Ban race from the U.S. Census

The ultimate antidote to Woke racism! 

The Werkes shuns focus groups. Should he be summoned to one of CNN’s televised town halls, the Head Groundskeeper would quickly unfocus the proceedings. We don’t need to learn what is popular before we decide what to say.

U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, its seems to us, says what he thinks needs to be said before it’s safe to be said. Thus do leaders lead. We’ve had Presidents like that, in days past.

Scott, a former Republican governor of Florida, has an 11-point “Rescue America” plan. The Werkes finds much to like, such as quit teaching critical race theory. (Rather than defend it, proponents allege this race hate is not being taught in the first place and if you think otherwise, you’re suffering from white privilege.)

More provocatively, Sen. Scott says all Americans should pay some income tax, if only pennies. We call that skin in the game. Which is a pretty ballsy position to take because Scott chairs the committee charged with electing more Republican senators. (The senator details his tussle with Mitch McConnell over that one.)

Black & white silhouettes

Ban the race box

Speaking of skin in the game, Rick Scott is the first office holder we know who proposes “banning the box” on race: “Government will not ask American citizens to disclose their race, ethnicity, or skin color on any government form.” Starts with the U.S. Census, which now offers more flavors than Baskin Robbins. This long has been a platform here at the Policy Werkes. (“Are you now or have you ever been Guamanian?” No, but don’t rule it out!)

Which is why this blogge does not capitalize “black.” We don’t capitalize white, brown, or yellow, either. Those are colors, not nationalities. America quit determining negroes from mulattos from quadroons and octoroons 100 years ago! Not to mention “melungians“! Can we take the next step?

→ “Capitalizing ‘Black’ isn’t wrong but isn’t that helpful, either. — John McWhorter.

→ “Race is a toxic social construction.” — Henry Louis Gates.

Remove the box on the census form and you decapitate all the identity-based programs dividing America. (Reparations for Oprah Winfrey? Sorry, too many Asians?)

“We will stop dividing people by race, skin color, ethnicity, or country of origin, which is an immoral and corrosive habit of the woke crowd. We simply do not give a damn what color anyone’s skin is.” — U.S. Sen. Rick Scott.

Never mind the Pacific islanders

An accomplished liberal and friendly acquaintance — a household name in Madison — argues how would schools, for instance, know whether they’re doing a good job teaching black kids? The Werkes counters: Do black kids all look alike? Think alike? Act alike? Blaska, the write-in candidate for Seat #4 on the school board, doubts there is a black way to teach or a white way to learn. Pretending so invites the disparate treatment that civil rights leaders once fought. And that inculcates the victimhood excuse rather than expecting full agency over one’s future.

The obsession with race has led educrats and social justice warriors to conflate correlation with causation. If you’re administering beatdowns to classmates or mastering calculus, what difference does skin color make? Even the Census Bureau admits, “An individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification.”

Blaska’s Bottom Line: Despite two white parents, maybe Rachel Dolezal really is black or melungian. Might be a man, for that matter. Or Guamanian.

Frankly, my dear, do YOU give a damn?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Race, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Ban race from the U.S. Census

  1. sentient7 says:

    And your bold courage to abolish the “Indian Healthcare Service”?
    … tribal gambling monopolies?
    …UW financial aid based on RACE and/or Tribal (blood quantum) ?
    …and all other vestiges of racial identity markers?

    ….waiting patiently.

    Like

    • David Blaska says:

      You can wait till hell freezes over, as long as you do it patiently. Think real hard, sentient7. How do the Indian tribes differ from, say, pale Norwegians or black Americans? Might it have something to do with their status as legally recognized nations with some sovereignty? In other words, not due to race but to treaties between nations. To any extent that it is due to race, re-read the blog.

      You are now a micro-curie smarter than when you entered the Stately Manor. You are welcome.

