate scientific methodologies, including the social sciences." The guidelines noted, too, that "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." However, the distinction between the concepts of race and ethnicity was, again, not clarified.
The recommendations from the Interagency Committee were published by OMB in the Federal Register July 9, 1997 (Vol. 62, No. 131: 36847-36946), with a request for public comment by September 8, 1997. The recommendations included (1) maintaining the basic racial and ethnic categories from the 1977 Directive; and (2) collecting race and ethnicity data through two separate questions (p. 36943), with ethnicity collected first. The minimum designations for "race" were: "American Indian or Alaskan Native," "Asian or Pacific Islander,""Black or African-American," and "White." The minimum designations for "ethnicity" were: "Hispanic origin," or "not of Hispanic origin." To account for multiple races, OMB recommended that respondents be allowed to report "More than one race."
History and Problems with the Concept of "Race": A Biological Perspective
Anthropologically speaking, the concept of race is a relatively recent one. Historically, the term "race" was ascribed to groups of individuals who were categorized as biologically distinct. Rather than developing as a scientific concept, the current notion of "race" in the United States grew out of a European folk taxonomy or classification system sometime after Columbus sailed to the Americas. Increased exploration of far-away lands with people of different custom, language, and physical traits clearly contributed to the developing idea. In these pre-Darwinian times the observed differences--biological, behavioral and cultural--were all considered to be products of creation by God. It was in this intellectual climate that the perceived purity and immutability of races originated. Perceived behavioral features and differences in intellect were inextricably linked to race and served as a basis for the ranking, in terms of superiority, of races.
Early natural history approaches to racial classification supported these rankings and the implications for behavior. For example, in the 18th century, Carolus Linneaus, the father of taxonomy and a European, described American Indians as not only possessing reddish skin, but also as choleric, painting themselves with fine red lines and regulated by custom. Africans were described as having black skin, flat noses and being phlegmatic, relaxed, indolent, negligent, anointing themselves with grease and governed by caprice. In contrast, Europeans were described as white, sanguine, muscular, gentle, acute, inventive, having long flowing hair, blue eyes, covered by close vestments and governed by law.
In the 1800s, the first "scientific" studies of race attempted to extract the behavioral features from the definition of race. However, racist interpretation remained. For example the origin of racial variation was interpreted as degeneration of the original "Caucasian" race (the idea of a Caucasian race is based on the belief that the most "perfect" skulls came from the Caucasus Mountains). Degeneration explained the development of racial differences and racial differences explained cultural development. Biology and behavior were used to gauge the degree of deterioration from the original race. Measures of intellect were an important part of these early studies. In some cases, the degree of facial prognathism, bumps on the skull as interpreted by phrenology, cranial index, and cranial capacity were used as measures of intelligence. IQ is just the latest in the list of these so-called "definitive" features used to rank races.
The clearest data about human variation come from studies of genetic variation, which are clearly quantifiable and replicable. Genetic data show that, no matter how racial groups are defined, two people from the same racial group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different racial groups.
One of the basic principles about genetic transmission in families is that different variants are transmitted to different offspring independently. The more generations of mixing, the more likely such heterogeneity in geographic origin of genes within the same person will be. Fixed sets of traits are not transmitted across generations as many people assume. Rules like the "one drop of blood" rule show clearly how vague and social, rather than biological, are categorical terms for people.
Modern humans (Homo sapiens) appear to be a fairly recent and homogenous species. Regardless of ancestral geographic origins, humans maintain a high degree of similarities from a biological perspective. Admixture, even among and between highly isolated populations, has resulted in widespread, worldwide distribution of genes and thus human variation.
It is because people often share cultural identity and geographic ancestry that "race" or a system of terms for grouping people carries some information that can be useful for biomedical purposes (as in assigning resources for disease screening). For example, sickle cell hemoglobin is a health risk associated with black or African-descended populations and PKU or phenylketonuria is a health risk associated with white or European-descended populations. Despite being loaded with the historical or colloquial connotations, such terminology may in practice be about as effective as any other questionnaire-based way to define categories of people that capture at least limited biological outcomes.
"Race" as a concept is controversial because of the numerous instances in human history in which a categorical treatment of people, rationalized on the grounds of biology-like terms, have been used. Common examples of this include arguments about which "race" is more intelligent, better at mathematics or athletics, and so on. The ultimate use of categorical notions of race have occurred to achieve political ends, as in the Holocaust, slavery, and the extirpation of American Indian populations, that, while basically economic in motivation, has received emotional support and rationale from biological language used to characterize groups. The danger in attempting to tie race and biology is not only that individuals are never identical within any group, but that the physical traits used for such purposes may not even be biological in origin.
The American Anthropological Association recognizes that classical racial terms may be useful for many people who prefer to use proudly such terms about themselves. The Association wishes to stress that if biological information is not the objective, biological-sounding terms add nothing to the precision, rigor, or factual basis of information being collected to characterize the identities of the American population. In that sense, phasing out the term "race," to be replaced with more correct terms related to ethnicity, such as "ethnic origins," would be less prone to misunderstanding.
Social and Cultural Aspects of "Race" and "Ethnicity"
Race and ethnicity both represent social or cultural constructs for categorizing people based on perceived differences in biology (physical appearance) and behavior. Although popular connotations of race tend to be associated with biology and those of ethnicity with culture, the two concepts are not clearly distinct from one another.
While diverse definitions exist, ethnicity may be defined as the identification with population groups characterized by common ancestry, language and custom. Because of common origins and intermarriage, ethnic groups often share physical characteristics which also then become a part of their identification--by themselves and/or by others. However, populations with similar physical appearance may have different ethnic identities, and populations with different physical appearances may have a common ethnic identity.
OMB Directive 15 views race and ethnicity as distinct phenomena and appropriate ways to categorize people because both are thought to identify distinct populations. Although this viewpoint may capture some aspects of the way most people think about race and ethnicity, it overlooks or distorts other critical aspects of the same process.
First, by treating race and ethnicity as fundamentally different kinds of identity, the historical evolution of these category types is largely ignored. For example, today's ethnicities are yesterday's races. In the early 20th century in the US, Italians, the Irish, and Jews were all thought to be racial (not ethnic) groups whose members were inherently and irredeemably distinct from the majority white population. Today, of course, the situation has changed considerably. Italians, Irish, and Jews are now seen as ethnic groups that are included in the majority white population. The notion that they are racially distinct from whites seems far-fetched, possibly "racist." Earlier in the 20th century, the categories of Hindu and Mexican were included as racial categories in the Census. Today, however, neither would be considered racial categories.
Knowing the history of how these groups "became white" is an integral part of how race and ethnicity are conceptualized in contemporary America. The aggregated category of "white" begs scrutiny. It is important to keep in mind that the American system of categorizing groups of people on the basis of race and ethnicity, developed initially by a then-dominant white, European-descended population, served as a means to distinguish and control other "non-white" populations in various ways.
Second, by treating race and ethnicity as an enduring and unchanging part of an individual's identity, OMB and the Census ignore a fundamental tension and ambiguity in racial and ethnic thinking. While both race and ethnicity are conceptualized as fixed categories, research demonstrates that individuals perceive of their identities as fluid, changing according to specific contexts in which they find themselves.
Third, OMB Directive 15, Census and common sense treat race and ethnicity as properties of an individual, ignoring the extent to which both are defined by the individual's relation to the society at large. Consider, for example, the way that racial and ethnic identity supposedly "predict" a range of social outcomes. The typical correlation is that by virtue of being a member of a particular racial or ethnic group, imprisonment, poor health, poverty, and academic failure are more likely. Such an interpretation, while perhaps statistically robust, is structurally and substantively incomplete because it is not the individual's association with a particular racial or ethnic group that predicts these various outcomes but the attribution of that relationship by others that underlies these outcomes. For instance, a person is not more likely to be denied a mortgage because he or she is black (or Hispanic or Chinese), but because another person believes that he or she is black (or Hispanic or Chinese) and ascribes particular behaviors with that racial or ethnic category.
