Australia Census 2021 seeks to understand what it means to be Australian, but ignores the complexities of ancestry

2021/08/10 Leave a comment

Of note. Canadian parallel with 2016 census that no longer included Jewish under ethnic ancestry given not in top 50 (see Technical report on changes in response related to the census ethnic origin question: Focus on Jewish origins, 2016 Census integrated with 2011 National Household Survey):

According to tradition, in 16th century BC, Cecrops, the mythical first king of Athens, conducted a census of his subjects. Each Athenian was compelled to provide a single stone and when these were counted, it was determined that the city contained 20,000 inhabitants.

The 2021 Australian Census is much more complicated in that it asks questions about income, qualifications, education, hours worked, hours assisting those with a disability, hours expended looking after children and significantly, considering the purported multicultural nature of Australian society, questions as to ancestry and language.

It is these latter two questions that give rise to concern. Firstly, there appears to be no question as to ethnic and/or cultural identity on the Census. There is an apparent lack of understanding by those conducting or commissioning the Census that ethnic identity is an issue separate, though ancillary to that of ancestry. For instance, one can be of diverse ancestry and yet identify ethnically in a different manner altogether, according to religious, cultural, linguistic or political factors.

Even if one accepts this lack of appreciation as to the importance of ethnic identity in understanding the Australian population, and its incorrect conflation with ancestry, the ancestry question on the Census provides cause for grave disquiet. In scrolling down the various ancestries listed, ranging from the Anglo-Celtic, to Chinese, Italian and beyond, I was interested to note this time, the omission of Greek. While it is not expedient for a government to list every ancestral group on a census form, it would be interesting to know the reason for the omission of the Greeks, being one of the oldest, historically and numerically significant communities in this country. It may well be that demographic change has seen our numbers (as counted by a census which usually is conducted during a month when significant members of our community are traditionally holidaying in the motherland en masse) diminish. To diminish our prominence and importance is quite another matter altogether, a cursory tale about the use and misuse of statistics in interpreting our multifaceted nature.

There is something deeply disquieting about being compelled to participate in a Census in a multicultural country that involves scrolling down the prescribed list of ancestries and then having to choose a box labelled “Other.” Reinforcing to people of diverse ancestry that they are “Other,” tacitly conveys to them the message that they are considered to be not truly an organic part of this nation’s society, regardless of their citizenship status or place of birth. It would be infinitely more respectful then, if in future censuses, either all known ancestral groups were listed, or better still, that participants, rather than choose from government sanctioned ancestries, are permitted to merely record their ancestral affiliations themselves, instead of being officially termed outsiders and thus by implication, subversive.

Conversely, in permitting the free expression of ancestry under the option “Other,” the government is allowing for a Pandora’s Box of affiliations to emerge. With a debate raging in certain sections of our community with regards to expressing our ancestry as “Hellenic” rather than “Greek,” which is considered by some to be a western imposed term, a course of action that is not recommended given that it will mystify the statisticians of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, who presumably do not have training in cultural anthropology and hinder a true depiction of our numbers, the option “Other,” is also giving rise to a debate about the constituent parts of what it means to be Greek. Some people I have spoken to feel passionately about their Arvanite, Pontian or Vlach ancestry and wonder whether they should record this aspect of their “Greekness” in the census. How are we to interpret the ancestry of someone who claims that they are Cypriot? Do we not need to understand whether they interpret this as being part of the Turkish, Greek, Maronite or Armenian cultural world? Do we consider this as evidence of an emerging identity that contains all, or none of these components? This is precisely the reason why culture and ancestry must be addressed separately in the Census, and why not doing so is problematic, to say the least.

Scrolling down the Census

While I was scrolling down the Census form, seeking to record my Greek ancestry, I noted mentally, the entries for English, Scottish and Irish (but not Welsh), the main ancestries for the dominant group within Australian society. I also noted the term Aboriginal and found this too, disturbing, in that the dominant group appears to be attempting to pigeonhole and compartmentalise a vast and intricately diverse number of cultural and ethnic groups under one blanket term that does nothing to highlight their own uniqueness and if anything, serves to obfuscate their existence. Whether intentional or not, this is a form of racism that should not have any place in any sector of modern Australia, let alone its governing institutions.