      Like

      • sentient7 says:

        White boys should read the treaties. NUTTIN in them about IHS, racial preferences for college funding from funds collected from ALL races of Wisconsin taxpayers. There are many racial carve-outs that have nothing to do with the treaties. So, those “legal” carve-outs for special treatment by race are not rooted in treaties.
        Second, treaties are not sacrosanct. Look at how Versailles was changed; how many treaties after WWI were modified or abrogated. Or, even consider the case of Eastern European nations.
        Do you support the universality of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Either we are equal before the law, or we are not. Simple idea, even for an ex-PR-man.

        Like

  2. One eye says:

    Since you brought it up …. I identify as a pale Norwegian! Tall, dark and handsome I ain’t.
    For this reason I think we need MORE skin color designations! I figure 108 minimum. Also texture and decrepitude variations.

    I want to get reimbursed for being unattractive.

    You can also expect a small windfall with my plan. Our Mayor as well. You’re welcome.

    Liked by 1 person

    • sentient7 says:

      As the Cap Times claimed by quoting Tom Paine: The world is my country and all men are my brothers.
      OK, so this means NO special legal standing of A more than B. Yet, consider the entire legal structure of “indians” as though their racial identity should make a difference. NON-RACISTS assume it should not and it does not. Yet, in the US today, the contradiction is glaring.

      Like

  3. Normwegian says:

    During lent, I choose to identify as Irish.

    Like

  4. Marc Eisen says:

    Ending racial categorization on the census strikes me more as an act of evasion than a solution to racial disparities. The core issue—and it is touchy one—is whether racism explains all disparities. Or are there other factors that need to be looked at, too? It’s a basic question but rarely asked.

    Like

    • David Blaska says:

      No, the real question is does racism explain ANY disparities. For those who think so, they could avail themselves of the multitude of adjudicators provided in local, state and federal law.

      Like

      • Rollie says:

        False; they can not avail themselves because our law requires we prove intent, and intent is almost impossible to prove (how to prove what’s in a man’s heart?). It’s a tangent, but I personally support removing intent from our legal system all-together.

        It is evasion. I support doing away with race categories, but only after we achieve a reasonable semblance of post-racial progress. It’s like solving endangered species problems by stopping counting them. There are loads of studies that show disparities by race after controlling for other factors (meaning race is the only plausible explanation).

        Most people I’ve seen on this blog explain this by saying that it’s individuals’ choices that cause the disparity, not racism. Thus they say that there’s a higher proportion of people who make choices that lead to negative disparities in certain non-white populations than in white populations. Thus they say that there’s something inherent within those non-white populations that leads to poorer choices more often being made. Thus they say that these populations are inferior to white culture. Thus white supremacy.

        They leave off all the parts I wrote after “not racism”, but I’ve yet to see any claim that proves that the other statements which I wrote don’t logically follow. I eagerly await someone to point out a flaw in the logic. Which statement does not follow from the preceding statement? I too wish that racism didn’t exist and didn’t explain things in the world around us. We’ll get there someday but it’ll take longer if we stop challenging each other and deny racism exists and impacts our society.

        Like

        • One eye says:

          The logical conclusion is Asian supremacy not white supremacy. But of course it is illogical to see it through race in the first place.

          More accurate to characterize it as delayed gratification, hard work and discipline, living within your means supremacy, or something to that effect.

          Like

        • David Blaska says:

          As with most law, the defendant is not presumed guilty just because a cause of action is filed. Discrimination cases, however, allow the claimant a much broader broom than would be allowed in a criminal matter. That includes circumstantial evidence allowing an inference or presumption. Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2012). “Circumstantial evidence can include suspicious timing, inappropriate remarks, and comparative evidence of systematically more favorable treatment toward similarly situated [individuals] not sharing the protected characteristic….” Loyd v. Phillips Bros., Inc., 25 F.3d 518, 522 (7th Cir. 1994); accord Troupe v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 20 F.3d 734, 736 (7th Cir. 1994).