Current OMB Directive 15 policy and federal agency application of the Directive that does not take into account the complexities of racial and ethnic thinking is likely to create more problems than it resolves. Racial and ethnic categories are marked by both expectations of fixity and variation, both in historical and individual terms. Attempts to "hone" racial categories by expanding or contracting the groups listed in Directive 15 and on the Census form or by reorganizing the order in which questions are posed, will continue to miss important aspects of how people actually think about race and ethnicity. Similarly, treating race as an individual rather than relational property almost certainly compromises the value of the data collected. Finally, by ignoring the differences between self- and other- strategies for identification, Directive 15 and the Census application creates a situation where expectations about the nature of the data collected are violated by the way most people use common sense to interpret those same questions.
Overlap of the Concepts of Race, Ethnicity and Ancestry
A basic assumption of OMB Directive 15 is that persons who self-identify or identify others by race and ethnicity understand what these concepts mean and see them as distinct. Recent research by the US Bureau of Census and other federal agencies, supported by qualitative pretesting of new race and ethnicity questions and field tests of these new question formats, has demonstrated that for many respondents, the concepts of race, ethnicity and ancestry are not clearly distinguished. Rather, respondents view race, ethnicity and ancestry as one and the same.
It should be pointed out that the race and ethnicity categories used by the Census over time have been based on a mixture of principles and criteria, including national origin, language, minority status and physical characteristics (Bates, et al, 1994.) The lack of conceptual distinction discussed below is not exclusive to respondents, but may represent misunderstandings about race and ethnicity among the American people. Hahn (1992) has called for additional research to clarify the popular uses of these concepts.
The following outlines some of the evidence for the lack of clear distinctions between the concepts:
First, respondent definitions of the concepts. Cognitive pretesting for the Race and Ethnicity Targeted Test and the Current Population Survey Race Supplement suggest that, except for some college-educated respondents who saw the terms as distinct, respondents define all of the concepts in similar terms. Gerber and de la Puente (1996) found that respondents tended to define race in terms of family origins. Thus, common definitional strategies included: "your people," "what you are," and "where your family comes from." These concepts were invoked also to define the term "ethnic group" when it appeared in the same context. Many respondents said that "ethnic group" meant "the same thing" as "race." In subsequent discussions, the term "ethnic race" was frequently created by respondents as a label for the global domain. McKay and de la Puente (1995) found, too, that respondents did not distinguish between race and ethnicity, and concluded that many respondents are unfamiliar with the term "ethnicity." for example, several respondents assumed that a question containing the term "ethnicity" must be asking about the "ethical" nature of various groups. They concluded that the terms "race," "ethnicity," "ancestry" and "national origin . . . draw on the same semantic domain."
Second, perceived redundancy of race and ethnicity questions. In most Federal data collections, Hispanic origin is defined as an "ethnicity" and is collected separately from "race." In most recent tests, the Hispanic origin question precedes the race question. Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents tend to treat the two questions as asking for essentially the same information.
For example, when Hispanic and non-Hispanic respondents are asked what the Hispanic ethnicity question means, they often say that it is asking about "race." Respondents often comment on this perceived redundancy, and wonder aloud why the two questions are separate. Non-Hispanic respondents attempt to answer the ethnicity question by offering a race-based term, such as "Black" or "White." (McKay and de la Puente, 1995.)
In addition, many Hispanic respondents regard the term "Hispanic" as a "race" category, defined in terms of ancestry, behavior as well as physical appearance (Gerber and de la Puente, 1996; Rodriguez and Corder-Guzman, 1992; Kissim and Nakamoto, 1993). They therefore tend to look for this category in the race question, and when they do not find it there, they often write it in to a line provided for the "some other race" category. More than 40% of self-identified Hispanics have not specified a race or ethnic category in the 1980 or 1990 Census. Census Bureau research has shown that over 97% of the 10 million persons who reported as "Other race" in 1990 were Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 1992.)
