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