NATIVE PEOPLE IN POPULATION CENSUSES: United States (2020) AND CANADA (2021)

I. INTRODUCTION

Population censuses have become an important statistical information tool. As an instrument of governmental power, they allow the State to learn about changes in demographic dynamics, to design or implement public policies accordingly, and to administer and distribute resources. However, as Petruccelli (2002) has pointed out, the changes-throughout history- in the ways of counting the inhabitants of a Nation highlight the transcendent role they play in the understanding of collectivities and their differences, but also the weakness of the categories used. This happens because the ways of conceiving the diversity of the social body that inhabits a territory are usually linked to political reasons (Petriccelli, 2002).

According to Statistics Canada (2015), the first census took place in 1666, but only recorded the inhabitants of the French colony. The native population began to be contemplated in the counts from 1765; however, various authors (Guimond et al., 2004; Saku, 1999) agree that the first serious attempt to develop a record of the Canadian native population took place until 1871.

During the first 100 years of population counting (1871-1971), the members of the native peoples could only register a single origin, specifically patrilineal (Guimond et al., 2004; Saku, 1999). While the one corresponding to maternal inheritance was suppressed. The situation changed in the 1981 census, when a multiple response was implemented. That is, it was possible to register one or more ethnic origins. Hence, it is considered that the most comprehensive attempts to know the indigenous population on the part of the government took place in the middle of the 20th century. Today the Canadian government uses First Nations, Inuit and Métis to refer to these communities, but in the early stages, Indians, Eskimos and Métis were used.

However, it has also been pointed out that the counting of the indigenous population in Canada has had several problems. Among them are the rounding of figures, the suppression of populations smaller than 250, the emphasis on the wage economy and the omission of the informal economy - which includes essential activities of the indigenous economy such as hunting, fishing, gathering, etc. - and linguistic translation when applying the surveys (Saku, 1999, p. 375). Thus, there is a sense of uncertainty in interpreting the history of ethnic composition and population changes in these communities (Guimond et al., 2004, p. 3). It should be noted that in Canada, the government institutions that have been responsible for collecting this information are Statistics Canada and the Government of Northewest Territories Bureau of Statistics (GNWTBS).

In the United States, the first census took place in 1790, but the population count only took into account Anglo-Saxon inhabitants -categorized then as whites- and people of African descent -categorized then as people of color or slaves-. It took seven more decades before, in 1860, the category "Indian" was included for the first time in order to count the population of tribal territories.¹ In 1950, the term "American Indian" was implemented. In 1960, "Eskimo" and "Aleut" were added to this category. And, since 2000, "American Indian" and "Alaska Native" have been used.

However, until before 1960, the "race" of the population interviewed was assigned or decided by the person conducting the survey. From that year on, the people interviewed began to be allowed to state their own "race". In the 2000 census -40 years later-, it was possible to self-identify in more than one racial category. This change is relevant because the United States was assumed to be a multiracial population. In other words, in previous registries, respondents were forced to choose only one category to describe themselves. Finally, in the last census of 2020, for the first time, respondents were given the possibility of choosing their "race", but also -if they considered it pertinent- to give more information about their origins. It is worth mentioning that one of the most characteristic features of U.S. censuses is the repeated use of the term "race" to measure and understand the population (Brown, 2020).

This non-exhaustive set of examples shows us the importance of analyzing the censuses, since they allow us to locate when the need to have information on the volume of the indigenous population of one territory or another arose, but also reflects the way in which the conception of and interest in this population has been changing and the way in which it has been recognized. In fact, it is considered that the demographic knowledge of the native communities is insufficient and confusing, since the conclusions have been constructed according to the way in which it is profiled (Guimond et al., 2004, p. 3). Given that population statistics provide relevant information for the elaboration of public policies and the distribution of the state budget, it is considered relevant to know the way in which the native peoples of Canada and the United States are being conceived and counted in the most recent censuses.

II. CENSUSES IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES AS AN OBJECT OF RESEARCH: STATE OF THE ART

Based on a review of the state of the art regarding the Canadian and U.S. censuses, it has been possible to identify the main nodes of interest that have been fostered within the academy. First, there is a common agreement that institutional exercises to count the population clearly reflect the political vision of the governments that carry them out (Winkle, 1994 and Emigh et al., 2005). In this sense, Haggerty (2002) states that political needs shape statistical practices. Emigh et al. (2005) point out that the U.S. census tends to reflect the discursive link to social forces. Chatzky and Cheatham (2020) consider that the U.S. census plays a relevant role in politics and economics, specifically in determining the number of votes in the electoral college and in allocating the budget for social programs. These approaches are fundamental because they allow us to assume that the analysis of the census will make it possible to understand the interest and conception that the Canadian and U.S. governments have in relation to the native population.