To my utmost perplexity, below the entry for Torres Strait Islander, I discovered the term “Australian.” Given the previous entries for “Aboriginals” and “Torres Strait Islanders” what are we to understand from this term? Is it suggesting that our native peoples are not

“Australian?” Considering that all of us except for our native peoples draw their ancestry from outside the Australian continent, the inexplicable inclusion of this contentious term merely serves to highlight the dispossession of our native peoples and the appropriation of their sovereignty and affiliation to the land. Further, it again subtly reminds those who do not share the same ancestry as the members of the dominant group, that they are not “Australian.” The dysphoria and sense of alienation created by such a clumsy rendering of terms again reinforces the need for cultural identity to be distinguished from ancestry on future Census forms and raises questions about the manner in which our governments view our communities.

As was the case in the 2016 Census, in its current iteration, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has made no provision in the question regarding which languages other than English the population speaks, for the possibility that some Australian citizens are multilingual and use a number of languages on a daily basis. Instead, participants may only choose to list one language other than English. This obscures and restricts the gleaning of a true picture of the linguistic heterogeneity of this country. For example, on any given day, my children will be speaking to each other and to me, in Greek. As they move from the kitchen down the hallway towards my wife, they call to her in Assyrian. My wife, on the phone to her mother, will be speaking to her in Arabic, so that the children will not understand a conversation relating to their grandfather’s declining health. Through the telephone, my wife will hear my father-in-law address my mother-in-law in Kurdish, so that in turn, my wife won’t understand what he is saying. Back on the other side of the house, I will be speaking to a client in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic polyphonies of this nature form part and parcel of the polyglot reality of Multiculturalism and the reason as to why there is an official attempt not to capture this statistically is at best, incomprehensible. Furthermore, there is no follow up question as to the level of one’s proficiency in the language claimed to be spoken or indeed, as to which language is the primary language in use. These are both important aspects in interpreting the linguistic demography in this country. For example, while someone may be fluent in English, which language do they use more often and when? How proficient is someone in the language they claim to speak, especially if this is the language of an important political or trading partner? Questions of these nature, vital for the creation of coherent language policy, are completely ignored, suggesting that despite the rhetoric, officials see themselves as presiding over a benign, monolingual monoculture.

Ultimately, the Census says just as much about those who fashion it, as those who participate in it. It is difficult not to conclude that the carefully calibrated narrowness of the questions referring to culture, ancestry and linguistic identity, seem calculated to reinforce a narrative imposed and perpetuated by the ruling echelons of the dominant class. As such, we can be justified in harbouring a lack of confidence in the 2021 Census’ ability to provide us with an accurate depiction of the intricate complexities of our social make up and in being concerned as to the use made of any such flawed statistics, by legislators.

Source: Census Censure: Census 2021 seeks to understand what it means to be Australian, but ignores the complexities of ancestry

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Why ‘Canadian’ shouldn’t be an option on the census

2021/05/14 Leave a comment

If I recall correctly, it was a campaign by the Toronto Star that led to “Canadian” being included in the Census, thus supplanting British and French to a certain degree (pre-internet days). Given the large percentage reporting “Canadian” (just under one-third), unrealistic:

Enumerator: “What origin, Ma’am?”

Lady: “Canadian, of course!”

Enumerator: “But you KNOW we don’t take down Canadian origin.”

Lady: “Well, then! Follow Darwin’s theory, and enter us as descended from apes!”

A century and a half ago, the May 6, 1871 edition of The Canadian Illustrated News ran a comic depicting an enumerator collecting data. The cartoon, with a nod to Charles Darwin’s recently released The Descent of Man, highlights the controversial decision to not allow Canadians to identify as ethnically Canadian.

It’s a controversy worth revisiting as Canadians consider how to describe their own complicated ancestries on the 2021 census. When the cartoon ran, Canadian was disallowed as an ethnic category to prevent the statistical fragmentation of French Canadians. The decision caused controversy, in part because it prevented the term from becoming a measure of inclusion and national unity.

Perhaps the critics were right. Today a Canadian ethnicity is allowed by the census, and it’s the largest single ethnic group in the country. However, 150 years after Confederation, should we consider a third of the country identifying as ethnically Canadian a good thing? Or does a concept of a Canadian ethnicity actually divide us?

