For 200 years, race has been a standard item in the decennial censuses of the United States. These official statistics on the population by race are displayed in Table Aa145–184. For much of this period, there was no popular debate and apparently no major problem in the measurement of race – either for those in charge of collecting government statistics or for those who responded to census inquiries. It is likely that at least some problems arose in assigning persons to specific racial categories. Some individuals probably felt that the race classification did not acknowledge their true identities, especially if they were of mixed ancestry or if their appearance did not meet stereotypical expectations (Forbes 1990). Indeed, some persons "passed” from one racial identity to another as a means of individual social mobility (Myrdal 1944, pp. 129–30, 683–8). Nonetheless, the system worked in the sense that the categories used in the race question agreed with popular perceptions. As a consequence, the measurement of race in the census met with only minor challenges over this long period.

In spite of this seeming stability, the conceptual content and the meaning of race have undergone a sea change over time, and a new concept – that of ethnicity – has arisen (Glazer and Moynihan 1975; Anderson and Fienberg 1999). A hundred years ago, most people, including a significant share of intellectuals, thought of racial classifications as biological groups akin to species (Gould 1996; Lott 1998). Over the course of the twentieth century, however, both the scientific and the popular understandings of race shifted gradually. Today, races are generally defined as social categories (Omi and Winant 1994; Hollinger 1995).

Although the standard sociological approach was to apply the term "race” to distinctions based on people's appearance and the term "ethnicity” to distinctions based on culture or language (van den Berghe 1967), "ethnicity” came to be used increasingly as an inclusive term for all groups believed to share common descent. In a 1987 decision giving an Iraqi the right to sue under provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that ethnic groups could be considered races because of the historical meaning of these terms (St. Francis College v. Al-Khazraji 1987). Conventional and scientific usage of terms such as "race” and "ethnicity” will undoubtedly be subject to further change, as they have in the past, but "race” remains the term officially used in population censuses as well as in popular discourse. The social science conception of race and ethnicity underlying contemporary census measurements has moved far from the popular beliefs that motivated the original inclusion of race (Cornell and Hartmann 1998). In 1790, at the time of the first census of the United States, race or color was assumed to be part of the natural order, with differential entitlements for citizenship and legal standing. The first naturalization law, passed in 1790, stipulated that only those who were "free and white” could become citizens (Heer 1996). The Constitution required that each enslaved individual be counted as 60 percent of a person to determine population and electoral apportionment. Indians who did not pay taxes were excluded altogether.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, with the development of pseudoscientific social Darwinism, "race” became a defining category in Western thought (Harris 1968). At that time, race was equated with biologically based divisions among humans; these divisions, according to a view shared by many social scientists of the period, determined fundamental capacities, such as intelligence, of the members of different races. This view led to attempts, in the late nineteenth century, to gather more detailed racial data. Color had been added as a census classification in 1850, with the categories of white, black, and mulatto; in 1870, Chinese and (American) Indian were added. By 1890, the search for racial (that is, biological) precision led to census categories based on degrees of African ancestry (mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon). In 1900, categories included the proportion of "white blood” (none, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8) for each enumerated Indian.¹

In the 1930 Census, Mexicans were included as a category in the race classification. The stigmatizing effect of being listed as a nonwhite group in the census was understood clearly (the other groups were Negro, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Hindu, and Korean). Therefore, after protests by the Mexican-American community and the Mexican government, the Census Bureau agreed to discontinue the practice (Cortes 1980, p. 697).

Over the second half of the twentieth century, race came to be viewed widely as a social construction lacking a universal, inherent meaning (Nagel 1994; Omi and Winant 1994). The recognition that race is not a "natural” category whose meaning can be taken for granted has raised the issue of how best to measure race so as to capture its contemporary social significance. This issue also has become salient because of the growth in interracial marriage, especially after the Supreme Court invalidated the last state laws against miscegenation in 1967 (Sandefur 1986; Kalmijn 1993; Shinagawa and Pang 1996; Qian 1997). The increase in the number of mixed-race Americans has blurred what formerly were viewed as clear-cut boundaries separating major racial groups (Root 1992, 1996). Questions about the measurement of race and ethnicity also have arisen because of the increasing politicization of racial and ethnic census data. Census data are widely used to measure social and economic problems; these are generally presented in terms of the numbers of persons affected, especially by racial and ethnic divisions. Moreover, census numbers show the potential size of a political constituency: in interethnic politics, increases in population numbers can be used to make a case for increased governmental attention, changes in electoral districts, and the allocation of resources.