          Statistics can also be offered. “For example, statistics can be used show that an ostensibly race-neutral action actually causes a pattern of discrimination, a racially disproportionate impact, or foreseeably discriminatory results. While statistical evidence is not required to demonstrate intentional discrimination, plaintiffs often successfully use statistics to support, along with other types of evidence, a claim of intentional discrimination.”

          https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual6#PID

          Like

        • Rollie says:

          To Mr. Blaska: thank you for that information, I will look into that. I retract my statement regarding intent pending more research. (Though I will say you probably need a lot of $$$ to fight these cases, but it’s not like the ACLU is lacking funding 😉

          To One Eye: Exactly. To determine why we see disparities on these attributes between American racial categories when controlling for other factors: Proponents of individual-focused theory essentially argue that these traits you describe, at the population level, are internal to people of the various races and not impacted by external factors. Proponents of external-focused theory (like CRT) essentially argue that these traits you describe, at the population level, are caused by external factors and not inherent to the people of various races themselves.

          One theory is a racial (white, asian, whatever) supremacy based theory, while the other assumes that there is no inherent supremacy between the races and the observed conditions are due to historical and current societal factors.

          Either way one begins with an assumption: the races are equal or they are not. I base my understanding of the world on the assumption that the races are equal, forcing me to conclude that it’s external (not internal) factors that best explain the observed disparities (like CRT says).

          Remember I’m talking about the population level – either approach allows that there are a range of unique people within a population, some smart, some dumb, some successful, some failures, some fast, some slow, etc.

          Like

        • Mordecai The Red says:

          “I support doing away with race categories, but only after we achieve a reasonable semblance of post-racial progress.”

          What exactly is that and what does it look like? So many people, especially the left-leaning, throw these buzzwords around endlessly but rarely offer specifics or how we would measure said progress. If the endgame is equal outcomes across the races, you’re in for endless disappointment. I believe in equal opportunity (within reason), but that’s where it ends. I do not want legislated corrections to bring the outcomes of one race on par with another—and that goes for my own as well. Grant equal opportunities and let everyone use their own abilities and work ethic to their own advantage after that.

          Whatever post-racial progress is, we’re clearly headed in the wrong direction now. Growing up, I was taught to see character traits instead of race with the idea that those traits were what defined a person. Recently, we’ve switched course to perpetuating the idea that race defines a person above all else. I reject this idea outright, and those who disagree can hurl whatever slander they like at ,e for it. My race does not define me. If race does define a person, there are some very unsavory lengths that idea can be taken to, such as holding an entire race accountable for the crimes of a few of its members. Others out there are free to wallow in self-imposed guilt if they like, but I am not responsible for anyone’s actions except my own.

          Like

        • Rollie says:

          To Mordecai:
          I personally think we’d reach a reasonable level of post racial progress once infant mortality is within +\- 15% across races. I don’t mind distilling it down to just that. But others may have different opinions.

          I don’t know how else to explain the observed conditions, I’m sorry. I’m open to hearing others’ explanations for why we still see disparities across race. If it’s not racism, and not racial supremacy, I don’t know why it is.

          We have not switched course. Race much more strongly defined a person’s opportunities in the past compared to now, and we’ve made progress over the years. Things are getting better, but that doesn’t mean it’s solved, and the data shows it’s not solved. I’m happy to hear that you were raised so nicely, but it’s a fact that only decades ago school children were being spit upon and terribly harassed because of their race. Those people are still living and I have a hard time believing that they raised their children in the same way you were raised and that they don’t see the color of anyone’s skin.

          Just because we legislate equal opportunity doesn’t mean people follow that. If if were that simple we wouldn’t have murder. Not to mention the dilemma of multi-generational inheritance complicating the goal of “Grant equal opportunities and let everyone use their own abilities and work ethic to their own advantage after that.” We’re not starting from nothing, who and what we are is built upon the past and shaped by society.

          Thank you for the conversation.

          Like

        • georgessson says:

          These are all “Choices”, Rollie:

          How about the lack of a complete family? How about many family members not having/pursuing gainful employment? Family members/extended family being under warrants, plus multiple pending cases? Nuthin’ at all to do w/ White Supremacy.

