What it means to be a 'Negro' in 2010

The United States Census Bureau announced earlier this month that it would not remove "Negro" as a race qualification in the 2010 census. Amidst public outcry, the Bay Area News Group reports, the bureau said it would consider removing the term from subsequent surveys.

Why keep the term? The census bureau says many older African Americans identify as "Negro," and removing the term would risk incorrectly counting this group.

Why lose the term? The word "Negro" conjures a time in American history when African Americans were considered subordinate. From Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws to the civil rights movement, "Negro" connoted "otherness" at its best and inferiority or inhumanity at its worst. Of course, all racial categories are socially constructed, with no biological basis, but this particular label evokes inequality and oppression.

Many groups within the United States that previously used the term have abandoned it, citing it, in the words of CNN analyst Roland Martin, as "best left where it is" and in the history it stirs up. Among these, reports Slate.com, Negro History Week was changed to Black History Month in 1976. The United Negro College Fund now refers to itself as U.N.C.F, and the Supreme Court has not used the word "Negro" without quotations or citations to outside sources for 25 years.

Time.com reports over 56,000 Americans specifically write-in "Negro" on the U.S. Census. Even so, the census is meant to reflect the changing demographics of the country. In many other ways, the census bureau aims to track these changes. The 2010 U.S. Census will implement 15 changes dealing with race and Hispanic origin. For each of these changes, 30,000 people will be given a slightly different questionnaire. These changes include allowing more than one classification under Hispanic origin and allowing people who identify as "white" or "black" to clarify their ethnic identity more specifically.

Judging by these alterations and the 13 others like them, it seems the census bureau is attuned to the changes taking place in America. The bureau recognizes we do not fall into set boxes. Furthermore, the terminology used to describe different groups, although seemingly innocuous to some, must be examined through a historical lens. Whether subconsciously or not, we internalize these labels and perpetuate the stereotypes and societal roles they propagate. Just because some people are not bothered by a term, or even if some Americans use the term to self-identify, does not mean the use of the word "Negro" in an official government survey carries no weight in the broader scheme.

Think of it this way: How does "Negro" compare to other, perhaps more offensive labels? All these terms evoke history, be it European immigration to the United States, anti-Semitic sentiment or slavery. All of these words are still in use today, some of them by the groups to whom they refer. Does that make them any less hurtful to others? No. The word "Negro" is no different, and the census bureau should see it as such.

Photo Credit: TheGrio.com

De-racializing at work in Haiti coverage

When Hurricane Katrina struck over four years ago, rapper Kanye West criticized the media for applying the term "looter" to black people exclusively. He said the media referred to white people as "looking for food," while black people were labeled as criminals for doing the same thing.

In sum, the word "looting" was racialized by the mainstream media. That is, the denotative meaning of the word, "stealing or scavenging illegally," was expanded so that its connotative meaning included racial implications. Like "welfare," "affirmative action" and "honors student," we have given a race to an otherwise colorblind verb.

Aware of the political landmine of using terms like "looter" and "looting," the news media have once again employed the terms in their coverage of the crisis in Haiti. And similar to Hurricane Katrina, most of those affected by the earthquake are black. The difference is that this time, the words are decoupled from criminal activity.

Instead of images captioned, "A looter carries bags of food and medical supplies through the wreckage," captions are more forgiving of the displaced:

The Charities Aid Foundation writes, "According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), many Haitians are hungry and thirsty, leading some to loot destroyed buildings for supplies." Similarly, TIME magazine reports "The absence of any effective authority in the five days since the tremor has led hungry and desperate residents to loot and fight over the crumbs to survive."

Offering the rationale behind the looting, rather than just reiterating the powerfully tragic images in print, broadcast and online media, lends an understanding and sensitivity that was absent in Katrina coverage. There are still the racialized captions and stories, but the coverage has taken a more sympathetic tone.

In response to a Christian Science Monitor article asking "Is the term 'looting' racist?", I say no. It is a verb, used to describe illegal scavenging or stealing. It is not inherently a racial term, but we have made it so.

As in many things, context is everything. Haitians are hungry. Their families are dead or missing. They are without basic medical care. The images, I'm sure, do not begin to describe the desperation and wreckage. The aftermath of the earthquake is not a race issue, but a fight for survival. And as media outlets now recognize, we owe it to Haiti to recognize their fight.

Photo Credit: New York Times

Black, and female to boot

Last week, Newsweek reporter Raina Kelley wrote on the media coverage of Harry Reid's comments about President Obama. (Reid was quoted in a new book, saying he supported Obama because he was "light-skinned" and lacked a "Negro dialect).

