Does Your Country Count The Jews?
Many USAers have already filled out their census forms. Or are at least thinking about it. Or have at least taken the form and added it to their pile of mail to be dealt with later. (Seriously, fill it out and send it back. It’s good for you, your community, your neighbourhood, your city, your state… And I hear it gives you whiter teeth and shinier hair.)
The buzz around the Jewish community, at least if I’m to take various listservs I’m on as representative of the larger American Jewish community, is what to do about “race” and Jews. Of the 29 races listed, none represent Jews (or Arabs). Jews aren’t sure how to fill this out. The problem, really, is that the US government is asking for “race,” not ethnicity, not nationality, not heritage… It’s not surprising that Jews aren’t listed as a race – we’re not a race. Arguments can, and have, been made for Jews as ethnicity, as culture, and certainly as religion, but as a racial group? No. So some people are writing in “Jewish” next to “other” in race. But is that accurate? And does the government need to know, or should it know, how many Jews live within its borders anyway?
By contrast, Canada does the census differently when it comes to Jews. First, it should be noted that the Canadian census does have a section on religion, unlike the US census. Canada’s census asks folks to check off their religion, with a dozen options, then a fill in the blank for others. Years ago, Jews (rabbis, academics, the establishment) were consulted on how to count the Jews. It was decided that Jewish would appear twice: under “religion” and under “ethnicity.” (You can choose more than one ethnicity, I believe.) You’re considered Jewish, according to the census, and with the agreement of the above-mentioned experts who were consulted, if you: check Jewish for religion but not for ethnicity; Jewish for religion and ethnicity; Jewish for ethnicity but don’t put a religion; Jewish for ethnicity and put a religion that one doesn’t have to convert to to follow (like Buddhism). You would not be counted as Jewish if, say, you checked Jewish for ethnicity but put Catholic for religion. The Canadian census does not ask for race. As noted, we’re asked about ethnicity. But it’s not left with one question. Instead of “race,” there are two questions, I believe (it’s been 9 years – cut me some slack!): “ethnicity of origin,” from which you can check from a list or add in an “other”; and then a separate question on if you consider yourself a “visible minority,” with various options to check for that, along with a fill in the blank “other.” The Canadian census happens in years ending in 1 (with a smaller census, fewer questions, happening in years ending in 6). So we’ll see what it yields next year.
Both countries have separation of religion and state. So why does one ask explicitly about religion (including Jews) while the other doesn’t? I’m guessing that, in part, it has to do with Canadians trusting that the religion information is being collected to see how diverse we are, and not to be used for some Evil Reason. Which is the same reason we’re asked about ethnicity or income or number of people in a family or household. It’s just another measure of diversity. But it’s also helpful for provinces like Quebec, where Jewish (and other religious) day schools are subsidized by the province. Or for those provinces that accept rulings from a beis din (or from Islamic sharia councils) for certain legal matters. Yes, these are still both within the Canadian definition of “separation of church and state,” because all religions are weighed equally. Catholic schools in Quebec are subsidized alongside Jewish and Muslim. Acknowledging that most Western law is heavily Christian-centric, the government allows for Jewish and Muslim legal systems to hold weight as well. Separate from state while allowing for religious pluralism. By contrast, my sense of “separation of church and state” in the US is that Christians need the reminder, and that other religious groups aren’t really considered at all by the state. The two outlooks yield very different results, and different reasons for separation.
I don’t think it’s a problem to ask about religion or ethnicity. I don’t think it’s a problem to fill out those answers either. (I also support the right of individuals to leave questions blank on a census.) But I’m curious: what do other countries do? Does your country count the Jews?
Religion & state not so separate in Canada…
While in Quebec, Jewish & Muslim schools are subsidized alongside Catholic schools, in other provinces, only Catholics receive free religious education.
For example, in Ontario, Catholic schools are 100% funded from K-12. By contrast, Jewish day schools receive no funding, and parents of Jewish children in day school still pay the tax for everyone else’s. The state clearly favours Catholicism over all other religions, and its a shameful stain on Canada.
I’m more perturbed by that fact that “Arab” isn’t asked about. It just doesn’t make sense.
@Josh, AFAIK, there hasn’t been a court challenge about this in Ontario. In Quebec there was, which led to the funding of other religions’ schools as well. This is what happens when education, and the funding for it, is determined by each province. The federal government cannot mandate that all provinces follow Quebec’s model, unless a federal court case brought that argument.
