Is this a proper way to identify a certian group of Americians

[Salty]

The 2010 Census, has included "Negro" as an ID for Race.

Good, Bad, Indifferent

Thoughts?

Salty

 

[Johnv]

"Negro" as an ID for Race.

Not exactly. The box says "Black, African American, Negro". In that context, there's nothign remotely inappropriate about it.

 

[targus]

Not exactly. The box says "Black, African American, Negro". In that context, there's nothign remotely inappropriate about it.

Not a big deal - it simply looks like an attempt to provide those of a particular race alternative choices in self identifying.

 

[donnA]

looks like they are giving choices to cover whatever you may call yourself in your part of the country. not everyone in all parts of the country use the same self identifying terms.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I'm far more concerned that the census is asking any questions about race, when the Constitution clearly states that the only purpose of the census is to count the number of people, not gather demographic information.

But, as for the word "negro", itself, I don't see what the problem is. If you're not a negro, then just don't check that box.

 

[Salty]

I'm far more concerned that the census is asking any questions about race, when the Constitution clearly states that the only purpose of the census is to count the number of people, not gather demographic information.

But, as for the word "Negro", itself, I don't see what the problem is. If you're not a Negro, then just don't check that box.

Well, actually, the system is used to insure minorities receive adequate representation. In other words, if there is a large number of a specific minority in a certain area, then the State or Commonwealth, must make a district so that group will not be anti-gerrymandered.

Whether that is right or wrong is a another story

Salty

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Well, actually, the system is used to insure minorities receive adequate representation.

Really? Where is that creative explanation in the Constitution?

It has nothing to do with minorities. It has to do with determining the number of people in a represented district.

In other words, if there is a large number of a specific minority in a certain area, then the State or Commonwealth, must make a district so that group will not be anti-gerrymandered.

Nonsense.

Whether that is right or wrong is a another story

Salty

One glimpse of the Constitution should tell you that it's wrong. The Constitution only says that the government is to count heads, not collect demographic information in order to cater to minorities.

 

[David Michael Harris]

A study is needed on the the word Negro.

Thing is the word has come to be used as a derogative term. My best friend in school was a darker color to me and it meant nothing. I was not like him as he was not to me.

We all have built in prejudice that we need to overcome.

Just because we are white we think we are better? It's a terrible thought.

We think that we are normal and all others are to be labeled? Something is wrong!

We read in James about treating people differently because of clothing and social status, what about skin color, it's equally as wrong and needs to be repented from.

 

[Johnv]

One glimpse of the Constitution should tell you that it's wrong. The Constitution only says that the government is to count heads, not collect demographic information in order to cater to minorities.

History says differently.


The first census was in 1790, and it had the following information:

1. Name of head of family
2. Number of free white males 16 and up, including heads of families
3. Number of free white males under 16
4. Number of free white females including heads of families
5. Number of all other free persons, except Indians not taxed
6. Number of slaves

The second census was in 1800, and it had the following information:

1. Name of the head of family
2. # of free white males under age 10
3. # of free white males age 10-16
4. # of free white males age 16-26
5. # of free white males age 26-45
6. # of free white males over age 45
7. # of free white females under age 10
8. # of free white females age 10-16
9. # of free white females age 16-26
10. # of free white females age 26-45
11. # of free white females over age 45
12. # of all other free persons
13. # of slaves

There's no records of any of the Framers of the Constitution objecting to these censes. Additionally, the existence of the Three Fifths Compromise refutes the notion that the Constitution limits the census to the counting of heads only.

 

[carpro]

The 2010 Census, has included "Negro" as an ID for Race.

Good, Bad, Indifferent

Thoughts?

Salty

Properly so.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

History says differently.

Don't care.

There's no records of any of the Framers of the Constitution objecting to these censes.

Don't care. If they had wanted to gather demographic information, then they would have written that into the Constitution, instead of specifying that the census is for enumerating citizens.

Additionally, the existence of the Three Fifths Compromise refutes the notion that the Constitution limits the census to the counting of heads only.

How so?

Of course not, because doing so would require you to disregard your position.

No, because we're talking about what the Constitution says, not what people have done without regard to what the Constitution says.

The Three Fifths Compromise apportioned representation of blacks differently than whites.

No it didn't. Representation was apportioned by the overall population of a state.

Since the Constitution says representation shall be determined by census, they obviously would need to know the population of blacks as well as nonblacks, thus refuting your claim that the Constitution forbids counting of anything other than heads.

Actually, this doesn't refute the Framer's original intent because, as I have explained to you over and over, the way the Constitution works is by a principle known as "specific enumeration". What this means is that the government can only do what the Constitution specifically states that it can do. In other words, again, if the Constitution states that the government has the authority to do "X", it does not have to state that the government does not have the authority to do "Y" because this is already implicit in the lack of "Y" in the enumerated authorities of the government.

 

[Johnv]

Don't care.

Of course not, because doing so would require you to disregard your position.

How so?

The Three Fifths Compromise apportioned representation of blacks differently than whites. Since the Constitution says representation shall be determined by census, they obviously would need to know the population of blacks as well as nonblacks, thus refuting your claim that the Constitution forbids counting of anything other than heads.