Kelley praised the media for their recognition of three main points:

1. Harry Reid's gaffe is very different from Trent Lott's years ago. Whereas Lott attributed today's (well, 2002's) problems to racial integration and the end of segregation, Reid supported a black man for president.

2. Reid should not be forced to resign. This would only anger voters who support Reid and distract from the real issue: race relations in America.

3. Reid chose his words poorly, but there is some truth to his statements. Researchers, Kelley said, have found that people are more receptive to perceived threats when they see darker faces. Reid's stereotypes about black people are misguided, but there exists psychological backing as to why he holds these ideas.

So what do we make of this? If a black woman is pleased with coverage of the Reid race comments, that says something about progress in America. But beyond what Kelley argues, there is another element:

Why was this column written by a black woman?

There are a plethora of possible answers, from "she chose this topic and pitched it to her editors," to "she and Ellis Cose are the token race reporters here at Newsweek." I hope the latter is not the case.

Whenever I see Rev. Jesse Jackson lament racial profiling in urban areas, I wonder how much power his comments would have been were they echoed by a white person. In the same vein, I wonder if writing a column as a black woman--a column about race--dilutes the pool of receptive readers? Does it fail to fully integrate Newsweek's newsroom by giving "race" to the minority reporters? I would say so.

For the American Society of News Editors' most recent data on minorities in the newsroom, click here.

Will this apply to wedding veils too?

The French government proposed a ban on full body robes this week, referring specifically to the niqab, the head-to-toe covering worn by some Muslim women. The proposal compounds President Nicolas Sarkozy's comments last June when he told a Versailles parliament that such dress "is not welcome" in France. His comment begs the question: Is it the clothing or the Muslim underneath that is not welcome?

Filed by Jean-Francois Cope, the leader of Sarkozy's UMP party in the lower house of parliament, the ban reads, "No one may, in spaces open to the public and on public streets, wear a garment or an accessory that has the effect of hiding the face."

It's hard to imagine a ban like this flying in the U.S., where we extol personal freedom and rail against full-body pat downs at the airport. But even in France, this seems heavy-handed. There are an estimated 5 million Muslims living in France, the largest population of Muslims in Western Europe. If the ban goes through many Muslim women will have to decide between country or God.

The rationale for the ban on all face-covering clothes? "Public security concerns." This terminology, like most political jargon, avoids all challenges from those saying the law violates individual rights.

But I have to wonder, can children still wear face masks at parties? Can women wear wedding veils? What amount of tulle or lace is just too unsafe? Wedding veils and costume masks are an entirely separate issue, to be sure, but where do we draw the line, and when does it become racism?

The Associated Press reports Sarkozy is in full support of the ban, and even Andre Gerin, the head of the parliamentary panel set up to research the veils in question, called the veil an "attempt to instrumentalize Islam for political ends" with a "fundamentalist and barbaric ideology" that oppresses women.

Ask many a Muslim woman, and they will say they are not oppressed. In fact, the claim that Islam makes women "secondary citizens" is one many Muslim women on the UW-Madison campus dislike most. As part of a story on Madison's Muslim community, I spoke to Muslim women about their experiences wearing the veil, or hijab, in mainstream society. I did not speak to any women who wore the full-body veil, or niqab, the garment under attack in France, but all the women I spoke to echoed the same sentiments about the traditional coverings. Modesty, they say, ensures that their intellect, and not their bodies, make their successes in life. These women say Islam encourages women to seek higher education and pursue individual goals, rather than submit to a man.

Muslims in France and elsewhere have railed against the ban. Some of the opposition, however, fails to address the true issue--stigmatization of Muslims--and takes a stance that only perpetuates Muslim stereotypes. Case in point: The Associated Press reports anti-terrorism judge Marc Trevidic told a French newspaper that a ban "will maybe push impulsive people who want to commit attacks."

Really? Must we go straight to the Muslim-as-terrorist assumption? We do not assume that a ban on flag burning will incite mass arson. We did not prepare for a nuclear bomb in 2000 as we recounted the votes in Florida. Trevidic's reasoning does little to counter global fear of Muslims.

If passed, the ban would not go into effect until the spring, and it would be the second time France regulates Muslim dress. In 2004, France banned Muslim headscarves in the classrooms of French public schools.

Whether or not one agrees with the ban, let this be a lesson to us all to examine our rhetoric and the stereotypes we perpetuate.

Photo Credit: Rawa.org