The 1867 British North America Act mandated a decennial census, starting in 1871. Although censuses had been conducted previously in colonies that would become part of Canada, they were rudimentary initiatives that produced unreliable statistical portraits. The 1871 census, by contrast, was the first to be conducted using standardized methods and centralized bodies: It was “scientific.”

Despite being characterized as more professional than previous endeavours, the census was “in fact a fundamentalist Catholic ethnic-national project.” As historian and sociologist Bruce Curtis details in The Politics of Population: State Formation, Statistics, and the Census of Canada, 1840-1875, leadership was handed to civil servant and writer Joseph-Charles Taché, a French-Canadian Catholic nationalist who understood that the census was a valuable political tool. With it, he intended to build a “monument” to the existence of the large, unified French-Canadian nation.

The 1871 census was the first to distinguish ethnic origin from birthplace, and enumerators received strict instructions about allowable responses. Mr. Taché understood that, particularly in a heterogeneous society such as Canada, ethnic identities were malleable and fluid. By denying Canadian as an option, he avoided splitting French Canadians into two camps, while denying the term’s use by multiple communities as a unifier. British residents were divided into constituent categories such as English, Welsh or Scottish. Indigenous nations were forced into the singular Indian category, while the only mixed ethnicity that the census recognized was people of mixed European and Indigenous ancestry, who were categorized as “half-breeds.”

Ultimately, Mr. Taché‘s categorizations produced the illusory unity that he wanted: The final reports found that French was the country’s largest ethnic group, and that curiously enough the new country of Canada held no ethnic Canadians. The actual returns reveal numerous examples of respondents attempting to give their ethnicity as Canadian, only to have their answer scratched out and “corrected” by a reviewing enumerator.

Canadians can now select multiple ethnicities to better reflect their heritage, including Canadian. Although the 1986 and 1991 censuses found only 0.5 per cent and 4 per cent respectively were ethnically Canadian, that number shot up to 31 per cent with the 1996 census after Canadian was listed in suggested ethnicities, becoming the fastest growing demographic. This figure has held steady, with 32 per cent of respondents selecting the option in 2016.

Ethnic identities can be difficult to coherently define, and those mulling how to describe their own complex heritages in the most recent census may well find that the term Canadian best encapsulates their sense of self. Research has shown that respondents identifying as Canadian are usually French or British in background. The sudden boom in the mid-1990s of Canadians identifying as ethnically Canadian could be interpreted as a heartening sign of growing connection and national identity, particularly in the aftermath of the 1995 Quebec independence referendum. However, as sociologist Jack Jedwab points out, the trend can also be understood as a manifestation of an ugly “old stock” xenophobic nationalism that’s been long simmering below the surface, and the use or denial of a seemingly unifying term can reinforce tacit lines of belonging and ownership, ultimately undermining intercultural solidarity in Canada.

Canadian multiculturalist discourse and the demise of the two-founding nation thesis alienated some who viewed their national identity as inherently British or French, to the point of, according to sociologist Himani Bannerji, stimulating “white supremacist attitudes.” The fact that respondents identifying as Canadian remain overwhelmingly French and British in heritage points not only to a lingering sense of entitlement and ownership, but also to a sense of exclusion felt by the communities that are not recording themselves as such.

Critics of the 1871 census pointed out that limiting respondents to a single category, while disallowing the answer of Canadian, prevented respondents with ancestors from multiple communities from adequately or accurately communicating their identity or family history. Taché used denial of Canadian ethnicity to force a perceived unity upon Canadians of French descent at the expense of multiethnic realities, ultimately highlighting existing fractures.

The very idea of a Canadian ethnicity, through its use and denial, functions as a tool of othering. Canadians today can give multiple responses to questions about their ethnic identity, helping better capture the kaleidoscopic nature of our national past and present. However, because there are options beyond picking a single category, the availability of the Canadian ethnicity in the census undermines national multicultural ideals, implicitly dividing the country between inheritors and interlopers.

150 years ago, Taché disallowed Canadian for ethno-nationalist reasons. For the sake of multicultural solidarity in the 21st century, we should do the same thing, albeit under different motives. It has lost any unifying function it would have held in 1871 and should be delisted as an option.

If diversity is indeed Canada’s strength, we should do away with ideas of a Canadian ethnicity.