Third, multiethnic and multiracial identifications are frequently not distinguished. Some respondents who identify as "multiracial" offer only ethnic groups to explain their backgrounds. For example, McKay et al. (1996) found that some individuals who defined themselves as "multiracial" offered two ethnicities, such as "German and Irish" as an explanation. The authors concluded that such reporting "presents the overlapping of the semantic categories of race and ethnicity. . . ." (p. 5). Other respondents in the same research who identify with only a single race category subsequently mention an additional "race" category when answering the ancestry question.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The American Anthropological Association supports the OMB Directive 15 proposal to allow respondents to identify "more than one" category of "race/ethnicity" as a means of reporting diverse ancestry. The Association agrees with the Interagency Committee's finding that a multiple reporting method is preferable to adoption of a "multiracial" category. This allows for the reflection of heterogeneity and growing interrelatedness of the American population.
2. The American Anthropological Association recommends that OMB Directive 15 combine the "race" and "ethnicity" categories into one question to appear as "race/ethnicity" until the planning for the 2010 Census begins. The Association suggests additional research on how a question about race/ethnicity would best be posed.
As recommended by the Interagency Committee, the proposed revision to OMB Directive 15 would separate "race" and "ethnicity." However, the inability of OMB or the Interagency Committee to define these terms as distinct categories and the research findings that many respondents conceptualize "race" and "ethnicity" as one in the same underscores the need to consolidate these terms into one category, using a term that is more meaningful to the American people.
3. The American Anthropological Association recommends that further research be conducted to determine the term that best delimits human variability, reflected in the standard "race/ethnicity," as conceptualized by the American people. Research indicates that the term "ethnic group" is better understood by individuals as a concept related to ancestry or origin sought by OMB Directive 15 than either "race" or "ethnicity." While people seldom know their complete ancestry with any certainty, they more often know what ethnic group or groups with which to identify. It is part of their socialization and daily identity. Additionally, there are fewer negative connotations associated with the term "ethnic group."
4. The proposed revision to OMB Directive 15 advocates using the following categories to designate "race" or "ethnicity": "American Indian or Alaskan Native," "Asian or Pacific Islander," "Black or African-American," "White," "Hispanic origin," "Not of Hispanic origin." Part of the rationale for maintaining these terms is to preserve the continuity of federal data collection.
However, the "race" and "ethnicity" categories have changed significantly over time to reflect changes in the American population. Since 1900, 26 different racial terms have been used to identify populations in the US Census. Preserving outdated terms for the sake of questionable continuity is a disservice to the nation and the American people.
The American Anthropological Association recommends further research, building on the ongoing research activities of the US Bureau of the Census, on the terms identified as the population delimiters, or categories, associated with "race/ethnicity" in OMB Directive 15 in order to determine terms that better reflect the changing nature and perceptions of the American people. For example, the term "Latino" is preferred by some populations who view "Hispanic" as European in origin and offensive because it does not acknowledge the unique history of populations in the Americas. OMB may want to consider using the term "Hispanic or Latino" to allay these concerns.
5. The American Anthropological Association recommends the elimination of the term "race" from OMB Directive 15 during the planning for the 2010 Census. During the past 50 years, "race" has been scientifically proven to not be a real, natural phenomenon. More specific, social categories such as "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" are more salient for scientific purposes and have fewer of the negative, racist connotations for which the concept of race was developed.
Yet the concept of race has become thoroughly--and perniciously--woven into the cultural and political fabric of the United States. It has become an essential element of both individual identity and government policy. Because so much harm has been based on "racial" distinctions over the years, correctives for such harm must also acknowledge the impact of "racial" consciousness among the U.S. populace, regardless of the fact that "race" has no scientific justification in human biology. Eventually, however, these classifications must be transcended and replaced by more non-racist and accurate ways of representing the diversity of the U.S. population.