In 1960, the census shifted to a self-enumeration format, in which respondents could specify their own race as they wished (Taeuber and Hansen 1966). Prior to this time, enumerators assigned individuals to racial categories. In most cases, these enumerators probably did not even ask respondents about their race because the racial characteristics were thought to be readily observable. With the new method of data collection, respondents could say how they wished to be identified. It is something of a surprise that the practical consequences of this fundamental change in measurement methods were minor. There was an increase in persons who reported themselves as American Indians (Eschbach 1993, 1995), and more persons checked the "other race” category because they thought their identity was not included in the list of races on the census questionnaire (Harrison and Bennett 1995). The overall patterns of racial composition, however, suggest that in 1960 most Americans identified themselves by race largely as census enumerators had classified them in earlier censuses.

Ethnic political mobilization was directly responsible for the addition of a separate census question on Hispanic identity, beginning in the 1970 Census, and for the separate listing of numerous Asian nationality groups under the race question (see Table Aa2189–2215) (Choldin 1986; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990; Espiritu 1992, Chapter 5; Lott 1998). Hispanic origin has been conceptualized as an ethnic category independent of a person's racial classification. Administrative actions and popular understanding, however, have created a social position for Hispanics almost equivalent to that of one of the major racial categories. The result is a five-category racial and ethnic scheme that has been used widely to describe American society (non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, non-Hispanic Asians, non-Hispanic Indians, and Hispanics), and is characterized by the historian David Hollinger (1995) as the ethnoracial "pentagon.”  This five-category classification was formally created in 1977 in Statistical Directive 15 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Office of Management and Budget 1997a, Appendix 1). Although Hispanic origin and race officially are independent classifications, the popular assumption is that virtually everyone can be fit into one, and only one, of these five OMB categories.

In the 1980 Census, a new question on ancestry (or ethnic origins) was added to supplement the data on race and Hispanic identity and to replace the question on parents' place of birth that had been asked since 1870 (for statistics on the native-born population of foreign parentage, by parents' country of origin, see Table Ad319–353). The richness of new data on race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry might have led to a greater understanding of the racial and ethnic roots of the American population; instead it created a crisis. Problems in measuring and interpreting information on race and ethnicity that had been obscured with limited data were now painfully evident (Levin and Farley 1982; Lieberson and Waters 1988; Alba 1990). Investigations found ambiguity and inconsistency across the various measures of race and ethnic classifications (Lieberson and Santi 1985; Farley 1991); studies of reliability were not encouraging (Johnson 1974).

The increase in marriages across racial and ethnic boundaries has contributed greatly to doubts about the use of race as an ascriptive category, that is, as a characteristic that is assigned to an individual in some official tabulation. The offspring of these unions do not fit neatly into the standard census categories (Xie and Goyette 1997). Examination of census data along the three dimensions of race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry shows a significant number of persons who are black and Hispanic, persons who are white (by race) and American Indian (by ancestry), and persons with other blended and mixed ethnic origins. Although the numbers are not so large as to change the findings based on the conventional ethnic comparisons, and although ad hoc rules can be devised to handle inconsistent cases (del Pinal 1992), a major flaw is evident in the conceptual framework of mutually exclusive and exhaustive racial and ethnic categories.

The underlying problems are evident in the contentious task of revising Statistical Directive 15, the set of OMB rules that defines racial and ethnic categories for government agencies' collection and presentation of data (Edmonston, Goldstein, and Lott 1996; Office of Management and Budget 1997a; Lott 1998). Members of some groups (for example, religious groups) do not find the primary source of their group identity in any of the census questions. A growing number of persons either do not answer the questions or write in that they are "American” (Lieberson and Waters 1993). Because classifications reflect a variety of criteria (physical appearance, language, treaty status, national or regional ancestry) that are determined solely by individual, subjective choice, it is not surprising that many persons find the census questions difficult to answer and that government agencies find the logic behind them difficult to explain (Perlmann 1997). The arrival of immigrants with mixed backgrounds, such as Afro-Dominicans, Spanish-speaking Filipinos, Chinese from Thailand, and Indians from Guatemala, further challenges the traditional classification system.

After deliberate study and efforts to bring stakeholders into the process, the OMB revised Statistical Directive 15 (Office of Management and Budget 1997b). There are now five major racial categories (American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; black or African American; native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander -Filipinos and Samoans dominate this "other” group; and white) and two ethnic categories (Hispanic or Latino, and not Hispanic or Latino).

The greatest change in the government's classification of individuals by race took place in the 2000 Census, when persons were allowed for the first time to identify themselves as belonging to more than one race. This change in the measurement of race has occurred in a social and political climate very different from that of the past. Indeed, it is a direct response to the challenge from individuals and groups who wish the census to reflect more accurately the growing multiracial portion of the population (Statistics Canada and U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993; Wright 1994; Edmonston, Goldstein, and Lott 1996).

This change has created concern about the effects of the new inquiry on the country's racial composition. Some minority-group leaders believe that the new methods may reduce the number of persons identifying themselves as members of their respective groups. Statisticians and public officials fear that continuity in one of the most important series of census data will be disrupted and that data mandated for important public purposes, such as electoral redistricting, will shift in unexpected ways.

The preliminary results from the 2000 Census that are available to us as this edition of Historical Statistics of the United States is going to press suggest that none of these potentially important problems have materialized. Only 2.4 percent of the population claimed two or more races. Individuals who did so were highly concentrated geographically and racially.

Hawai'i led the nation, with 21.4 percent of the population claiming their origins from two or more races. Alaska and California were the distant second- and third-ranked states, with 5.4 and 4.7 percent of their populations, respectively. The sparsely populated fourth- and fifth-ranked states, Nevada, New Mexico, and Washington (two tied for fifth place), had only 3.8 and 3.6 percent of their populations claiming two or more races.

Multiple racial identities were highly concentrated among native peoples and Hispanics. 54.4 percent of native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders and 39.9 percent of American Indian and Alaska Natives reported two or more races. Hispanics accounted for 6.3 percent of the total population nationwide, yet their share of the population reporting two or more races was 32.6 percent.

An interesting statistic that portends change in the very near future in the United States has to do with reports of racial identity by age group. While only 1.9 percent of the population 18 years of age and older claimed two or more racial identities, more than double that percentage (4.0 percent) of those younger than 18 years of age did so. The proximate cause of this substantial change is the growing share of Hispanics in the population, for whom multiple racial identities are closer to the norm.

In conclusion, for the most part, the racial categorization of Americans that was established in 1790 remains a reasonably reliable guide to racial distinctions to the 2000 Census. In the near future, however, we can expect substantial changes in racial self-identification as marriage partnerships increasingly cross traditionally defined racial boundaries.

Back To Top

Alba, Richard. 1990. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. Yale University Press.

Anderson, Margo J. 1990. The American Census: A Social History. Yale University Press.

Anderson, Margo J., and Stephen E. Fienberg. 1999. Who Counts? The Politics of Census-Taking in Contemporary America. Russell Sage Foundation.

Choldin, Harvey M. 1986. "Statistics and Politics: The ‘Hispanic Issue’ in the 1980 Census.” Demography 23: 403–18.

Cornell, Stephen, and Douglass Hartmann. 1998. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World. Pine Forge Press.

Cortes, Carlos E. 1980. "Mexicans.”  In Stephan Thernstrom, editor. The Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Harvard University Press.

del Pinal, Jorge H. 1992. Exploring Alternative Race–Ethnic Comparison Groups in Current Population Surveys. Current Population Reports, Series P23-182. U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Edmonston, Barry, Joshua Goldstein, and Juanita T. Lott, editors. 1996. Spotlight on Heterogeneity: The Federal Standards for Racial and Ethnic Classification: Summary of a Workshop. National Academy Press.

Eschbach, Karl. 1993. "Changing Identification among American Indians and Alaskan Natives.” Demography 30: 635–52.

Eschbach, Karl. 1995. "The Enduring and Vanishing American Indian.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 18: 89–108.

Espiritu, Yen Le. 1992. Asia American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities. Temple University Press.

Farley, Reynolds. 1991. "The New Census Question about Ancestry: What Did It Tell Us?” Demography 28: 411–30.

Forbes, Jack D. 1990. "The Manipulation of Race, Caste, and Identity: Classifying AfroAmericans, Native Americans, and Red-Black Peoples.” Journal of Ethnic Studies 17: 1–51.

Glazer, Nathan, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, editors. 1975. Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. Harvard University Press.

Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. Revised and expanded edition. Norton.

Harris, Marvin. 1968. "Race.”  In David L. Sills, editor. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, volume 13. Free Press.

Harrison, Roderick J., and Claudette E. Bennett. 1995. "Racial and Ethnic Diversity.”  In Reynolds Farley, editor. State of the Union: America in the 1990's, volume 2, Social Trends. Russell Sage Foundation.

Heer, David. 1996. Immigration in America's Future: Social Science Findings and the Policy Debate. Westview.

Hollinger, David. 1995. Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism. Basic Books.

Johnson, Charles E., Jr. 1974. "Consistency of Reporting of Ethnic Origin in the Current Population Survey.” U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Paper number 31.

Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1993. "Trends in Black/White Intermarriage.” Social Forces 72: 119–46.

Levin, Michael J., and Reynolds Farley. 1982. "Historical Comparability of Ethnic Designations in the United States.”  In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 1982: Social Statistics Section. American Statistical Association.

Lieberson, Stanley, and Lawrence Santi. 1985. "The Use of Nativity Data to Estimate Ethnic Characteristics and Patterns.” Social Science Research 14: 31–46.

Lieberson, Stanley, and Mary C. Waters. 1988. From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. Russell Sage Foundation.

Lieberson, Stanley, and Mary C. Waters. 1993. "The Ethnic Responses of Whites: What Causes Their Instability, Simplification, and Inconsistency?” Social Forces 72: 421–50.

Lott, Juanita Tamago. 1998. Asian Americans: From Racial Categories to Multiple Identities. Altamira.

Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944., An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. Harper & Row, 1962 [original edition 1944].

Nagel, Joane. 1994. "Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and Culture.” Social Problems 41: 152–76.

Office of Management and Budget. 1997a. "Recommendations from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Race and Ethnic Standards to the Office of Management and Budget Concerning Changes to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.” Federal Register 62 (131) (July 9): 36874–946.

Office of Management and Budget. 1997b. "Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.” Federal Register 62 (210) (October 30): 58782–90.

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. 2nd edition. Routledge.

Perlmann, Joel. 1997. Reflecting the Changing Face of America: Multiracials, Racial Classification, and American Intermarriage. Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

Qian, Zhenchao. 1997. "Breaking the Racial Barriers: Variants in Interracial Marriage between 1980 and 1990.” Demography 34: 263–76.

Root, Maria P. P., editor. 1992. Racially Mixed Peoples in America. Sage.

Root, Maria P. P. 1996. The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier. Sage.

Sandefur, Gary D. 1986. "American Indian Intermarriage.” Social Science Research 15: 347–71.

Shinagawa, Larry H., and Gin Yong Pang. 1996. "Asian American Panethnicity and Intermarriage.” Amerasia Journal 22: 12–52.

St. Francis College v. Al-Khazraji. 1987. 481 U.S., 604.

Statistics Canada and U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. Challenges of Measuring an Ethnic World: Science, Politics and Reality. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Taeuber, Conrad, and Morris H. Hansen. 1966. "Self-Enumeration as a Census Method.” Demography 3: 289–95.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1973. "Population and Housing Inquiries in the U.S. Decennial Censuses, 1790–1970.” U.S. Bureau of the Census, Working Paper number 39.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. Census of Population and Housing (1990), Content Determination Reports, 1990 CDR-6: Race and Ethnic Origin. U.S. Government Printing Office.

van den Berghe, Pierre. 1967. Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective. Wiley.

Wright, Lawrence. 1994. "One Drop of Blood.” New Yorker, July 24, pp. 46–50.

Xie, Yu, and Kimberly Goyette. 1997. "The Racial Identification of Biracial Children with One Asian Parent: Evidence from the 1990 Census.” Social Forces 76 (December): 547–70.

Back To Top