The U.S. Census
If there is one document that appears more often
than any other in a genealogical study, it is the United States Census.
It is admittedly imperfect, but since the first one in 1790 the Federal
Government has tried to make improvements to make it a better mirror of
the population. Article II, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution,
ratified in 1787, includes the following:
"Representatives
and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which
may be included within this Union, according to their respective
Numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole Number of free
Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifth of all other Persons."
“All other Persons” referred mostly to slaves;
free men were counted as one person. Congress agreed to carry out a
census, recognizing the existence of slavery, but was powerless to deal
with it politically. This pattern continued for many years, asking if
respondent was a free man, a slave, or an “Indian not taxed.”
The 2000 Census
The
Census of Population has been updated every ten years and over time the
U.S. Census Bureau has continued to slide deeper and deeper into a
racial quagmire. It was apparent that their racial concepts were not
adequate but now there were new sociopolitical pressures placed on
census-taking groups now classified as “minorities” who had suffered
unjust discrimination in many ways. The U.S. Census Bureau responded by
issuing the following definition:
"The concept of
race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people
according to the race or races with which they most closely identify.
These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be
interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature.
Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin
groups."
The classifications
were expanded to include White, Black or African American, American
Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific
Islander, some other race, and two or more races. In addition, a
separate question asked whether the individual was
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.
It soon became
apparent that the new “non-scientific” classification was in big
trouble. The news media headlined the rapid growth of the Hispanic
population in the United States and the fact that Hispanics have
surpassed African Americans as the largest minority group. Over
thirty-four million people marked only “black or African American” on
the race question, while over thirty-five million individuals identified
themselves as Hispanic. The population is so diverse that there are
many ambiguities, not the least of which is that some blacks are also
Hispanic. Depending upon how someone looked at the data, at least four
different interpretations were possible. And, of course, depending upon
how someone looked at the data, the socioeconomic benefits varied
markedly.
Hispanic Diversity
Persons from South America generally regard themselves
as Hispanic, with the exception of over 170 million inhabitants of
Brazil. Of these, there is a wide divergence in published figures.
While fifty-five percent consider themselves of European origin (mainly
Portuguese, Italian, or German), thirty-eight percent report “mixed
parentage” and another six percent includes African, American Indian, or
Japanese ancestry. Another source reports fifty-five percent as
mulattos, a mixture of black and white.
Of the
over thirty-two million residents of Argentina, fifty-five percent are
Caucasian and fifty percent Mestizo (mixed native Indian and Spanish).
The rest are mostly native Indian groups, with the largest being the
Guaran’es. The Chilean population also includes many of European
origin, with a higher percentage from Germany. The 1992 census reported
almost a million indigenous Chileans, largely consisting of Mapuche
from southern Chile. There are also Arabs, Koreans, and a Jewish
population of 23,000.
Of course the U.S. Census
also included many millions from Mexico, plus Puerto Ricans, Cubans,
and immigrants from the Dominican Republic and other Central American
countries, together with others of Spanish origin. Spain’s population
is anything but homogeneous. Beginning in the fourth century Visogoths,
Ostrogoths, and Franks — all Northern European tribes — swept into the
Iberian Peninsula. Large numbers of Arabs arrived in the eighth
century, conquering the area and remaining for many centuries. And in
1492, it’s estimated that half a million Sephardic Jews lived in Spain,
many of whom were later forced to convert to Christianity.
Race Not a Valid Concept
As the U.S. Census Bureau admitted, the concept of
race has no scientific basis. The American Anthropological Association
clarified their stand on this in 1999 with the following position paper:
"It has become clear that human populations are not
unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups...
Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact,
they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has
maintained humankind as a single species... Any attempt to establish
lines of division among biological populations is both arbitrary and
subjective."
Indeed, in the 2000
census, nearly seven million people identified themselves as members of
more than one race. Unfortunately the majority of respondents tried
their best to answer an impossible question and assigned themselves to a
“race” which does not exist. The pseudoscientific approach of the U.S.
Census Bureau evoked the following editorial from Dr. Robert S.
Schwartz:
"After 400 years of social disruption,
geographic dispersion and genetic intermingling, there are no alleles
that define the black people of North America as a unique population or
race."