          When obvious beneficial social mores/habits are embraced by a majority, life for these folks improves.

          Like

        • Rollie says:

          To georgessson:
          But the individual choice theory literally results white supremacy. You say there’s a higher proportion of people who make choices that lead to negative disparities in certain non-white populations than in white populations. Thus there’s something inherent within those non-white populations that leads to poorer choices more often being made. Thus these populations are inferior to white culture. Thus white supremacy.

          Where is the logic wrong?

          Like

        • One eye says:

          Rollie you got it wrong again. The individual choice theory literally results in ASIAN supremacy, according to your OWN logic.

          BTW I invite everyone to watch Ray Dalio’s latest video on the changing world order. He deftly shows how ANY “supremacy” is only temporary. Success always contains the seeds of a society’s destruction. USA is well down the downward curve.

          Like

        • Rollie says:

          To One Eye:
          You’re splitting hairs, but while doing so proves my point. Perhaps you believe that Asians are the superior race, but I do not. You’re right that subscribing to the individual choice theory only leads to that type of conclusion.

          Under either theory racial supremacy can be temporary and it doesn’t take a history PhD to know that things change and nothing lasts forever.

          I hope this discussion helps conservative readers understand why people often think conservatives are racial supremacists when they get so up in arms over the mere mention that racism continues to impact our society. A person can be as not-racist as they want in their daily life while still harboring racial supremacist world views and philosophy.

          Because US history is so entwined with white supremacist philosophy it’s challenging to even see it for what it is – like asking a fish if the water is wet. Saying so is not disrespecting our country, it is patriotism, moving us closer to the ideals our founders wrote but fell short of. No doubt to me King George III would have labeled the signers of the Declaration of Independence a “woke mob”.

          Racial supremacist theory opens the door to the most atrocious human behaviors we’ve witnessed in history. Whatever personal satisfaction or relief one achieves by subscribing to such theory, we eventually pay a significant price.

          Like

        • One eye says:

          Ha anything that disproves Rollie’s white supremacy narrative is “splitting hairs”.

          I’d still disagree with you if you’d tout an Asian supremacy narrative but at least I’d respect your honesty.

          The “mindset supremacy” which I espouse is a much better predicator, especially across time, than your race based supremacy narrative.

          Like

    • One eye says:

      Maybe we should add a “shit culture handed down through generations” question to the census.

      Like

    • sentient7 says:

      Evasion? Look, 50, 100, 300 years from now, there probably won’t be any pure racial types. Even today, at what % level is one a member of the X tribe or Y tribe or Z tribe? [ hint–Indians know 🙂 ] I mean really, does your passport card “prove” you really are 10% German 11% Polish, 28% Irish; 8% Armenian, 17% Walloon; 3% Cherokee; 6% Croat; 2% British and 19% Czech. Are your rights or food rations distributed accordingly? I mean, really, we need to know if you are an “authentic” representative of your historic lineage. Race has no rational basis.

      Like

  5. Gary L. Kriewald says:

    I suspect the identity culture that’s been allowed to metastasize for so long in this country is now is too entrenched to be reversed or even slowed down. Colleges and universities have made it their secular religion, and corporations and their advertisers have adopted it almost as fervently–as long as it burnishes their image and prevents boycotts. (If a Martian watched a couple dozen random TV ads, he’d conclude this country was 90% black.) As long as racial/ethnic/gender “identity’ remains the official way of defining ourselves, the social and political atomization of the country will only accelerate. And no country can operate indefinitely when citizenship and shared values are replaced by the ideology and rituals of a cult. Every once in a while, they over-reach as in trying to foist CRT down the throats of schoolkids, but they never pay a price for their misdeeds, thanks to their apologists in the media. It’s going to take a whole lot more than eliminating the race box on the census for to stem this tide.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Rollie says:

      “no country can operate indefinitely when citizenship and shared values are replaced by the ideology and rituals of a cult.”