This is the dilemma and opportunity of the moment. It is important to recognize the categories to which individuals have been assigned historically in order to be vigilant about the elimination of discrimination. Yet ultimately, the effective elimination of discrimination will require an end to such categorization, and a transition toward social and cultural categories that will prove more scientifically useful and personally resonant for the public than are categories of "race." Redress of the past and transition for the future can be simultaneously effected.
The American Anthropological Association recognizes that elimination of the term "race" in government parlance will take time to accomplish. However, the combination of the terms "race/ethnicity" in OMB Directive 15 and the Census 2000 will assist in this effort, serving as a "bridge" to the elimination of the term "race" by the Census 2010.
REFERENCES
Bates, Nancy, M. de la Puente, T. J. DeMaio, and E. A. Martin
1994 "Research on Race and Ethnicity: Results From Questionnaire Design Tests." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 107-136.
Gerber, Eleanor, and Manuel de la Puente
1996 "The Development and Cognitive Testing of Race and Ethnic Origin Questions for the Year 2000 Decennial Census." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' 1996 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia.
Hahn, Robert
1992 "The State of Federal Health Statistics on Racial and Ethnic Groups." Journal of the American Medical Association 267(2):268-271. March.
Kissim, E., E. Herrera and J. M. Nakamoto
1993 "Hispanic Responses to Census Enumeration Forms and Procedures." Report prepared for the Bureau of the Census. Suitland, MD.
McKay, Ruth B., and Manuel de la Puente
1995 "Cognitive Research on Designing the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' 1995 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 435-445.
McKay, Ruth B., L. L. Stinson, M. de la Puente, and B. A. Kojetin
1996 "Interpreting the Findings of the Statistical Analysis of the CPS Supplement on Race and Ethnicity." Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' 1996 Annual Research Conference. Rosslyn, Virginia. Pp 326-337.
Robey, Bryant
1989 "Two Hundred Years and Counting: The 1990 Census." Population Bulletin 44(1). April.
Rodriguez, C. E., and J. M. Cordero-Guzman
1992 "Place Race in Context." Ethnic Racial Studies Vol. 15, Pp 523-543.
U.S. Bureau of Census
1973 Population in U.S. Decennial Censuses: 1790-1970.1979 Twenty Censuses: Population and Housing Questions: 1790-1980.1992 Census Questionnaire Content, 1990. CQC-4 Race.
Go to Executive Summary
See also AAA Statement on "Race"See also AAA Statement on "Race" and Intelligence
RELATIONS BETWEEN RACE AND ETHNIC GROUPS
Race and ethnic relations may follow many different patterns, ranging from harmonious co-existence to outright conflict. George Simpson and Milton Yinger (1972) have provided a useful typology of six basic patterns of intergroup hostility or co-operation. This typology covers virtually all the possible patterns of race and ethnic relations, and each pattern exists or has existed in some part of the world.
1. Assimilation. In some cases a minority group is simply eliminated by being assimilated into the dominant group. This process may involve cultural assimilation, racial assimilation, or both. Cultural assimilation occurs when the minority group abandons its distinctive cultural traits and adopts those of the dominant culture; racial assimilation occurs when the physical differences between the groups disappear as a result of inbreeding. Brazil is probably the best contemporary example of a country following a policy of assimilation. With the exception of some isolated Indian groups, the various racial and ethnic groups within the society interbreed fairly freely. Portugal attempted a policy of assimilation in the African colonies that it ruled until the mid-seventies. The Portuguese even created a special status, assimilado, for those Africans or people of mixed race who were considered sufficiently Portuguese in color or culture to share the privileges of the dominant group.
2. Pluralism. Some minorities do not want to lose their group identity; their members have a strong consciousness of kind and pride in their own heritage, and are loyal to their own group. The dominant group in the society may also be willing to permit or even to encourage cultural variation within the broader confines of national unity. Tanzania, for example, is a pluralistic society that respects the cultural distinctions among its African, Asian, European, and Middle Eastern peoples. In Switzerland four ethnic groups, speaking German, French, Italian, and Romanche, retain their sense of group identity while living together amicably in the society as a whole.