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-canadian-shouldnt-be-an-option-on-the-census/

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Caribbean immigrants finally get to say where they’re from in Census. They aren’t alone

2020/03/06 Leave a comment

Ethnic ancestry has been in the Canadian census for a long time:

When the U.S. Census rolls out on March 12, Caribbean immigrants like Felicia Persaud will get to do something many have wanted to do ever since they filled out their first questionnaire: identify themselves beyond race.

The 2020 Census will mark two firsts: people will be able to primarily fill out online, and will be able to note their ethnic identity or nation of origin while still choosing their race.

“We can actually begin to tell our story in some numbers, which we are not able to do right now, at all. It’s just sort of a guesstimate,” said Persaud, a Plantation resident and Caribbean activist who in 2008 launched CaribID 2010, a lobbying effort to get Congress to add a special Caribbean or West Indian category on the census.

Caribbean immigrants from Haiti, Jamaica and elsewhere have long argued that their communities — often lumped in with African Americans — were under-counted and much more diverse than what was being reflected in the Census. The community’s inability to provide a true count has affected everything from the power of its vote, to organizations’ and businesses’ ability to get sponsorship, advertising or contracts from corporations, Caribbean nationals have noted over the years.

“They dismiss you and say, ‘You’re too small; you’re not part of the mainstream; we can’t tell your numbers,’ “ said Persaud, speaking from personal experience as a Guyanese-born media entrepreneur and founder of Invest Caribbean Now, which connects investors with opportunities in the region. “It leaves us completely disrespected; completely ignored and dismissed.

“You feel it all of the time. You see it in this presidential debate and in every election cycle,” she added. “You never hear anything about the Caribbean voter. You hear consistently about the black voter. But you never hear anything about us at all until [the candidates] come to Florida and decide they need to have these Caribbean people come and join us.”

South Florida is home to one of the fastest growing Caribbean-American populations in the United States. The non-Hispanic Caribbean population is estimated at 861,560 in Miami-Dade County, with Haitians leading the growth followed by Jamaicans, according to the 2017 American Community Survey, the questionnaire run by the U.S. Census Bureau. In Broward County, the estimate is 265,278, with Jamaicans slightly ahead of Haitians, 86,845 to 80,201, respectively.

Further north in Palm Beach County, the Caribbean community’s 150,343 nationals are mostly from Haiti, with 70,197, followed by Jamaicans at 24,212.

“I am hoping that Caribbean nationals will identify themselves,” said Broward County Mayor Dale Holness, the first Jamaican-American to hold the position. “The significance is that we will be counted and recognized as a force that’s here and our numbers will show what we do. It will benefit us to the extent that entities looking to see who we are and what we are about, will be able to then use those numbers to recognize the contributions we’re making to build this great nation.”

Though the Census Bureau first began allowing individuals to self-identify more than one race in its 2000 survey, the fight to get self-identification on ethnicity, similar to what Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans have been able to do since the 1970 Census, did not come easy.

Throughout their push, Caribbean activists were met with angst and resistance, especially from African Americans. Vocal black activists argued that a separate non-Hispanic Caribbean category would dilute the black community’s numbers and the amount of federal funds they may be entitled to based on Census data, which is collected every 10 years.

“That has not really been the case because Caribbean nationals are not just black,” Persaud said. “There are a whole lot of cultural and mix up that goes on there and the only thing that brings us together is when we say, ‘We are from the Caribbean,’ whether you’re from Haiti, or Guyana or Jamaica.“

The new write-in question, number 9 on the 2020 Census form, which is opened to everyone, is a compromise and was made administratively by the Census Bureau.

“There were a whole lot of problems we had to face in this lobbying effort,” Persaud said. “So we decided we were going to settle for this, and we would accept this. And so this form is coded to read those ancestries or nationalities that are written in there.

“We were just happy to be able to get something to start, especially in this administration, because we weren’t sure it was even going to happen even though the national [Census] committee had approved the form in 2018.”

From concerns about the digital roll-out to questions about a potential under-count, this year’s constitutionally mandated count has not been immune from controversy.

Lawsuits erupted last year when the Trump administration proposed asking, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” on the survey. Community leaders and immigration activists from around the United States argued that allowing the question would lead to an inaccurate count.

