SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Varsha Bhosle

Baby doom

Whew, that was some schismatic response to Son-Burned! Looks like I really drilled away at the parental root-canal... Folks seemed to have taken my observations as a personal attack on their moppets and were at their vituperative best. But I ain't heartbroken since (and extremely pleased to note that) many others affirmed that they, too, didn't conform to the holy-mammy dogma. There's hope for desis, after all...

As for "What if the author's mother had the same perspective about bringing a baby into this world?" Hmmm... think of it... you wouldn't have had to put up with my Fascism, would you? So do I have a case...? Cracks aside, I most certainly do not want every or anybody to think within my kind of frame -- but mine *is* a valid opinion and it shan't be gagged. So let's just call it a day where the milk of human kindness and other such blessed notions are concerned.

However, I do take issue with the duffer who's been struggling with my usage of the word "Blacks" to denote African Americans, since "then why not call Asians and Hispanics the Browns, Yellows, and so forth?" Now, this remark I could have easily ignored, so simplistic is it. Unfortunately, the person then went on to append it with his/her anguish on my assertion that in the US, the population explosion is restricted to Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. According to Buffy Struggles, this is "Bogus, of course."

Buffy dear, of course I write well, thank you. But that's not at all why my poor, tormented editor tolerates me. Thing is, he knows that, when challenged, I can usually make good my declarations. You know, if people like you kept off from airing their crap in Arena, my browser "wouldn't smell so much of puke," nor would I need to retort in kind, nor inform others about wha'appenin' with Uncle Sam. So here goes:

The preface to the US census report of March 1994 states: "The Bureau of the Census collects and publishes racial statistics as outlined in Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 issued by the US Office of Management and Budget. This directive provides standards on ethnic and racial categories for statistical reporting to be used by all Federal agencies. According to the directive, the basic racial categories are American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, *Black*, and White. (The directive identifies Hispanic origin as an ethnicity.) The concept of race the Bureau of the Census uses reflects self-identification by respondents; that is, the individual's perception of his/her racial identity."

See, I've no problem with being called Mottled Brown or even Striped Saffron. For, I have no identity crisis over my race or origin or skin colour. As is apparent from the directive issued by the Bureau, America's Blacks don't seem to, either. Which is why they are officially categorised as Black. But even if there happened to be a decree nailing the term as highly derogatory, catch me being PC... It's like expecting this fundie to report that the Bombay riots took place between "two communities." <

Now about the "myth" of the non-White population explosion: The Current Population Reports, Series P20-480, titled The Black Population in the United States: March 1994 and 1993, states, "The Black population has grown faster than either the total or White population since the 1980 decennial census. By the year 2000, the Black population is expected to reach 35.5 million and represent 12.8 percent of the total population. 84 percent of the growth in the Black population since 1980 was due to natural increase, while immigration accounted for the remaining 16 percent." The term "natural increase" refers to births.

Then, the Bureau of the Census, PPL-21, US Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1990 to 1994, and titled National Population Trends, states in bold type: "Growth rates are highest for the Hispanic and for the Asian and Pacific Islander populations." It goes on to establish that "During 1994, the Hispanic population grew by 897,000 people (3.5 percent). At the same time, the White non-Hispanic population added 813,000 people, an increase of 0.4 percent. This marks the first time that the yearly growth in the Hispanic population was numerically larger than the growth in the White non-Hispanic population... During 1994, the Asian and Pacific Islander population grew by 336,000 (3.8 percent); the Black population grew by 484,000 (1.5 percent); and the White population grew by 1,618,000 (0.8 percent)."

To muddle up matters, data on the total and Hispanic populations is collected from the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and therefore does not include residents of Puerto Rico. Secondly, persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race, ie, some Hispanics may be White. I had written that Swedes, Norwegians, Dutch and Swiss prefer adoption to making their own babies, and these are the ethnic groups (along with Anglo-Saxons, Irish, etc) which constitute the non-Hispanic Whites of Europe *and* US -- and which are undergoing a natural decrease in population.

Another reader doubted, "As to where you get your statistics I do not know. However, they seem to be from the wrong source. A typical American (White) family has a lot of children. The number of children a family can have is limited not by ethnic but by economic consideration."

Well, darling, now you know where I get my stats from. For, this is what the paper titled The Asian and Pacific Islander Population, CP-3-5, states: "Asians and Pacific Islanders have larger families than non-Hispanic Whites... In 1994, the average number of persons per family for Asians and Pacific Islanders and non-Hispanic Whites was 3.8 and 3.1, respectively. 73 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander families had three or more persons in 1994, compared with 55 percent of non-Hispanic White families. 22 percent of all Asian and Pacific Islander families had five or more persons, compared with 12 percent of non-Hispanic White families. Six in ten Asian and Pacific Islander families had related children under 18 years old, compared with almost half (49 percent) of non-Hispanic White families."

Based on the statistical tables of Resident Population, by Race, 1980 to 1996 (Page No. 18) and Resident Population, by Hispanic Origin Status, 1980 to 1996 (No. 19), from the year 1980 to 1996 - and excluding migrant stats - the White population has decreased by 3.12 percent; while the Black, the Asian and Pacific Islander, and Hispanic populations have increased by 0.85, 2.02 and 4.21 percent, respectively.

I could go on and on about tables and figures (it's a 72-page document), which would disprove the notion that there are no differences in the childbearing predispositions of people of different races and ethnicities and that everything depends on income. The PC climate of the US is such that it must make almost mandatory for Census officials to obfuscate certain statistics and call a bulldozer a spoon (but I do admire the fact that it's nowhere like the cover up jobs on India's demographic changes that our "secularists" regularly pull off). Patience and a calculator are all it takes to get to the bottom-line: The White Man's compulsion to leave behind a Xerox of the self is not as pressing as the others'... It's not just education and economics -- it's a cultural thing, too. Rather like how Italians still have joint families, but Nordics don't.

Over the last year, I've come to realise that all zealots, whether they be of the religious, social, political or parental order, have one thing in common -- they are loath to respect the reality of a differing opinion. And, each one of us is a bigot about one thing or other. Tavernfuls of other women and I simply do not agree that motherhood makes a woman "complete" ("full," maybe :-). Sure, to see a continuation of oneself is a human desire that transcends geographical, ethnic and educational boundaries. But, how dispassionate or scientific is that argument for condoning a baby boom in countries which can ill afford another head...? The quality of an individual's life does hinge on national factors.

I am always rebuked that I react too emotionally to deal ably with serious issues... Well, our educated letter-writers have just demonstrated that human beings can't really be detached or even polite over issues which matter to them. When people claim they are, bet your pink booties, it's high sham. As for me, I'm always grateful for the "other" opinion even if it grates. For, apart from providing me with fodder for a column, that's what makes the world a fascinating place.

Varsha Bhosle