3. Legal protection of minorities. In some societies, significant sections of the dominant group may have hostile attitudes toward minority groups, but the minorities may enjoy the protection of the government. In such cases the government may find it necessary to introduce legal measures to protect the interests and rights of the minorities. In Britain, for example, the Race Relations Act of 1965 makes it illegal to discriminate against any person on racial grounds in employment or housing. It is also a criminal offense to publish or even to utter publicly any sentiments that might encourage hostility between racial and ethnic groups in the population.
4. Population transfer In some situations of intense hostility between groups, the problem is "solved" by removing the minority from the scene altogether. This policy was adopted, for example, by President Amin of Uganda, who simply ordered Asian residents to leave the country in which they had lived for generations. In a few cases, population transfer may involve outright partition of a territory. Hostility between Hindus and Muslims in India was so intense that the entire subcontinent was divided between them in such a way that a new Muslim state, Pakistan, was created. There are signs that Cyprus is becoming permanently divided into Greek and Turkish territories, and Lebanon into Muslim and Christian territories. Voluntary and forced population transfers have been taking place in both countries.
5. Continued subjugation In some cases the dominant group has every intention of maintaining its privilege over the minority group indefinitely. It may be fully willing to use force to achieve this objective, and it may even physically segregate the members of the various groups. Historically, continued subjugation has been a very common policy. In the early colonial empires, for example, it was implicitly assumed that colonial domination over the subject peoples was to be a permanent state of affairs. The climate of world opinion is now such that few countries dare to endorse openly a policy of continued subjugation, but the pattern does persist in some cases. The outstanding example is South Africa, where, under the policy of apartheid, the white minority proposes to keep its power over the black majority forever, and has openly declared its willingness to use all necessary force to achieve this goal. Less overt policies of continued subjugation are found in several Latin American countries, where dominant Hispanic groups continue to oppress the indigenous Indian minorities.
6. Extermination. The extermination of entire populations, or genocide, has been attempted and even achieved in several parts of the world. The methods of genocide include systematic slaughter by force of arms and the deliberate spreading of infectious diseases, particularly smallpox, to peoples who have no natural immunity to them. Dutch settlers in South Africa entirely exterminated the Hottentots and came close to exterminating the San, who at one point in South African history were actually classified as "vermin." British settlers on the island of Tasmania wiped out the local population, whom they hunted for sport and even for dog food. There is strong evidence that economic interests in Brazil, with the connivance of the Brazilian government, have slaughtered the Indian occupants of land that is wanted for agricultural development. Between 1933 and 1945 several million Jews were murdered in Germany. The most recent example of attempted genocide occurred in the African state of Burundi in 1972, when the dominant Tutsi tribe massacred nearly 100,000 members of the Hutu tribe.
These patterns are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and a society can adopt more than one of them at the same time. It is interesting to note that at some point in its history the United States has made use of every single one of these six strategies. Immigrant groups, particularly those from Scandinavia and other parts of northern Europe, have been assimilated into the mainstream of American life. There is a strong trend toward pluralism at present, with different groups, such as blacks and native Americans, asserting pride in their own cultural traditions. Legal protection of minorities has been entrenched in law through a series of civil rights acts. Population transfer was used extensively against the native Americans, who were often forced to leave their traditional territories and to settle on remote reserves. Continued subjugation was practiced against blacks, particularly through slavery in the South. Extermination was used against the native Americans, and several tribes were in fact hounded out of existence.
Robinson, I. (1977). Patterns of Race and Ethnic Relations, (pp.267-268). Sociology. New York: Worth.
1. Assimilation. In some cases a minority group is simply eliminated by being assimilated into the dominant group. This process may involve cultural assimilation, racial assimilation, or both. Cultural assimilation occurs when the minority group abandons its distinctive cultural traits and adopts those of the dominant culture; racial assimilation occurs when the physical differences between the groups disappear as a result of inbreeding. Brazil is probably the best contemporary example of a country following a policy of assimilation. With the exception of some isolated Indian groups, the various racial and ethnic groups within the society interbreed fairly freely. Portugal attempted a policy of assimilation in the African colonies that it ruled until the mid-seventies. The Portuguese even created a special status, assimilado, for those Africans or people of mixed race who were considered sufficiently Portuguese in color or culture to share the privileges of the dominant group.
