Researching Mixed Heritage: Professors Study Racial Identification QuestionsPosted in Articles, Census/Demographics, History, Media Archive, Politics/Public Policy, Social Science, United States on 2010-03-08 03:49Z by Steven |
Researching Mixed Heritage: Professors Study Racial Identification Questions
inside
California State University, Fullerton
2009-11-02
Mikel Hogan, Anthropologist, Chair and Professor of Human Services
California State University, Fullerton
H. Rika Houston, Professor of Marketing
California State University, Los Angeles
Although racial identification has been a part of the U.S. Census policy since its inception, neither race nor ethnicity is a scientific construct. Quite the contrary.
Few factors are more telling of sociopolitical fluidity than the shifting labels that mark the practice of U.S. Census reporting over time. For example, the original U.S. Census in 1790 had only three racial categories: free whites (divided by gender), slaves (blacks), and all other free persons (Indians). Every census since then has posed the question of race, but the racial categories employed have been added, dropped and revised based upon the prevailing social and political climate of the time.
By 1890, the census categories had expanded to white, black, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, Chinese, Japanese and Indian to reflect the multiracial legacy of slavery and the recent influx of early Chinese and Japanese immigrants. To complicate matters further, “Hispanic” was added as an ethnic category in 1970 even though a person of Hispanic origin can be of any race. To this day, the Hispanic category maintains the distinction of being the only ethnic category explicitly tracked by the census even though ethnicity is a social construct that can be arguably claimed, albeit arbitrarily, by any person…
Read the entire article here.