Dr. Schwartz’s observations
are echoed by the findings of the Human Genome Project, which show the
remarkable overall similarity of the genetic make-up of all mankind. It
is true there are also significant differences, some obviously
inherited mutations and others possibly representing responses to
environmental factors, but these differences show no correlation with
the artificially devised concepts currently misnamed “races.” Despite
our visual impression of variation between “races,” it turns out that
about eighty-five percent of human variations occur among individuals in
the same population, while less than ten percent of the variations were
found when comparing Africans, Europeans, and Asians. Indeed,
increasing numbers of studies of human DNA suggest a common African
ancestry, perhaps 200,000 years ago. The Human Genome Project probably
should be regarded as sequencing “a” human genome rather than “the”
human genome, serving as a road map for further investigations to
understand more about human genetic diversity and how it came about.
The Human Race
Even before the completion of the Human
Genome Project, Alain F. Corcos, Professor Emeritus of Botany at
Michigan State University, published his book, The Myth of Human
Races. In it, he criticized the protagonists of the race theory for
having based flawed research upon a number of specious assumptions,
asserting that the idea that human races exist is a socially constructed
myth with no grounding in science. Regardless of skin, hair, or eye
color, we are all of one species.
At a
conference held in June of 2000 to celebrate the successful sequencing
of the human genome, Dr. Francis Collins, who directed the project,
stated, “The human genome is our shared inheritance.” Craig Venter,
whose company, Celera Genomics, had already acquired extensive
experience in sequencing and analyzing human DNA, went further. “Race
has no genetic or scientific basis,” he stated.
From the Human Genome Project and the many
other studies now under way on human DNA, we are already learning much
that is of medical value. We are also learning that we can no longer
tolerate racial distinctions in human biology and medical practice. Yet
biomedical researchers are faced with the problem of describing genetic
differences among groups of humans without implying these groups are
basically different. Steve Olson, in the Atlantic Monthly, notes
that the National Institutes of Health requires users of the primary
genetic database to sign a form that they will not try to determine the
ethnicity of the people who contributed the DNA. The NIH has fallen
into the same trap as the Census Bureau, because ethnicity can easily be
determined by anyone who compares the samples with known DNA sequences.
The scientific problem in this instance
is easier to define and understand, although not easier to solve, than
is the solution to the dilemma faced by the U.S. Census Bureau. By
discounting the evolutionary and historical factors, which led to new
genetic patterns, the NIH has resorted to intellectual dishonesty by
implementing a policy which will only delay the proper interpretation of
various genetic changes associated with diseases. The U.S. Census
Bureau are now perpetuating a myth, or to put it more bluntly, ignoring
the scientific truth about the concept of race. Their motives may be
commendable, for it is done in an attempt to devise just and impartial
public policies and to protect the privacy and rights of individuals.
But is the suppression of truth a justifiable means? Or should we be
considering some fresh new ways to eliminate ”racism”?
Genealogists are more than just passive
onlookers on this chaotic state of affairs. Many serious genealogists
are intrigued with ethnic customs, some of which may still persist in
their own families. And in many instances they have uncovered several
ethnic backgrounds, which have blended to create the generations of
today and tomorrow. Those who have researched medical problems rapidly
become aware of the impacts of culture and environment superimposed on
complex patterns of genetic inheritance. In seeking the truth, they
encounter official documents that inadvertently or deliberately obscure
or conceal the truth.
The new
knowledge derived from DNA research offers wonderful new opportunities
to understand our past, learn about ourselves, and pave the way with
knowledge for the benefit of future generations. Ethnic traditions
should be treated with respect and ethnic legacies can be preserved in
the context of a rapidly expanding world population which continues to
benefit far more from assimilation and tolerance than from diversity.
As Svante Paabo aptly notes in his comments on genomics and society in Science
Magazine, prejudice, oppression, and racism feed on ignorance.
Knowledge of the genome should foster compassion, not only because our
gene pool is extremely mixed, but also because everyone carries at least
some bad alleles. There is no excuse for stigmatizing any one group on
the basis of ethnicity or carrier status for certain alleles.
It should not be necessary to resort to
mythology.