2. Pluralism. Some minorities do not want to lose their group identity; their members have a strong consciousness of kind and pride in their own heritage, and are loyal to their own group. The dominant group in the society may also be willing to permit or even to encourage cultural variation within the broader confines of national unity. Tanzania, for example, is a pluralistic society that respects the cultural distinctions among its African, Asian, European, and Middle Eastern peoples. In Switzerland four ethnic groups, speaking German, French, Italian, and Romanche, retain their sense of group identity while living together amicably in the society as a whole.
3. Legal protection of minorities. In some societies, significant sections of the dominant group may have hostile attitudes toward minority groups, but the minorities may enjoy the protection of the government. In such cases the government may find it necessary to introduce legal measures to protect the interests and rights of the minorities. In Britain, for example, the Race Relations Act of 1965 makes it illegal to discriminate against any person on racial grounds in employment or housing. It is also a criminal offense to publish or even to utter publicly any sentiments that might encourage hostility between racial and ethnic groups in the population.
4. Population transfer In some situations of intense hostility between groups, the problem is "solved" by removing the minority from the scene altogether. This policy was adopted, for example, by President Amin of Uganda, who simply ordered Asian residents to leave the country in which they had lived for generations. In a few cases, population transfer may involve outright partition of a territory. Hostility between Hindus and Muslims in India was so intense that the entire subcontinent was divided between them in such a way that a new Muslim state, Pakistan, was created. There are signs that Cyprus is becoming permanently divided into Greek and Turkish territories, and Lebanon into Muslim and Christian territories. Voluntary and forced population transfers have been taking place in both countries.
5. Continued subjugation In some cases the dominant group has every intention of maintaining its privilege over the minority group indefinitely. It may be fully willing to use force to achieve this objective, and it may even physically segregate the members of the various groups. Historically, continued subjugation has been a very common policy. In the early colonial empires, for example, it was implicitly assumed that colonial domination over the subject peoples was to be a permanent state of affairs. The climate of world opinion is now such that few countries dare to endorse openly a policy of continued subjugation, but the pattern does persist in some cases. The outstanding example is South Africa, where, under the policy of apartheid, the white minority proposes to keep its power over the black majority forever, and has openly declared its willingness to use all necessary force to achieve this goal. Less overt policies of continued subjugation are found in several Latin American countries, where dominant Hispanic groups continue to oppress the indigenous Indian minorities.
6. Extermination. The extermination of entire populations, or genocide, has been attempted and even achieved in several parts of the world. The methods of genocide include systematic slaughter by force of arms and the deliberate spreading of infectious diseases, particularly smallpox, to peoples who have no natural immunity to them. Dutch settlers in South Africa entirely exterminated the Hottentots and came close to exterminating the San, who at one point in South African history were actually classified as "vermin." British settlers on the island of Tasmania wiped out the local population, whom they hunted for sport and even for dog food. There is strong evidence that economic interests in Brazil, with the connivance of the Brazilian government, have slaughtered the Indian occupants of land that is wanted for agricultural development. Between 1933 and 1945 several million Jews were murdered in Germany. The most recent example of attempted genocide occurred in the African state of Burundi in 1972, when the dominant Tutsi tribe massacred nearly 100,000 members of the Hutu tribe.
These patterns are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and a society can adopt more than one of them at the same time. It is interesting to note that at some point in its history the United States has made use of every single one of these six strategies. Immigrant groups, particularly those from Scandinavia and other parts of northern Europe, have been assimilated into the mainstream of American life. There is a strong trend toward pluralism at present, with different groups, such as blacks and native Americans, asserting pride in their own cultural traditions. Legal protection of minorities has been entrenched in law through a series of civil rights acts. Population transfer was used extensively against the native Americans, who were often forced to leave their traditional territories and to settle on remote reserves. Continued subjugation was practiced against blacks, particularly through slavery in the South. Extermination was used against the native Americans, and several tribes were in fact hounded out of existence.
