By Ignatius Bau & Shilpa Patel
Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF)
Heterogeneity is the crux of the American story and experience. Yes, classification based on race is a socio-political construct, a small lens into the tremendous diversity of the American people. Yet it remains a primary lens by which our government, policymakers, administrators, researchers, marketers and even social change organizations craft their respective frameworks. At the end of the day, everyone wants to be heard and represented within political, economic and social arenas. While racial and ethnic groups often need to stand alone and apart when advocating for their respective communities, some have also formed alliances with other similar and dissimilar groups to build consciousness and a stronger, collective voice.
Our evolving identity as “American” adds a layer of complexity to the “colorblind America” equation proposed by some. For complex historical reasons, “official” methods of race classification have changed over time. For example, Asian Indians were classified as “white” starting in 1950, then as “Other” in 1970 and finally, as “Asian” in 1980. The 2000 Census now reports that Asian Indians (and Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) have been among the fastest growing Asian American populations since 1990. Given our increased consciousness of stereotyping about South Asians in a post-Sept. 11 world, this population growth is especially significant. Similarly, the 2000 Census separated “Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders” from “Asians” and will therefore highlight the continuing gaps in education, health and economic development among Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders as a result of U.S. colonization.
Self-identification also became even more critical in the 2000 Census. For the first time, Tiger Woods, who publicized his “Cablinasian” background, could self-identify as Caucasian, Black or African American, Native American, and Asian. The impact of the new multiple race responses on APAs is especially critical. If only single race responses are counted, the Japanese American population decreased from 1990 to 2000 by 6 percent. When multiple race responses are included, Japanese Americans actually increased by 35.6 percent. Over 95 percent of Native Hawaiians would not be counted if only single race responses are included. Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander community advocates need to be vigilant in ensuring that all 2000 Census data includes both single and multiple race responses to more accurately reflect our population size. Meanwhile, individuals who identify themselves as multiracial will need to articulate their own needs and vision of how to be counted, and be included in the evolving construct of race in America.
There remain difficult challenges in analyzing Census data, especially when the fundamental categories of race and ethnicity keep shifting. Many are reacting to the implementation of the new race and ethnicity categories in the 2000 Census, mandated by the federal Office of Management and Budget in 1997. Yet our communities need even more detailed data. Indeed, APAs (and American Indian, Latino and other community advocates) have argued that even the current racial and ethnic classifications are too broad and inadequate. APAs know that the histories and socioeconomic statuses of Chinese Americans are very different than those of Hmong Americans. As race classifications become more fluid, disaggregated data becomes more and more important. The widening socio-economic and health disparities and the increasing diversity in this country reflect the need to provide detailed information on race. The Census tells very little about Africans, Central Asians and Middle Easterners, which creates a major challenge in identifying and responding to the specific needs of the community. We need to amend the 1997 OMB guidance to further disaggregate and reclassify race data for populations.
Meanwhile, the Ward Connerlys and Kevin Nguyens of the world seek to project an image of a supposedly colorblind America that isn’t interested in such distinctions and would prohibit the governmental collection of any data about race, ethnicity and national origin. Their misnamed “Racial Privacy Initiative” on the March 2004 ballot in California will highlight the emotions and deep differences of opinion on questions of racial data. Yet without data, our underrepresented and underserved communities will continue to be overlooked and further marginalized.
We can use the emerging data from the 2000 Census to continue the slow, methodical process of deepening America’s awareness, understanding, and value for a stronger heterogeneous society, and slowly move us away from a construct that is based on homogeneity. We are not a melting pot but a continually evolving, multiracial America.
|