A second node has put under the spotlight the problems and challenges presented by the implementation of censuses. Since the end of the 20th century, Winkle (1995) drew attention to the limitations they present for the elaboration of a credible account of social groups and pointed out the need to contrast such data with other sources. More specifically, Pryor et al. (1991) elucidated the main difficulties faced by the Canadian census, such as resistance to the responses and their veracity on the part of the native population. Other authors (Guimond et al., 2004) pointed out problems of terminology, legislative changes, low quality of the information and inconsistencies with the registry that the native peoples themselves have elaborated. They considered that this accumulation of difficulties silences relevant information. In the case of the United States, Forbes (1990) spoke of the under-representation of American Indians due to racial manipulation and a tendency to whiten the population - undertaken by the demographic exercises of the Census Bureau. The relevance of these findings makes it necessary to consider the many aspects that can affect demographic practice and, therefore, the results.

The third set consists of analyses that review time periods. Marshall (1951) provided an early historical account of the strategies -technical aspects and district decentralization- employed by the Canadian census to improve its implementation and coverage. More recently, Hamilton (2011) examined the characteristics -type of questions, application instructions and tabulation of results-of the census applied by Canada to native peoples in 1891, to point out the wide possibilities of distortions or underrepresentation in the data collected. He concludes that the methodology used determines the information collected. With respect to the United States, Winkle (1994) has provided an account of the changes in population counts between 1790 and 1970. Jobe (2004) explored the reasons why American Indians and Alaska Natives were included until the 1890 count, as well as the changes in terminology used to refer to them.

The fourth group of inquiries focuses on the terms and definitions used by the censuses. The earliest study (Fischer, 1958) that was found analyzed the category "residence" used by the Census Bureau in the United States and its different classifications. However, it is important to mention that research in the following decades has focused on aspects related to the ethnic and racial categories used.² In Canada, Pryor et al. (1991), as well as Kralt (1990), review the different terms used between 1971 and 1988, from those referring to French and British inhabitants to those of native origin. Guimond et al. (2004) do review the categories that have been used to count and define the indigenous population.

With regard to the United States, there is a similar picture. Bhagat (2003) states that the U.S. census places a strong emphasis on the racial aspect. Along the same lines, Snip (2003) argues the existence of a racial cosmology that affects the perception of the phenotype of the inhabitants and establishes a hierarchy in society. He considers that public policies are created on the basis of race. Similarly, Emigh et al.(2015) analyze the racial categories used by the U.S. population count and conclude that they are asymmetrical combinations of race and legal status, which have no anchor in the constitution. Forbes (1990), like Anner (2001), spoke of a process of whitening in population counts and a numerical fading of native communities. Loveman (2007) made the same observation about the techniques used by the Census Bureau in Puerto Rico. These contributions are considered essential because they help us to think about the extent to which the terms include or exclude the diversity that makes up the population.

The last identified set of explorations attempts to understand the demographic changes in native peoples. With respect to Canada, the transformations and causes of numerical increases or decreases in indigenous communities are analyzed (Norris, 1990; Romaniuc, 2003). Among them, the numerical growth of this population is attributed to the implementation of new definitions (Guimond et al., 2004). In the United States, it is argued that the increase in the number of indigenous inhabitants can be explained by a growth in ethnic consciousness and, therefore, the need to claim native ancestry as a result of processes of indigenous political activism (Nagel, 1995). But weight is also given to the possibility of self-identification that was implemented in the censuses (Passel, 1997).

The review presented here shows that academic interest in the censuses of Canada and the United States is concentrated mainly between the 1990s and the first two decades of the 21st century. Although attention to the subject is not recent and concern for the way in which native communities are counted is far from being unexplored territory, it is also true that research is neither abundant nor systematic. Given the importance that censuses have in the creation of public policies and the number of problems involved in their necessary application, the absence of research that explores the most recent demographic counts is striking, hence the relevance of analyzing the latest demographic exercises in relation to native peoples.

III. THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

In order to understand the way in which the population censuses undertaken by the governments of Canada and the United States know the indigenous population, and having reviewed the state of the art on the subject, it is necessary to take up again the positions of those authors who put on the table the close relationship between national policy and the way in which the population count is implemented. More specifically, the positions of Winkle (1994) and Haggerty (2002) are useful. As well as Emigh et al. (2015).

The first two (Winkle, 1994 & Haggerty, 2002) consider that the State has an irreducible role in the type of information collected and, therefore, in the results obtained during the demographic exercise. In fact, Haggerty (2002) highlights the link between the word "state" and the word "statistics" to illustrate the close relationship between population counts and the institutions that implement them. Winkle (1994) argues that each census produces a type of community history, written from an institutional perspective. In line with this, Haggerty (2002) points out that the categories used and the statistical averages obtained shape identities and behavioral norms, fostering and strengthening essentialist discourses. The point of view of both authors is fundamental, as it shows the importance of generating reflections on the way in which the State knows the different groups, in this case the native peoples.