Robinson, I. (1977). Patterns of Race and Ethnic Relations, (pp.267-268). Sociology. New York: Worth.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Map Ethnic Racial Isolates Reputed Partial Indian Origin
ETHNONYMS: Aframerindians, Creoles, Half-Breeds, Marginal Peoples, Mestizos, Metis, Micro-Races, Middle Peoples, Quasi-Indians, Racial Islands, Racial Isolates, Southern Mestizos, Submerged Races, Tri-Racials, Tri-Racial IsolatesThis generic label covers some two hundred different groups of relatively isolated, rural peoples who live in at least eighteen states mainly in the eastern and southern United States. In general, the label and the various alternatives refer to distinct peoples thought to have a multiracial background (White-Indian-African-American, African-American-White or Indian-White, Indian-Spanish) who historically have been unaffiliated with the general White and African-American population or with specific American Indian groups. Estimates place the number of people in these groups at about seventy-five thousand, although some groups have disappeared in recent years through a combination of migration to cities and intermarriage with Whites and African-Americans. The best known of these groups is the Lumbee Indians, numbering over thirty thousand mainly in North and South Carolina.
Classification of a group as an American Isolate rests on (1) real or ascribed mixed racial ancestry of group members; (2) a social status different from that of neighboring White, African-American, or American Indian populations; and (3) identification as a distinct local group with the assignment of a distinct group name.
American Isolates existed prior to the American Revolution, perhaps as long ago as the early eighteenth century, and they increased in number throughout the nineteenth century as they came to public attention in the areas where they lived. Among factors leading to group formation were the presence of offspring of African-American male slaves and White women and the offspring of Indians and free or enslaved African-Americans. Once a small community of multiracial members began, it grew primarily through a high fertility rate and became more and more isolated both socially and physically as its members were rejected by Whites and chose, themselves, to shun African-Americans. The movement of Indian groups west also contributed to their isolation. More recently, isolation was maintained in part through government action, most significantly through the banning of Isolate children from public schools. Most Isolate groups were and continue to be described by outsiders in such stereotypical terms as lazy, shiftless, criminals, violent, illiterate, poor, or incestuous.
Groups known to have still existed in the 1950s and 1960s include the following, listed by state:
Alabama: Cajans, Creoles, Melungeons (Ramps)
Delaware: Moors, Nanticoke
Florida: Dominickers
Georgia: Lumbee Indians (Croatans)
Kentucky: Melungeons, Pea Ridge Group (Coe Clan, Black Coes)
Louisiana: Natchitoches Mulattoes, Rapides Indians, Redbones, Sabines, St. Landry Mulattoes, Zwolle-Ebard People
Maryland: Guineas, Lumbee Indians, Melungeons, Wesorts (Brandywine)
Mississippi: Creoles
New Jersey: Gouldtowners, Ramapo Mountain People (Jackson Whites), Sand Hill Indians
New York: Bushwhackers, Jackson Whites
North Carolina: Haliwa Indians, Lumbee Indians, Person County Indians, Portuguese, Rockingham Surry Group
Ohio: Carmel Indians, Cutler Indians, Darke County Group, Guineas, Vinton County Group
Pennsylvania: Karthus Half-Breeds, Keating Mountain Group, Nigger-Hill People, Pooles
South Carolina: Brass Ankles, Lumbee Indians, Turks
Tennessee: Melungeons
Texas: Redbones
Virginia: Adamstown Indians, Brown People, Chickahominy Indians, Issues, Melungeons, Potomac Indians, Rappahannock Indians, Rockingham Surry Group
West Virginia: Guineas.
While it is difficult to generalize across all Isolate groups or individuals, most live in rural areas and derive their income from farming and unskilled or semiskilled labor. Social status within a group is based on wealth, access to the White Community, primarily through intermarriage, and residence in a settled, named Isolate community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
