Sunday, 10 January 2010

NYDailyNews Misquotes US Census on "Blacks"

color aroused,color arousal.Black,white,Latino,2010,US Census

The African American Political Pundit takes issue with US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's use of the word "Negro" to describe President Barack Obama, and with quotes in a new book that have Reid encouraging Senator Obama to run for president because Obama is a white-enough Black, in his skin color and speech, to be accepted by whites.

The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate apologized on Saturday for comments he made about Barack Obama’s race during the 2008 presidential bid. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect.”

( . . . )

Reid’s comments are included in a book set to be published on Monday. “Game Change” was written by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann; the pair describe the book in interviews during Sunday’s “60 Minutes” on CBS. Hot Air
The unfortunate reality is that Senator Barack Obama had a greater chance of being elected president than did e.g. Rep. John Lewis, who has much more experience, because Barack Obama is part white and looks and speaks like it. To ignore that reality is to endorse the "post-racial" view of American life while African Americans are still being metaphorically hung from posts because of our skin color.

I knew the 2010 US Census Form would be controversial in it's references to Blacks. Without having first seen the Form first, I predicted on December 3, 2009 that the form would be controversial because of the various terms used to refer to Black people, including the white-news media's favorite "black race", in which phrase they doggedly write the word "Black" with a lower-case "b".

Now, the New York Daily News says the word "Negro" on the Census Form is angering Black people. At least the US Census Form writes "Black" with a capital "B", just like "Filipino" and "Japanese".

I really don't care whether people think I'm a "Negro" or not, as long as they spell the word with a capital "N". "Negro" is a skin color as well as a well-identified national and international political group, if only in historical, socio-economic and cultural juxtaposition with the skin-color "white".

What annoys me about the Census Form is that it doesn't include "Black/brown/coffee/beige/vanilla, but not Latino/Hispanic" as one of the options, as I suggested on December 3 would be a way to reflect the panoply of skin colors among the nation's "Blacks". We Blacks know that we fit into one of these descriptors, and we know from the process of elimination that no other descriptor describes us as well as at least one of the above.

AfroSpear blogger Jose A. Vilson would certainly object at this point, and rightfully so, that "Black/brown/coffee/beige/vanilla, AND ALSO Latino/Hispanic" should be one of the category option.

I faintly object to the term "Negro" only because it is so out-dated and associated with America's Jim Crow that few people still alive will both identify with and want to be associated with the term. But, at least spelling it with a capital "N" on the Census Form shows considerably more respect for Blacks than newspapers do everyday when they insistently spell "black" with an inferior and lower-case "b".

So determined is the New York Post NOT to spell Black with a capital "B" that they actually misquote the actual Census Form when stating the categories, by turning the Census Forms "Black" into the New York Post's "black" with a lower-case "B", even in the context of a quote. This is not proper journalistic or writing practice. A quote says EXACTLY what the person being quoted said, and includes the term (sic) after a word that the quoter believes has been misspelled or misused.

The real crime of the 2010 US Census Form is in perpetuating America's believe in the existence of "race" on a grand national scale while hiding in an obscure page of the US Department of Energy the fact that the Human Genome Project has empirically proved and declared that "race" doesn't exist at all. Skin color exists, but "race" doesn't. So, having acknowledged this genetic reality, why does the 2010 US Census Form continue referring to "race"--the most-often-used biological term that has basis in biology?