ShareThis Page

Census data not just black and white

| Thursday, Feb. 28, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

The Census Bureau has joined the 21st century.

The organization decided that its next survey will not use the word “Negro” to classify a race.

Welcome to post-slavery America. Nice of you to join the rest of us.

Negro is certainly better than other options. The first survey had three categories: “free white”; “all other free persons”; and “slave.” When the bureau switched to Negro in 1900, it took a step in a better direction.

The bureau said it hesitated to remove the term as recently as the early 2000s because some black people identify with it, especially in the South.

That seems hard to believe. Of course, Mississippi officially abolished slavery just last week after state officials realized it never officially ratified the 13th Amendment.

We all know it's the paperwork that gets you. It was probably just a mistake that the document ended up in a heating duct at the state House building.

If the Census Bureau wanted to keep “Negro” because a certain group of blacks identified with it, then we might have to put other terms on there. I don't think we want that.

That narrows the Census choices for folks like me to “Black” or “African-American.”

Yes, the bureau is sticking with the politically correct African-American. But what's so correct about this? Why assume that a dark-skinned person is from Africa? There are other options, you know.

For example, the last few generations of my family as far back as I can trace are from Barbados. My mother tells me that a distant relative is from Ireland.

It's probably too much to ask for more detailed racial classification options, so maybe we could just follow the example of the “White” classification and leave it at “Black.”

The Census Bureau change might lead some organizations to consider changing their names. The United Negro College Fund is an organization that funds scholarships for all students, although most beneficiaries are black. UNCF's slogan: “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has since 1909 fought for racial equality.

Both are definitely noble causes, but what's with the organizations' names? If the Census Bureau can let go (slowly) of the past, then why not a group such as the NAACP that's supposed to benefit minorities? Will UNCF change its name?

Doubtful, though hard to say. Members of the UNCF press office apparently didn't want to touch that question.

I did talk to Constance Parker, president of the NAACP Pittsburgh branch, who says there is no plan to change the organization's name, and she isn't particularly offended by the word “Negro.”

“We've switched titles so many times over the years,” she said. “It's a personal type of preference. As long as they don't use the other ‘N' word. That infuriates me.”

Nafari Vanaski is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8669, at or on Twitter at @NafariTrib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.