on the boundaries of race - american sociological association · heritage” versus “monoracial...

Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 2016, Vol. 2(4) 548 –568© American Sociological Association 2016DOI: 10.1177/2332649216632546sre.sagepub.com

Multiraciality

Parents in interracial unions are theoretically faced with many options for reporting their children’s heritage in daily life and on official forms. These options, however, are limited by social and per-sonal constraints (Song 2003), such as the socially constructed boundaries of race groups. In this research, I give empirical insight into race groups’ boundaries over a 40-year period in the United States. I study race and ancestry responses given for/by people with interracially married coresident parents at five points in time to address three ques-tions. First, are mixed-heritage children reported as

mixed when possible? Specifically, are they most often reported as belonging to one race group, two race groups, or something in between (a race/ancestry combination)? Second, how have the dis-tributions of responses changed over time (between

632546 SREXXX10.1177/2332649216632546Sociology of Race and EthnicityLieblerresearch-article2016

1University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:Carolyn A. Liebler, University of Minnesota, 909 Social Science Tower, 267 19th Ave. S, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Email: [email protected]

On the Boundaries of Race: Identification of Mixed-heritage Children in the United States, 1960 to 2010

Carolyn A. Liebler1

AbstractSocially constructed race groups have boundaries that define their membership. I study temporal trends and group-specific patterns in race and ancestry responses provided for children of interracial marriages. Common responses indicate contemporary definitions of race groups (and perhaps emerging groups); uncommon responses reveal socially defined limits of race group membership. I leverage dense, nonpublic, Census Bureau data from 1960 to 2010 to do this and include a more diverse set of families, a longer time span, and more accurate estimates than prior research. I find that the location of race group boundaries varies over time and across 11 distinct family types. Since mixed-heritage responses became possible in 1980, they have been common in most groups. Part Asians have almost always been reported as multiracial or mixed ancestry. A number of (non-Asian) mixed-heritage children are described as monoracial on the census form, particularly children with American Indian heritage. Over time, part whites are decreasingly reported as monoracially white (white race with no nonwhite ancestry). Black heritage is reported for part blacks, but monoracial black responses became nonmodal by 1980. Part Pacific Islanders show similarities to part Asians and part American Indians. Given the predominance of multiracial and mixed-ancestry Asian responses since 1980, Asian multiracial may be an emerging socially recognized race category. Black multiracial shows a similar pattern. Monoracial responses (especially common among white–American Indians and black–American Indians) create important but hard-to-measure complexity in groups’ compositions.

Keywordsmultiracial, ancestry, census, race, classification, identification

at ASA - American Sociological Association on September 27, 2016sre.sagepub.comDownloaded from

mailto:[email protected]

http://sre.sagepub.com/

Liebler 549

1960 and 2010)? And third, what group-specific patterns emerge when looking at children from 11 types of interracial marriage?

Society has subtle rules or norms about what it takes to be seen and socially accepted as a member of each race group. Without supportive reflected appraisals (Cooley 1902), an identity can be diffi-cult to maintain. Racial formation projects (Omi and Winant 1994), historical group interactions (Cornell 1990; Gullickson and Morning 2011), family and individual actions, and other social forces determine the character of criteria for belonging to each group and the extent to which people are pushed by group members and outsid-ers to respect these criteria (see Tilly 2004). I aim to shed light on race group boundaries: where they have been drawn in the past and implications for their futures. The broader purpose of this research is to uncover patterns in the social processes that convert a newborn child of mixed heritage into an adult who reports a particular race or set of races and who might or might not report the mixed heritage.

Race groups are defined by outsiders and expe-rienced by insiders in relation to one another (Kim 1999). Interracial marriages give researchers an empirical opportunity to see how the boundaries of two groups interact. Two race groups’ membership rules can overlap such that a person who has heri-tage in both groups can be accepted as a member of each group without caveat. For example, the gen-eral rules of “white” and “American Indian” appear to overlap, such that people who have both heri-tages are socially permitted to make a wide variety of race claims, including monoracial claims. Indeed, the “white” population includes some with American Indian heritage, and the “American Indian” population includes some with white heri-tage (Liebler 2010a). This hidden diversity under-mines depictions of our society that describe a clear divide between, for example, whites and nonwhites (see Lee and Bean 2007) or whites and honorary whites (Bonilla-Silva 2004). It may also open the door to race response change when a person is asked their race in another context because multi-ple responses are plausible (see Liebler et al. 2014; Liebler, Bhaskar, and Porter forthcoming).

When membership rules of two groups intersect unequally, people who have both heritages may feel constrained to identify a certain way. For example, a person with black and Japanese heritage might get negative interpersonal feedback when claiming “Japanese with black ancestry” but have little trouble supporting a claim of “black with

Japanese ancestry.” Unequal intersections may be revealed using ancestry responses in conjunction with race responses.

Constraints can be uncomfortable and not every-one abides by any rule. Some people of mixed heri-tage feel that they must navigate a “borderland” in which no single-race response can fit with ease (Anzaldúa 2007; C.-Y. Cheng and Lee 2009; ProjectRACE n.d.; Rockquemore 1999; Root 1996); parents of children with mixed heritage might antici-pate or reflect these feelings in their children’s cen-sus answers. If component race groups are believed to include only those of unmixed heritage (e.g., white; Haney López 2006) or are seen as having contrasting values (C.-Y. Cheng and Lee 2009), a multiracial report seems particularly likely. If some multiracial responses become particularly common, a racial formation project (Omi and Winant 1994) may emerge to solidify the category as widely socially recognized.1

By identifying predictors of which single race was reported for the child of an interracially mar-ried couple, previous researchers have shed light on enacted boundaries of long-standing single-race groups (Brunsma 2005; Kana’iaupuni and Liebler 2005; Liebler 2004; Liebler and Kana’iaupuni 2003–2004; Qian 2004; Saenz et al. 1995; Xie and Goyette 1998).2 Other researchers have studied multiracial responses or multiple measures of heri-tage, describing patterns of identification in less established groups (Bratter 2007; Gullickson and Morning 2011; Jones and Smith 2003; Liebler 2010a, 2010b; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2002; Roth 2005).

My work speaks to this research tradition and expands it in four ways. I document a more com-plete range of mixed-heritage responses (using both race and ancestry) for children in each parent race pairing to gain more nuanced information about where race group boundaries have formed and may be developing (see Burton, Nandi, and Platt 2010). I include 11 parent race pairings, including five double-minority pairings which have not been stud-ied before, allowing each race group to be studied from multiple angles. I study the period from 1960 to 2010, rather than focusing on a single year. I also use the large samples and detailed response infor-mation in nonpublic census and American Community Survey (ACS) data, including unsolic-ited multiple-race responses given in 1980 and 1990. These innovations allow me to provide the most complete picture yet of the ways race group boundaries have been drawn, have changed, and may be developing in the United States.



550 Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 2(4)

TERMINOLOGyI use several terms that require clarification. Race and ancestry are socially constructed categorical concepts tapped by separate census questions (see Appendix A for wording and Appendix B for cate-gories on each year’s questionnaire). Race is thought to be ascribed by others, based on pheno-type and ancestral origins, actively socially con-structed, and extremely socially consequential. The Census Bureau and most sociologists do not con-sider race to be based on a scientific categorization system (Lewontin 1972; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1976:15–19). Because of its social and legal impor-tance, a race question is always included on census forms. Race groups were federally defined in 1977 (Office of Management and Budget [OMB] 1977) and revised in 1997 (OMB 1997). Census catego-ries have followed the OMB’s “major race groups,” which are currently white, black or African American (“black” here), American Indian or Alaska Native (“American Indian” here), Asian, and Pacific Islander. Census forms also include a residual “other” race category. Note that Hispanic origin is not considered a race by the federal gov-ernment, and I do not treat it as a race in this research.3 A person’s ancestry is expected to be a reflection of his or her family tree, consisting of his or her (or ancestors’) ethnic groups (e.g., Sicilian, Han) or countries of origin (e.g., Italy, China). Individuals’ ancestry responses are particularly unstable over time (Lieberson and Waters 1993) and are often uncodable or missing, so I utilize ancestry reports cautiously.

I use mixed heritage to describe a person with family origins in more than one race group, whether or not they report those varied origins (Farley 2004; Hout and Goldstein 1994; Pew Research Center 2015; Waters 1990). I use multiracial to indicate that two or more races were reported, mixed ances-try to indicate a singular race response with con-trasting ancestry (e.g., white with Han ancestry), and monoracial for persons with no indication of mixed racial heritage. A first-generation multiracial person is someone who has monoracial parents of different races. Categorizing a person as “mixed heritage” versus “monoracial heritage” is an inher-ently flawed process involving difficult coding decisions and questionable assumptions (see Appendix C for coding choices). I use the terms first generation, single race, monoracial, and mul-tiple race in reference to responses to census ques-tions that were probably answered by one of the child’s parents;4 I have no substantiated information

about the family tree, who filled out the question-naire, or what was meant by the responses.

HyPOTHESES BASED ON PRIOR RESEARCHWhen deciding how to report the race and ancestry of someone with mixed heritage (particularly one-self or one’s child), a person likely takes into account factors such as phenotype, socialization, experiences, interactions, family dynamics, and perceived socioeconomic and/or psychological benefits and disadvantages. If broader social forces did not constrain identification, we might see no societywide patterns in race responses as people used individual- and family-specific factors to make a free choice in accordance with their mind-sets and networks. However, broader social forces do affect race responses (and these forces change over time). Direct feedback and subtle pressures guide mind-sets and networks to develop in particular ways. A mixed heritage person (or their parent who is filling out the census form) might avoid a particular race/ancestry report because social interactions and reflected appraisals have not supported this identity claim (Cooley 1902; Davis 2001; Robertson 2013). Patterns in the race claims made for thousands of mixed-heritage people can reveal previously hidden social constraints. In the next section, I explain my expectations about which race/ancestry responses were common and which were rarely used to describe these children of intermarriage.

Report Mixed Heritage?Is a mixed-heritage child reported as monoracial (only one parent’s group is mentioned), multiracial (with both parents reported equally), or something in between (mixed ancestry)? Over the course of the decades covered by this study, there have been important changes in the ways in which people could have been reported as mixed. In 1960 and 1970, only one race response per person was solic-ited and recorded in the data; all people were administratively forced to choose a monoracial response. In 1980 and 1990, the respondents were instructed to choose only one race response, but a secondary race group could be reported in the ancestry question offered later in the questionnaire. Reporting mixed heritage through the combination of race and ancestry shows one parent’s race as privileged over the other’s (the latter being reported as ancestry). Before 2000, unequal representation



Liebler 551

was required by the census form instructions, but beginning in 2000, the instruction to “mark one or more” races allowed parents equal billing if they reported the child as both races.

Several forms of internal and external pressures can encourage a monoracial response, including family dynamics that privilege one parent’s family of origin (e.g., mothers as kin keepers or fathers as patriarchs). Fewer people than expected reported multiple races in Census 2000 (Farley 2004). Single-race identity enhances a sense of group belonging (Rockquemore and Brunsma 2007) and minimizes a person’s sense of being a “marginal man” (Park 1928; Stonequist 1937). A single-race report might be provided in order to convey a sociopolitical mes-sage about where resources should be allocated, especially for people associated with a tribe (see U.S. Census Bureau 2008), in which case a parent of mixed heritage who self-reports as monoracial might apply the same reasoning to the child.

Despite these pressures, I see two reasons to expect that most of the children in this study will be reported as mixed heritage when possible. First, many first-generation mixed-heritage people argue that they should not be categorized as entirely to one group; they reserve the right to self-categorize and often claim multiple races (e.g., S. Cheng and Lively 2009; Korgen 1998; ProjectRACE n.d.; Rockquemore 1999; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2007; Root 1996; Tashiro 2011). These voices are part of the “multiracial” race project (Omi and Winant 1994; ProjectRACE n.d.), which seems to have reduced social willingness to enforce rigid race membership criteria and allowed people more room to self-define. Second, out of concerns of fairness, accuracy, minimizing conflict, and/or awareness of psychological benefit, interracially married coresident parents may prefer to have both races equally represented in the report for the child (ProjectRACE n.d.; Sillars and Kalbflesch 1989). These preferences may outweigh their consider-ation of socially imposed norms of who “belongs” in which group, allowing them to take a step toward revising those norms. I hypothesize that since it became possible in 1980, children of interracially married parents have a strong tendency to be reported as multiracial or of mixed ancestry.

Change over Time in Mixed Responses?In my second research question, I ask, How have the responses changed over time and with important changes in how the questions were asked? The early years included in this study—1960 and 1970—give

a baseline; they reveal which monoracial response was most common for each group when there was no way to indicate mixed heritage to the Census Bureau. In 1960 and 1970, interracial marriages were relatively rare, and for most race pairings, there were few role models who identified as multi-racial; both socially and procedurally, parents were pushed to choose a single race for their child. Since then, intermarriage has become more common (Qian and Lichter 2011), and bureaucratic restric-tions on identification have lessened (OMB 1997). Americans’ conception of race seems to have shifted to a more nuanced and culture-based under-standing that questions the legitimacy of rigidly enforcing race group membership criteria. All of these factors make room for mixed identities and responses, so I expect that mixed-heritage responses have been increasingly common from 1980 to 2010 among children of interracially married parents.

There was a major procedural change between the 1990 census (which solicited single-race responses) and the 2000 census (when multiple race responses were first sought on the form). Because of changes in the questionnaire, I expect that mixed-heritage responses show a particular increase between 1990 and 2000.

Group Differences in Common Responses?In my third research question, I ask, How and why is the distribution of responses different across the parent race combinations represented in this study? Race categories and race assignment are socially constructed large-scale social processes as well as personal decisions (influenced by these processes), such as how to present oneself or one’s child. Because of variation in group histories and racial formation projects, the race groups included in this study (listed in Appendix B) vary widely in what members and outsiders see as the limits of member-ship. Thus, in addition to the hypotheses above, I expect cross-group variation in the extent to which each single-race group is claimed or eschewed.

Whites. Although groups in the United States may move toward recognition as white (Gordon 1964; Haney López 2006; Painter 2010; Roediger 2005), whiteness can be less claimable at the individual level. The emphasis on purity within the social construct of whiteness (Haney López 2006; Lee and Bean 2007) is so strong that many laws were passed with the intention of minimizing the num-ber of multiracial part-white people (e.g., by limit-ing social interaction between people of different race groups; see Spickard 1991). For part-white




people of mixed heritage, self-identification as white can also have negative social implications: it is described negatively as “passing” and is seen as an affront to minority pride (Davis 2001; Russell, Wilson, and Hall 1992). Because of these social constraints, I expect that it has been relatively rare for a child of an interracially married white parent to be reported as monoracially white.

Part-white children in the earlier years of this study may have a different response pattern. In mid-century America, the costs of color were still very high, and parents socialized before the social move-ments of the 1960s may have attempted to reduce their children’s costs by presenting them as white. Thus I expect that “monoracial white” responses for children of mixed heritage were more common in 1960 and 1970 than in later years.

Asians. Several Asian groups exhibit strict mem-bership criteria such that Asians of mixed heritage have not been accepted as truly Asian (King-O’Riain 2004; Song and Hashem 2010; Spickard 2001). Mixed-heritage Asian–whites in Britain report that language fluency and cultural trappings are required for an “authentic” claim of Asian race and that these are very difficult to acquire (Song and Hashem 2010). These social restrictions lead me to expect that a child of a Japanese, Chinese, or other Asian parent and a non-Asian parent has tended not to be reported as monoracially Asian. The processes may differ across Asian groups as a reflection of their immigration, incorporation, and intermarriage histories, so I present results sepa-rately by group to the extent possible.

Blacks. Historically, rules of membership in the black race group have been clear and enforced in the United States—a part-black person has been considered racially black in the legal system, by “social others,” and by other blacks (Cornell 1990; Davis 2001). Other race groups’ boundaries can be particularly guarded with respect to part blacks. When interviewed, however, part-black people often reveal a multiracial “internal identity” (self-perception, in the language of Harris and Sim 2002) and “expressed identity” (self-presentation), even when “observed identity” (observer’s interpreta-tion) is monoracial black (Guo et al. 2014; Khanna 2011; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2007; Root 1996; Song and Hashem 2010). Taking into account both social constraints and personal feelings, I hypothesize that a child of an interracially married black parent has often been reported as monora-cially black and rarely as monoracially nonblack.

Indigenous people. The social rules about who should be considered indigenous (American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian) are compli-cated. In some ways, there are strict and enforced membership criteria, but in other ways, member-ship can be self-defined with little social coercion.

