Census categories
Looking at the racial categories available to choose from on the census over the last century or so, we can see that the number of racial categories has increased steadily over time, beginning with white, other free persons, and slaves in the 1790 census and increasing to 15 categories on the 2010 census. Furthermore, as of 2010, more than one racial category could be marked to reflect multiracial identities.
As stated in the quote above from p. 167, the post-racial ideology supports making racial distinctions invisible—which should be the goal of post-racial citizens. From the shifting census categories, we can see that the opposite is happening. The post-racial narrative would take this to mean that we live in a more and more racist society because of the increasingly un-colorblindness of the census. Parsing out the former Asian and Pacific Islander category into Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, and a suite of distinct Asian identities, was a way to get recognition for distinct histories and make visible the unequal access to resources that particular groups have. Thus, identifying race enables the enactment of citizenship, which is in part about having the right to demand access to resources, which is sometimes impeded by racism at different scales.
It is pretty standard to recognize the different lifestyles, values, histories, realities, and challenges that someone living in a rural setting has from someone living in an urban setting. I think that this is why the geographical unevenness of development, access to resources, employment, etc is pretty well-accepted. According to post-racial logic, would I be “place-ist” to acknowledge the fact that someone lives in a rural location versus an urban one and expect that this would shape the experiences of this person? What categories of identity and being would a post-racial citizen recognize as shaping an individual?
As stated in the quote above from p. 167, the post-racial ideology supports making racial distinctions invisible—which should be the goal of post-racial citizens. From the shifting census categories, we can see that the opposite is happening. The post-racial narrative would take this to mean that we live in a more and more racist society because of the increasingly un-colorblindness of the census. Parsing out the former Asian and Pacific Islander category into Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander, and a suite of distinct Asian identities, was a way to get recognition for distinct histories and make visible the unequal access to resources that particular groups have. Thus, identifying race enables the enactment of citizenship, which is in part about having the right to demand access to resources, which is sometimes impeded by racism at different scales.
It is pretty standard to recognize the different lifestyles, values, histories, realities, and challenges that someone living in a rural setting has from someone living in an urban setting. I think that this is why the geographical unevenness of development, access to resources, employment, etc is pretty well-accepted. According to post-racial logic, would I be “place-ist” to acknowledge the fact that someone lives in a rural location versus an urban one and expect that this would shape the experiences of this person? What categories of identity and being would a post-racial citizen recognize as shaping an individual?
This page is a tag of:
This page comments on:
Citizenship (12 December 2014)
| Previous page on path | Citizenship, page 1 of 1 |
Discussion of "Census categories"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...