From the Beginning
Since the earliest days in American History, Europeans, as well as Africans, Native Americans, and Latinos have all played significant roles in shaping American society. But how individuals from these groups, and products of intermarriages between these groups, have been classified upon examination of the history of race, has directly tied to political interests and the dominant group's desire to either share or restrict access to resources.
History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals." - Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The Current U.S. Federal Government's Racial and Ethnic Group Classification System
The following racial and ethnic groups, which are unique to the United States, were introduced in 1977 in response to civil rights legislation. Compare these categories with those in use in countries such as Haiti and Brazil, and the political context for racial and ethnic group categorization becomes much clearer.
- American Indian or Alaskan Native
A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community recognition.
- Asian
A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
- Black or African American
A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as "Haitian" or "Negro" can be used in addition to "Black or African American."
- Hispanic or Latino
A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture of origin, regardless of race. The term "Spanish origin" can be used in addition to "Hispanic or Latino."
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
- White
A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
Challenges with the Current Racial and Ethnic Group Classification System
Although the government expresses a desire to track these various groups as a means of ensuring that equality exists for all, there are numerous problems with the current racial and ethnic group classification system; they include the following:
- The Current Racial and Ethnic Group Classification System Confuses Race and Ethnicity:
While terms like "white," "Asian," "Black or African American," and "American Indian or Alaskan Native" are intended to represent the varied races, other groups such as "Hispanic or Latino," and "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander" reflect instead, an arbitrary grouping of diverse ethnic groups, regardless of race.
- Racial and Ethnic Group Classification is Not Static:
Changes continue to be made, reflecting social and political interests of the day. For example, in 1996 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander was introduced as its own ethnic grouping; previously individuals from these ethnic groups were lumped together with Asians.
- The Current Racial and Ethnic Group Classification System Ignores Multiracial Heritages:
The system forces individuals of mixed racial and ethnic backgrounds to choose one ill-fitting label. Until the 2000 census, for example, Latinos were required to identify with a single race despite the long history of racial mixing in Latin America (Note: the EEOC continues to define Hispanics as a separate and distinct "race.")
Also, consider the following scenario: how might an individual whose mother is of European and Asian ancestry and whose father is of Native American and Hispanic origin be expected to classify himself?
- The Varied Definitions Reflect Different Political Interests on the Part of the Dominant Group:
For example, Native Americans are defined by "blood quantum" - a minimum requirement for inclusion in the Native American category - which supported the government's interest in acquiring lands formerly belonging to Native peoples. Specifically, while the 19th century blood quantum rule meant that it was easier for a person of mixed European-Native American ancestry to be considered "white," the offspring (after only a few generations of intermarriage) likely would not have been considered, in the legal sense, Native American at all. Native Americans could have treaty rights to land, but because an individual with one Native American great-grandparent was no longer a "Native American" they lost all legal claim to Native American land.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the 20th century introduction of the "one-drop rule" made it almost impossible for any person of known black ancestry to be considered "white." In this situation, a child of a European and African union (for generations to come) would be considered Black. This not only supported justification of white-on-black oppression, but provided significant support to whites in the economics of sharecropping, guaranteeing that any such individuals would likely be sharecroppers as well and enhance the white employer's labor force. This system also ensured the ongoing "purity" of white blood; over the past century, to be considered "white" one has had to be "pure" in ancestry. In short, throughout American history, it's been more advantageous to have less Native Americans, more African-Americans, and to preserve the whiteness of the dominant culture.
Related resources:
