[CivicAccess-discuss] NYTimes: Mapping America: Every City, Every Block

Mon Jan 10 00:16:35 EST 2011

We do ask the questions about same sex couples in Canada. It is not done in
the US but there are ways to track those data.  See - questions asked on the
census here -
http://datalibre.ca/2010/07/24/2006-long-form-question-and-2006-2011-short-form-questions.
 I posted them on datalibre this summer.

I did a review of the US The Gay and lesbian Atlas (
http://www.urban.org/publications/900695.html) for Cartographica in the fall
of 2005 .  Let me know if you would like to read it.  I also have a copy of
the Atlas that I will gladly lend you.  It was produced by a great community
think tank.

The Census is tied to social spending like pensions, social welfare and the
conjugal condition of unions determines the types of benefits people receive
and the size of transfer payments to the provinces and territories.
 Aboriginal identity is also associated with benefits, linguistic laws are
in place to ensure that resources are allocated based on demographic need,
as is the distribution of moneys from the federal government to support
refugees etc.  Not sure what they are going to do now that these are no
longer Census questions.

It is really important to collect these data to plan for pensions, homes for
the aged, schools, health care, maternity leave, and insurance for same sex
couples.  All benefits that same sex couples were precluded from as their
unions were not accepted into law.  Now that these are in Canada, we track
them and resources are allocated accordingly.   Knowing geographically where
these couples are is also really important as the kids of these unions are
going to school and schools need to ready their populations to accept these
kids.

Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Couples is not yet law in most states and these
data are used to demonstrate where people live and the issues that surround
them.  These data and maps show society at large that gay and lesbian
couples live in all states, the bible belt included.

In Canada this question has been asked, if I am not mistaken since either
the 2001 Census of the 2006 census.  There was a time in the 70s and early
80s where common law unions where the big debate, whether or not to include
that in the census.  It was considered immoral for the longest time and
people thought that tracking was about supporting the disintegration of
family as opposed to simply a redefinition of it.  Not tracking
disproportionally negatively affected women.  Interesting to note that
Quebec has the highest number of common law couples and that matched with
religion shows another really interesting story. Interestingly, in Canada,
same sex couples grew in numbers faster than did hetero couples (
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070912/dq070912a-eng.htm)

Both the questions on same sex unions and common law families represent the
changing nature of Canadian families and how the state has to adjust its
programs and expenditures and how society has to see and adapt these
changes.  There was a time when women who had children out of marriage were
not counted and the state pretended they did not exist which meant they were
exclude from supportive programs were further marginalize.  Why count those
disreputable women and their bastards!

The current court challenge over the census in Canada is called the Equal
right to be counted
http://socialplanningtoronto.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Save-the-CensusPR.pdf,
the partners on the case are Arab, Aboriginal, Women, and Immigrant groups
who know that if they are not counted they will disappear from public policy
and that would be detrimental to their communities. There are great
inequalities associated with gender and ethno-cultural visible minorities in
Canada that will go unreported and unaccounted for, as was the case for
unwed mothers in the 60s and earlier.   These data are also used to assess
how we are fairing on Charter rights (
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_15) and
equal opportunity programs.

In terms of *privacy* Statcan has very strict rules and if the population of
a neighbourhood is easily identifiable they block out those data.  The
smaller the geographies the more they get blocked out.  For instance, if a
dissemination area only has one apartment building in it, then the data from
that building will blanked out.  You cannot pinpoint a household from the
data you get from StatCan, it is always anonimized and aggregated in a way
that you cannot determine individuals.  Even in the US maps of the NYTimes,
the dots represent proportions in a group of 500 and the geography is
uncertain.  Probably the centroid of an enumeration area and not an address.

I agree with you that it would be better if we did not have to revert to
essentialist arguments about race, orientation and sex.  But these are
factors in our society, and maybe one day we will not have to count these
and track these as they will have disappeared, until then, we know that that
is not the case and we have to keep those issues on the map until which time
they becomes irrelevant.

The map is not the territory and current maps of this kind are static
objects, but neighbourhoods and people are not, these are dynamic and
change.

Cheers
t

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Jonathan Brun <jbrun at jonathanbrun.com>
wrote:
> Ok, well I am not sure if anyone wants to have a serious discussion. My
> point was simply that I am not sure we should collect the racial
information
> of people as it might lead to certain perceptions and policies that are
> potentially very bad for society. I am curious to know what this mailing
> list thinks of the issue.
> But to frame the concern more widely, Besides privacy issues, what
> information should the government NOT collect and/or Not distribute?
> For example, should we create a map showing sexual orientation
(homosexual,
> heterosexual, bisexual, ...) of people - even if it is per 500
individuals?
> Same question for religious beliefs?
> Of course, in a perfectly non-racist, non-bigotted, non-sectarian society;
> there would be no need to be concerned with having this information, but
> alas, we have not evolved that far yet.
> Again, I am undecided on the issue - but I am keen to know what people
> think.
> JB
> jonathanbrun.com
> On 2011-01-09, at 6:57 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
>
> Hey Jonathan;
>
> Just to be sure I understand what you are suggesting:
>
> a) You would like citizens to have access to this map:
>
> http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/usashape.htm
>
> b) and only allow government officials to have this one?
>
> http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer
>
> Cheers
> t
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Brun <jbrun at jonathanbrun.com>
> wrote:
>
> No racial data there (as far as I can see) - though there is immigration
>
> stuff. Otherwise, cool stuff though.
>
> JB
>
> jonathanbrun.com
>
> On 2011-01-09, at 11:47 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
>
> http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/#edc
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jonathan Brun <jbrun at jonathanbrun.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for chiming in late, I only recently saw the map in question. I am
>
> curious to know what you think of making this data available. My first
>
> question, is why don't we collect this data in Canada?
>
> Secondly, though I am a proponent of more information allows us to make
>
> better decisions, sometimes more information can hurt us or actually hurt
a
>
> system. For example, to take a banal example, Facebook actively prohibits
>
> you from knowing who is looking at your profile. My guess is that they
feel
>
> that should you have this information, people's relationships to each
other
>
> would be negatively impacted - I tend to agree.
>
> My question is, does making racial make-up publicly available (which is
>
> different from collecting it) help citizens. Or does, it further promote
>
> ghettoization of races into different neighbourhoods? I am not sure. Of
>
> course, immigrants naturally gravitate to specific neighbourhoods where
they
>
> might have family and friends, but by making this information even more
>
> available, are we not encouraging this behaviour even more?
>
> And, should we be making decisions based on race? Arguably, having this
>
> information allows the US to say "Blacks have less access to high quality
>
> schools" and therefore put in place programs, but should the question not
be
>
> "People of a certain income distribution have less access to high quality
>
> schools". What value is there in differentiating people by race. There are
>
> of course negatives (big ones).
>
> While I realize that the data in the US is per 500 people, it still seems
>
> dangerous. Clearly identifying people or groups by race (or religion) can
>
> lead to very bad things. Whether it is Hutu/Tutsis or Arab/Jewish or any
>
> other government run categorization of people based on race or religion,
>
> there are downsides that potentially outweigh any upsides.
>
> All in all, I think this is an interesting case of open-data and its
>
> merits. Should we collect this data? If so, should it be made public?
>
> Just my two cents. Have a great sunday!
>
> JB
>
> jonathanbrun.com
>
> On 2010-12-15, at 10:54 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
>
> really I am literate folks but sometimes I wonder! Shesh!
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault <tlauriau at gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
> Heather;
>
> The information is incredibly empowering to marginalized & segregated
>
> groups.  Ideally, we would all be treated equal, this information combined
>
> with other variables tells us and shows us we are not.
>
> In this map I see density, diversity, difference, sparseness, urban,
>
> rural, hubs and spokes, corridors and clusters, where different people
live
>
> and don't, I see raiNbows and i see distinct lines.  This is the US
Mosaic.
>
> Unfortunately, we cannot wipe this map clean of its underlying truths and
>
> a blank map or empty sheet brings no justice in this case.
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Heather Morrison <hgmorris at sfu.ca>
>
> wrote:
>
> On 15-Dec-10, at 6:42 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
>
> This is normal.  We have made maps like this for centuries
>
> We have made war, and practiced racism, for centuries and more. Are
>
> these normal too?
>
> as these
>
> inform you about the nature of neighbourhoods.  If you notice each dot
>
> represents 500 people so not an individual household.  This type of
>
> information is critically important as it tells you something about
>
> segregated cities, it tells you something about economics and if you
>
> combine that information with education, schools, proximity to transit
>
> it tells you about who does and does not have access to resources.
>
> People use this type of information for organizing and for lobbying
>
> for resources.
>
> No doubt this information is useful - but to whom, and for what
>
> purposes? We can all see progressive reasons for using this information (I
>
> do) - but are all of us progressive? I don't find it hard at all to
imagine
>
> this information used to facilitate discrimination. I am sure that this
>
> information is useful for lobbying for resources - but who has money to
hire
>
> lobbyists?
>
> best,
>
> Heather
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Heather Morrison <hgmorris at sfu.ca>
>
> wrote:
>
> The maps are indeed pretty. However, I am wondering about the
>
> implications
>
> of identifying neighbourhoods based on ethnic/racial population
>
> (white/black/hispanic neighbourhoods).
>
> thoughts?
>
> Heather Morrison
>
> On 15-Dec-10, at 1:18 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
>
> Just imagine if our census data, well, first we had to imagine we had
>
> a census, and second if we had one and if past ones were actually
>
> available to us at no cost, just imagine what we could also do in
>
> Canada in terms of visualizing patterns across the nation!
>
> fyi - the Canadian census does not ask questions about cultural groups
>
> anymore so we will not be able to create such a map for 2011 even if
>
> the data were free.
>
> This NYTimes visualization is just beautiful.
>
> Mapping America: Every City, Every Block
>
> http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer
>
> --
>
> Tracey P. Lauriault
>
> 613-234-2805
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tracey P. Lauriault
>
> 613-234-2805
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tracey P. Lauriault
>
> 613-234-2805
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tracey P. Lauriault
>
> 613-234-2805
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tracey P. Lauriault
>
> 613-234-2805
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
>
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> Tracey P. Lauriault
> 613-234-2805
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> CivicAccess-discuss at civicaccess.ca
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>

-- 
Tracey P. Lauriault
613-234-2805
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pwd.ca/pipermail/civicaccess-discuss/attachments/20110110/e37374ca/attachment-0001.html>