Emigh et al. (2015), accept the position of Winkle (1994) and Haggerty (2002), but take away the centrality of the role of the state. They argue that censuses highlight two aspects: the content of the categories and the influence of the actors. Although they accept that government agencies design and introduce new terminology, they consider that this happens only when they are already widespread and accepted by society. In other words, from their perspective, there is an interaction between social forces and the way in which governments apply population counts. This proposal is suggestive because it will allow us to reflect on the role of Canadian society and the place or acceptance of native peoples.

In order to achieve the proposed objective, an interpretative methodology of content analysis was implemented (Giroux & Tremblay, 2011). This assumes that any human expression can be analyzed (López, 2002, pp. 174-175) because it is a reflection of human activity and its significance. The particularity is that it is capable of revealing latent attributes, present, but little evident on the surface (Fernández, 2002, p. 37; López, 2002). It analyzes and describes ways of proceeding, conceptions, tendencies, beliefs, objectives, goals, similarities, differences, values, attitudes, etc. (Fernandez, 2002, p. 37), that take place among different sectors of society.

From this perspective, censuses - the design of the survey and the objectives that government agencies set forth in it - reflect human activity. They reveal the values that are poured into its elaboration, the principles it supports and the messages it intends to convey. With this approach, it will be possible to identify some of the meanings of demographic practice in relation to indigenous peoples. To achieve this, a comparative analysis is made of: a) the periodicity, b) the institutional purposes and objectives of both population counts, c) the place of indigenous peoples in each country's survey, d) the way in which they are mentioned, and e) other sources of statistical information on indigenous peoples.

IV. INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES IN THE US (2020) AND CANADIAN (2021) POPULATION CENSUSES: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES

In order to determine the importance and place that the Canadian population census -of 2021- and the U.S. census -of 2020- give to indigenous peoples, we will begin by reviewing the objectives and periodicity of each. It is worth clarifying that although there is no explicit reference to the indigenous population in these two headings, it is useful to analyze and compare them because they allow us to understand the way in which each government relates to the total population, of which indigenous peoples are a part. Subsequently, we will analyze the place of indigenous peoples in the survey(s) of each of the countries, the way in which they are mentioned and whether the agencies responsible for providing and generating statistical information on the population use other surveys to learn about the communities.

V. CONCLUSION

When asked about the differences and similarities between the Canadian census (2021) and the U.S. census (2020) in the way of knowing the native peoples, the first thing to say is that one and the other reflect two different trends in the way of conceiving the usefulness and objectives of the demographic count. In the Canadian case, there is not only a tendency to recognize native peoples, but also to pay attention to the ethnic diversity existing among such communities, as a result of different processes of self-determination. In the United States, on the other hand, the scopes and objectives proposed seem to respond to an inertia that reduces interest in understanding the specificities of the different groups.

By implementing questions aimed at First Nations, Inuit and Métis in the national census, Statistics Canada shows recognition of these communities and seeks to understand the dimensions of this population, regardless of the different relationships they have with the government. The topics covered by the Indigenous People Survey applied in 2022, as an alternative instrument, reflect the Canadian government's interest in knowing specific aspects that can contribute to solving the most pressing problems resulting from the colonization process, such as the consequences of residential schools and the weakening of the intergenerational transmission of knowledge. These and other data are used, as stated in the objectives and purposes, to calculate the demand for services, improve the creation of public policies, nourish political debate, distribute the budget and define electoral districts.

The interest that the United States Census Bureau has in knowing the native peoples as of the 2020 census is indirect and tends to reproduce a homogeneous conception of these communities. In other words, it is not interested in constructing data by ethnic group. Among other things, this may be due to the fact that its objectives are solely to distribute electoral districts and the budget.

In accordance with the studies of Baghat (2003), Snip (2003), and Emigh et al. (2015), it is possible to affirm that in terms of cultural diversity, the latest demographic count undertaken by the U.S. government continues to be centered on the notion of "race". Although the United States Census Bureau makes it clear somewhere on its website that it does not refer to biological aspects, the truth is that such an explanation is not socialized. Hence, we agree with the work of Guimond et al. (2004) that problems of terminology tend to diminish the quality of the data collected. In this case, it is considered that the violence reproduced by the term "race" may silence information about ethnic affiliation for fear -among respondents- of being labeled as inferior. To the extent that the United States Census Bureau chooses not to update terminology and not to obtain information by ethnic group, it is worth asking to what extent it is able to produce a credible record of American Indians and Alaska Natives?

After analyzing the differences and similarities between the U.S. census conducted in 2020 and the Canadian one in 2021, it is possible to argue that these instruments of demographic knowledge clearly reflect the political vision that governments and the institutions that implement them have towards the different sectors of the population, as Winkle (1994) and Emigh, Raley and Ahmed (2005) have stated in their research.

Finally, following Emigh et al. (2015), who consider that the categories used in censuses reflect an acceptance on the part of society, it is possible to say that the 2021 Canadian census reflects a conformity on the part of the bulk of the Canadian population towards the existence of native peoples. Whereas in the United States, such tolerance carries and reproduces the inferiorizing connotations of the term "race".