(It should be noted that any student, Catholic of not, can attend Catholic schools in Ontario. As a kid, my best friend always tried to get me to enrol there so we could go to school together.)
The Canadian census does not ask for race.
Isn’t that in part because Canada doesn’t have racially-based, anti-white affirmative action legislation like the U.S. does?
Race is entirely a social construct anyway. It’s always arbitrarily defined. I, for one, am pleased that it is not listed as a race (mostly because it isn’t).
@DK, No, I would say that it’s because, as ML pointed out in the comments, and as sociologists and anthropologists and numerous scientists do as well, “race” is hard to define, may or may not be an accurate term. Ethnicity of origin works for these purposes, and is clearer than “race.”
For what it’s worth, the specific instructions on who fits into each “race” in the US can be found at:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68178.htm
A history of religion questions on the US Census is at:
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-appendix3.pdf
Apparently Jews used to be identified as such on the U.S. census, with Hebrew given as their race. Not sure exactly when or how this changed, though I’m thinking it was sometime in the first half of the 20th century.
Listening to all these Ashkenazi Jews on Facebook and elsewhere handwring about “OMG what race should I mark?” makes me roll my eyes. Seriously people? You really can’t deal with the fact that in America you are, for all intents and purposes, white? You have to have some extra special racial category so as to dissociate yourself from white privilege despite the fact that you have it in spades? Jewish is not a race. Jews come in all races. If you’re a Black Jew, mark Black. If you’re a white Jew, mark white. If you’re a mixed-race Jew, mark that accordingly. and so on and so forth. I would love if there was a religion question, but there isn’t. I believe Judaism is more than a religion, but I don’t believe it is a race – The multiracial nature of my Jewish community is proof of that.
I also find it strange that people of Arab or Middle Eastern descent are supposed to count themselves as white (or Asian?) when they are generally treated as a separate racial category, socially speaking, and often identify as such.
The race question is inane. Fill in “American” and be done with the nonsense.
Yes, these are still both within the Canadian definition of “separation of church and state,” because all religions are weighed equally.
Except that the head of state must be a member of the Church of England…
I have a comment stuck in the filter (probably too many links) that links to stuff talking about the history of a religion question in the US Census and on who is supposed to be classified as what in the “race” category.
I’ll also note that this big push to put down “American” seems to stem from 2008 election prediction work by Nate Silver that showed sections of the country with high numbers of people writing in “American” were linked to strong anti-Obama voting (i.e. Appalachia). While I don’t like writing down my race, it does have a purpose. It’s a very rough marker of groups that have been historically discriminated against and knowing the rough populations of these groups is really the only way to figure out whether/how much discrimination still occurs.
The “American” category popular in Appalachia is for “ancestry” (not a question on the 2010 census), not race.
Stop feeding the obsession with “race”: AMERICAN.
(And if you don’t want to be associated with “strong anti-Obama voting” write something like Andaman Islander or Maori.)
PLEASE END the race obsession!!!
[Dan, I found your comment – yup, it was trapped in the spam filter, but it’s up there now.]
scholars like jon efron and eric goldstein theorize Jewish-Americans and Race
BZ, thanks for the correction regarding ancestry. Perhaps this is one of the reason for these discussions this year. The removal of the ancestry question forces people to put more weight on the race question.
Eric, America’s “obesssion” with race will continue as long as racial differences correlate with differences in hiring, promotion, health care access, education, and poverty. Not collecting data on race, don’t stop racism and doesn’t stop racial disparities. I look forward to the day when those end and we really can stop asking about race.
I look forward to the day when those end and we really can stop asking about race.
Also, the day when we’ll no longer need to go to Florida, to convince all of those racist bubbies–who have no life experience to go by in making decisions–that it’s ok to vote for an African-American presidential candidate.
>>“Eric, America’s “obesssion” with race will continue as long as racial differences correlate with differences in hiring, promotion, health care access, education, and poverty. Not collecting data on race, don’t stop racism and doesn’t stop racial disparities. I look forward to the day when those end and we really can stop asking about race.”
Dan, lots of things “correlate” with “differences in hiring, promotion, health care access,” etc. etc. The country has been obsessively collecting racial data for four decades. And it’s done…..how much good? So maybe the benefits will finally kick in during the fifth and sixth decades?…. Faith springs eternal.
If you believe that “Not collecting data on race, don’t stop racism and doesn’t stop racial disparities”, I’d say we can conclude after 40 years that collecting data on race certainly doesn’t stop racism or racial disparities.