In June 2019, the Supreme Court decided not to allow the citizenship question on the form, a decision that was consistent with the recommendations of every U.S. secretary of commerce dating back to 1950.

Now with the Census just days away — households will begin receiving a card on March 12 inviting them to go online or to call a number with 13 languages available to fill out the form — activists and organizations are pushing people to “stand up and be counted.”

“It’s intense this year and our push is to get people to complete the Census. We are not going to be picky,” said Gepsie Metellus, the executive director of Sant La Neighborhood Center, which provides social services to the Haitian-American community in Miami. “Given the president’s comments and statements, policies and tactics, what we are simply focused on is getting people to count and to count everyone in their household.”

Still, Gepsie, an early supporter of the CaribID 2010 campaign, applauds this year’s write-in opportunity.

“It’s about ensuring that we have a decent texture of the Haitian communities throughout the United States, ensuring that bilingual education and resources are properly allocated, and having an idea how many people are likely to become citizens after they pass their five-year requirements,” she said. “All of these resources’ implications have been at the basis for our push to get people to identify themselves.”

In addition to being used to allocate an estimated $1.5 trillion a year in federal funding based on states’ population counts, Census data is used to redraw voting districts and redistribute congressional seats and votes in the Electoral College.

Households that fail to fill out their forms will receive two additional reminders. Those who still fail to respond will receive a paper form in the mail they can fill out with pen or pencil. By mid-May, volunteers will also be fanning out to collect data.

“Right now, we want people to go online. They can either do it from their smart phone, tablet or laptop,” said Andrea Robinson, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau Atlanta region. “We have governments that will also have phone banks, either at their offices or libraries. We are partnering with different civic organizations, churches and community leaders, ministers, priests, imams , rabbis, a host of people who have agreed to help us to make it as easy as possible.”

After years of being in the “other category,” when filling out the form, Persaud, who is black and Asian, said she is looking forward to for the first time also claiming her other identity. “I am Guyanese. That’s my ancestry and nationality.“

Source: Caribbean immigrants finally get to say where they’re from in Census. They aren’t alone

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

USA: 2020 Census May Ask White People To Get Specific About Their Ethnicity | 90.1 FM WABE

2017/12/02 Leave a comment

Canada has collected ethnic origin/ancestry data for over 30 years:

“White” has been a constant of the U.S. census.

Other racial categories for the national headcount have come and gone over the centuries. But “white” has stuck ever since U.S. Marshals went door-to-door by horseback for the first census in 1790, tallying up the numbers of “free white males” and “free white females,” plus “all other free persons” and “slaves.”

Census takers determined who counted as “white” or any other race. That changed in 1960, when U.S. residents were first allowed to self-report their race. Since then, just answering “white” has been enough to respond to the race question.

But the upcoming census in 2020 may ask those who identify as white to explore their family tree to share their ethnic background as well. Anyone who checks off the “white” box could also mark boxes for groups such as “German,” “Irish” and “Polish” or write in another option.

That change depends partly on whether the White House approves proposals to modify how the federal government collects race and ethnicity data. They originated when President Obama was still in office, and now it’s up to the Trump administration to approve or reject them. If approved, the Census Bureau may move forward with this new way of asking people of all races about their identities on the 2020 questionnaire.

Friday is the deadline for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which sets standards for this kind of data for all federal agencies, to announce its decisions on the proposals. Any policy changes would come at a time of heightened awareness of white nationalist calls against multiculturalism and growing partisan divides over issues about race in the U.S.

Research by the Census Bureau suggests the proposals could produce a more accurate count in 2020. In a report released in February, the bureau’s researchers write that the suggested changes are responding to a public “call for more detailed, disaggregated data for our diverse American experiences as German, Mexican, Korean, Jamaican, and myriad other identities.”

‘It could change the discussion’

Asking white people about their ethnic background is not a new concept for the census. Recent census forms, including the questionnaire used in 2010, have asked all recipients about their ethnicity specifically in terms of “Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.” A question about a person’s ancestry or ethnic origin was first included in the 1980 Census and remained on some forms as recently as 2000. Past forms have asked for a person’s place of birth, the countries where the person’s mother and father were born and languages spoken other than English.

via 2020 Census May Ask White People To Get Specific About Their Ethnicity | 90.1 FM WABE

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,