      This is how the US operated from its inception. We weren’t founded on citizenship and shared values. Women were not allowed to vote and humans could be owned as property. And the US prospered under those conditions. So while I don’t like it either, it’s not true that cult ideology impedes anything for the dominant culture.

      “As long as racial/ethnic/gender “identity’ remains the official way of defining ourselves, the social and political atomization of the country will only accelerate.”

      Race was the fundamental, official way of defining ourselves throughout US history. This is not a new thing brewed up by the liberals. We’re trying to get past it but it’ll take time and it will take us challenging each other. There are what I consider racist statements being made on this very comment thread that receive zero pushback (“shit culture handed down through generations” – twist a pretzel to say that’s not racist, go ahead. Can’t prove intent after all…). So yes, we have a way to go still. Racism still exists and denying its existence only delays progress towards finally doing away with the construct.

      Like

      • Gary L. Kriewald says:

        “Race was the fundamental, official way of defining ourselves throughout US history.” Sounds like some’s read the 1619 Project (probably more than once). History is too complex to have all its secrets unlocked by a single key–even that of race. I repeat: we were founded on citizenship and shared values, but the rewards of citizenship weren’t open to all, at least not at the beginning. In other words, the founders were flawed (albeit brilliant) human beings trying their best within the constraints of their time and place. What they conceived was altered and improved over time, as it was intended to be and as is the case with all human institutions. So to carp endlessly about this country’s original sin of racism is to perpetuate the fallacy that because this country’s institutions weren’t perfect from the get-go, they deserved to be denigrated and/or dismissed.

        Like

        • Rollie says:

          I guess I can see what you’re saying: we were founded on the principle of citizenship, but that doesn’t mean that it was a reality of citizenship. Kind of like the principle of democracy, while we don’t technically have a democracy. All I’m saying is that societies can exist without these lofty ideals. I don’t think it’s true that they are necessary, but I do personally find them desirable.

          I agree that it’s a bad thing to be divided up by race. I don’t understand why there’s so much push-back when the reality of where this racial division seed was planted is mentioned. I’m not saying that all of history is defined exclusively by race, but this blog post is indeed about racial categorization in the US, and that racial categorization indeed started a long long time ago. If I’m “endlessly harping” on race in these comments I’m being on topic.

          I don’t think I’m denigrating or dismissing our institutions (maybe I am? I guess I’d need to reflect on that). As you say, the people and the institutions were (and I’d add, are) imperfect and flawed. The founders were not Gods. I don’t believe we can improve upon what was laid without critiquing it and detailing the flaws. The act of critique is patriotic to me, I don’t think the founders would have wanted us to simply accept the status quo and not try to better our country. And I don’t think we can better our country if we ignore or deny the unfortunate persistence of race and racism nor if we fail to identify the roots and aims of the racial construct.

          Those that came before us aimed to divide us and they succeeded. It falls on us to work towards unity, but I don’t believe that closing our eyes to reality leads us there.

          Like

        • Gary L. Kriewald says:

          Thank you, Rollie for your thoughtful reply. I agree that we should not “ignore or deny” the persistence of race and racism. Racism should be acknowledged in the history of our country, but it should not be used as a lens to examine each and every issue (as is the case among certain educators, politicians and pundits). Nor should it be used as an excuse to indoctrinate schoolkids in the simplistic (and false) victim/oppressor dichotomy that seems to be gaining ground in our country’s schools. Those of us who question the 1619 Project view of our racial history are not advocating a ban on teaching the significance of racism in the US; we are, however, calling for it to be examined from a reasonable perspective, not viewed as the unquestionable centerpiece of our history.

          Like

    • georgessson says:

      Once again, Gary, you point out what s/b, but isn’t, obvious. You speak truth: “…he’d conclude this country was 90% black.” IMHO, part of the reason for the 90% conclusion is based on the success of the 1970’s Civil Rights actions. Have we ever had more minority judges, attorneys, media personalities, politicians, etc. ? I’d say things have been coming along fine and fair for decades now.

      Need an opportunity? No problem ! S-o-o many are available. Grab the ring, don’t bat it away…

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.