Maybe it’s time to try a new strategy?
Actually the US Census has been collecting race information since 1790 (White or Black (free/slave). Asian and American Indians were added in 1860. Hispanics were first sampled in 1940 and fulled added to the survey in 1960.
See: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html
You seem to have a tenuous grasp on how this information is currently and historically collected and used. As for stopping racism, it’s far some stopped, but could you find someone who lived through those years who thinks racism hasn’t significantly lessened over that period.
Of course racism has collapsed over that period. And you think the reason is that the government keeps asking about everybody’s race??!
But above you argued that the government needs to collect racial data because racial differences still “correlate with differences in hiring, promotion, health care access, education, and poverty.” So racism has “significantly lessened” but…. not that much?
Considering that the government has been collecting racial Census data for centuries, and full civil rights weren’t guaranteed until 40 years ago I see at least one correlation: the collection of racial information is correlated with racial oppression.
Either that or we can surmise: the collection of racial data generates no benefit regarding societal levels of racism.
I know the Census data is used in every possible way by sociologists, corporations, politicians and bureaucrats seeking demographic insight, commercial gain, political victory and social perfection. But maybe we’d be doing ourselves a favor by withholding one of their favorite precious data points…. and loosening the compulsive racial grip from everybody’s mind.
Considering that the government has been collecting racial Census data for centuries, and full civil rights weren’t guaranteed until 40 years ago I see at least one correlation: the collection of racial information is correlated with racial oppression.
If only they had stopped collecting racial data 100 years ago, so we could have full civil rights sooner!
Or for that matter, stopped collecting astronomical data.
10 years ago I believe Hispanic was a race. Now it is a seperate question. Also, in this census one can mark as many races as apply, as opposed to previously, when one could only check a Mixed box. You are also free to write whatever you wish if you choose Other. The racial divisions are pretty arbitrary. A person of Luo ancestry and a person of Yoruba ancestry would both be grouped under “African-American”, but there is no great genetic, cultural, or linguistic similarities to tie them together under this designation.
But on this census, you are free to write in Martian, Eurafrican, Asialicious, Hobbit, or whatever such racial identity you wish to create for yourself. It’s all imaginary anyway, even if those labels do have an effect on the real world.
Could anyone explain to me WHY we would want the government counting the Jews? Maybe it’s just me, but having information collected on who and where all the Jews live is not exactly desirable by any stretch.
Once in my life (and I’m 63) I filled out a form that asked for your ethnicity and one of the choices was “Ashkenazi Jew.”
I was so happy. I check it with a flourish. As a result of that form, I smiled all day. I’ve told the story of that form many times since.
It was for a DNA screening, adding folk to the master database, in case they needed someone special for a bone marrow donation or some such thing.
No wonder.
Eric
I see at least one correlation: the collection of racial information is correlated with racial oppression.
The only relationship I see is between poor math and statistics education and an inability to understand proper applications of correlation. I could pile on to BZ’s examples, but this is getting a bit silly.
You really don’t seem to understand that these data are used to assess HOW things are changing and what actions are leading to positive changes. Without the data, our understanding is based only on anecdote. It’s like saying if we stop collecting hospital mortality data we’ll no longer need to be obsessed with why people die in hospitals.
Shmuel
It’s all imaginary anyway, even if those labels do have an effect on the real world.
Whether intended or note, I think this sentence is the paradox of race issues. In many ways they are imaginary, but they have real world effects. Something with real world effects can’t be simply imaginary. I agree with you that there are hundreds of ways that we can divide and subdivide people into races. The current method is a combination of historical precedent and labels that seem to help us understand how this “imaginary” construct interacts with the world. Perhaps other labels would be more useful, but good luck figure out what those labels are and how to get people using them.
Chag Sameach y’all
…thing is – to get back to the original conversation is that not only are there Jews of many ethnic groups (European, Arab, African – yes, definitely an Ethnic group in the US, due to slavery – Asian) by birth, but that you can opt in or out of the group at any given moment, unlike, say, Pacific Islanders, who cannot stop being Pacific Islanders even if they try really really hard.
So *if* we’re an ethnic group then that means (a) margnializing converts in and (b) patronizing converts out. BUT it also means the bogeyman of “intermarriage” and the “disappearance of the Jewish people” is gone forever (just like nobody really worries about the disappearance of the Pacific Islanders). So take your pick.