Profit, Power, & Privilege: The Racial Politics of Ancestry
American Anthropological Association Meetings
November 18, 2000
San Francisco, California
Lee D. Baker, Professor of Cultural Anthropology and African and African American Studies
Duke University
In March of this year each of you received your decennial census, and you were confronted, once again, by those ominous racial boxes. This time, however, you could go ahead and check more than one box. Your ability to check more than one box was a compromise worked out by the Commerce Department and two opposing efforts to lobby the Administration. One effort was launched by people that identify as bi-racial, or of mixed race descent, and who wanted their own box. The other effort was led by the NAACP and the National Council of La Razza who argued that the boxes should remain the same. Although virtually every Latino, Black, or Native American person should go ahead and check “all of the above,” the powerful bi-racial lobby did not want to force their constituents to “choose” between identifying with one ancestor or another. The NAACP and others argued that the census was about identification—not identity—and pressed the Administration to make an accurate count of people who are identified as racial minorities, to gain a better understanding of inter-city demographics, and to maintain the ability to demonstrate disparate impact. These organizations wanted to be able to account for all people identified as black, Hispanic, etc. In this case, the bi-racial lobby viewed race as a proxy for ancestry while the NAACP viewed race as a proxy for political status.
Several months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that indigenous Hawaiians could not vote in a state-wide election for the commissioners of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, an agency that allocates resources set aside when Hawaii became a state in 1959. Since these resources were for the explicit purpose of bettering ” the conditions of Native Hawaiians,” only indigenous Hawaiians could vote for commissioners. The Court deemed the election unconstitutional and invoked the rarely used 15th Amendment, which provides that the right to vote “shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude.” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained in his majority opinion that “ancestry can be a proxy for race” and therefore ruled the elections unconstitutional. However, elections held by Indian tribes remained Constitutional, Kennedy argued, because of their “unique political status.”
A few years ago, the Lumbee Tribe of Pembroke, North Carolina petitioned the U.S. Congress for federally designated tribal status. At stake was over 70 million federal dollars targeted for health and education. Although members of the Lumbee Tribe have made treaties with the federal government, number 40,000, are recognized as a tribe by the state of North Carolina, and enjoy a very salient “political status,” the federal government in 1994 refused to recognize their tribal status because they did not meet the stringent requirements imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Part of the BIA requirements includes tracing descent from a “historic tribe.” The Lumbees, however, have a mixed ancestry that includes decedents from earlier Hatteras and Cheraw groups. Unlike Western tribes, the Lumbees have participated in the crosscurrents of culture since 1585 when Sir Walter Raleigh embarked upon his ill-fated colony. For centuries, the Lumbees have absorbed the culture and people from neighboring black, white, and Indian populations and today are hard-pressed to meet the requirements set by the BIA that simply ignore processes of culture change. In this case, the Lumbees viewed political status as a proxy for ancestry, but Congress did not.
Race and racism in the U.S. today is the historical end product of a gamy mix of social, political, and economic pressures grinding against each other. Like the tectonics of the earth’s plates, it’s usually slow and predictable, but one never knows when these forces will erupt or quake- forever changing the social landscape. (Here in California, tectonics of all kinds are particularly volatile). Although the outcomes of the cases I briefly described seemed more like a game of “rock-scissors-paper,” they fall within the slow and predictable racial tectonics. From the centuries old “one-drop” rule to the complex fractions used to claim tribal membership; race, culture, and heritage, have always been used inconsistently in a struggle to define social, political, and economic relationships. W.E.B. Du Bois once penned that the concept of race was “a group of contradictory forces, facts and tendencies” (Du Bois 1986b:651).
I have long thought that this was one of the best definitions of race, but it does not get us very far. Anthropologists are supposed to identify patterns in process, but it is often difficult when such salient modalities in American culture are used willy-nilly by even our most esteemed institutions. Although it appears in the above cases that race, ancestry, and political status are applied in a sort of catch-as-catch-can manner, there is a simple and usually predictable logic that shapes these “contradictory forces, facts, and tendencies”—Profit, Power, and Privilege. Like the investigative reporter who “follows the money,” a scholar is well served if he or she looks for the way people use race to acquire or protect any one of these three “Ps.”…
…Individuals who yoke their identity to categories of race often miss the fact that most people stitch together an ethnic identity from various cultural heritages, and that cultural identity has nothing to do with racial categories. This distinction between race and ethnicity is thrown into vivid relief when I used to walk out my back door and stroll down 125th Street—affectionately know as the “Heart of Harlem.” The everyday lives of Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Haitian, Nigerians, and African Americans commingle and converge in this community in a way that has transposed historic segregation into a form of congregation that exhibits the rich tapestry of the African diaspora.
The question remains, why does the mixed-race lobby insist on using ancestry as a proxy for race? I think the answers lies in the one argument I have not seen made by members of this lobbying effort. People advocating for a mixed race category should also advocate that every racial minority check that box too. Barring recent immigrants, virtually no person today considered Black, Indian, or Hawaiian can trace an uninterrupted genealogy back to Africa, Hawaii, or ancestral tribe. Moreover, everyone with a mythical “Cherokee grandmother,” should be encouraged to check that box.
In lieu of this argument, it appears that these advocates are trying to institutionalize a mixed race category, which in other countries at least, turns on a claim to white privilege. We can learn from South Africa, Jamaica, Haiti, and even in Louisiana and South Carolina that efforts to institutionalize, not a hybrid heritage, but a mixed race category, actually advances racial injustice and allocates white privilege into the haves, have nots, and have some….
Read the entire paper here.