Restrictive membership criteria stem from political and fiscal relationships with federal and tribal governments, which (with help from inter-ested individuals) patrol the boundaries of mem-bership in these groups; who counts as “real” can be hotly contested (Garroutte 2003; Hagan 1985; Robertson 2013). American Indian tribes are nations with written citizenship rules—a person is either an enrolled tribal citizen or not (see Robertson 2013). American Indians who give a monoracial response may be using the race ques-tion to affirm this legal status (see U.S. Census Bureau 2008) and may not be intending to describe their family tree as unmixed. Monoracial Native Hawaiians and Alaska Natives may also be refer-encing political allegiances rather than family trees. If proof of indigenous heritage is not avail-able, the family may avoid reporting the child as indigenous to avoid embarrassing social conse-quences (e.g., Bauerlein 2012).5 In sum, I expect that children of interracially married indigenous people have tended to be reported as monoracial—either wholly indigenous or nonindigenous.

At the same time, others with more remote fam-ily histories and levels of cultural knowledge also claim membership in indigenous groups (with varying degrees of success in gaining legitimacy; see Jacobs 2015 and Sturm 2011). Pacific Islanders and others in Hawaii are famous for welcoming multiracialism (Rohrer 2008; Smith 1934; Spickard 2001; Spickard and Fong 1995) and for having a personal “consciousness of multiplicity” (Spickard 2001:23) that encourages mixed-race identities. Therefore, I also propose the opposite hypothesis to the above: because of the proportion of families with generations of mixed heritage, the presence of ongoing group conversations about authenticity, and traditions of openness toward multiracially-identified relatives, I expect that parents of mixed-heritage indigenous children have tended to report their child’s mixed heritage.

METHODOLOGyDataI use dense nonpublic data (housed in the Census Bureau’s Research Data Centers [RDCs]) from the



Liebler 553

decennial census long forms of 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 (each with 17 to 25 percent of the U.S. population) and the 2008–2010 ACS, which replaced the 2010 long form (including 4.5 percent of the population in that period). With such dense samples, I have sufficient cases to study detailed race/ancestry responses and can include five types of double-minority families. The nonpublic data also give detail on unsought multiple-race responses to the race question in 1980 (a few codes) and 1990 (many codes).

I begin the study period in 1960 despite the differ-ences in question availability between years. I do this because social rules are continually changing and the description of a longer time span gives more com-plete evidence about whether and how social forces influence response choices. Since 1960, census responses have generally been provided by someone in the household rather than an enumerator.6 Enumerators were asked to follow specific proce-dures for deciding the race to record for mixed- heritage children, while household respondents have been able to make reporting decisions based on the very same personal, family, and societal factors that sociologists would like to understand.

Sample selection. In order to be able to include all 11 family types throughout the period of study, my sample selection criteria maximize sample size. I exclude a small proportion of cases because a par-ent’s race or the child’s race was imputed by the Census Bureau or the child’s race response did not match either or both parents. My sample in each year consists of coresident children of a married monora-cial householder and a different-race, monoracial, opposite-sex spouse. Unfortunately, some family configurations are left out of the study, including cohabiting couples, single-parent families, and fami-lies where one spouse was absent (e.g., active mili-tary). Married, present parents’ races are more salient in the home and relatively likely to be consid-ered as part of the child’s race response. Thus, chil-dren in my study may be relatively likely to be presented as multiracial, as compared to children from the excluded family types.

I limit this study to monoracial parents to improve comparability across families, groups, and time. If the parents’ responses reflect their heri-tages, all children in this study have equal claim to two race groups that are each represented on the questionnaire with a check box within the race question. Future researchers could study children with parents of mixed heritage (see Bratter 2007); these children probably have an uneven connection

to the parent race groups and thus have response patterns that differ in interesting ways from those reported here. I excluded a child if his or her parent reported mixed heritage in the ancestry question, but (in Appendix D) I show the number excluded to encourage future research on these families. Additionally many other children have at least one multiple-race parent (in the nonpublic data: 1,900 in 1980; 5,300 in 1990; 238,800 in 2000; and 58,600 in the 2008–10 ACS).

This is a study of the “children” of householders as measured by the relationship question. The ques-tion’s categories have not always separated “natural-born” children from adopted children or stepchildren, which introduces some error. My samples include son/daughter (including adopted children and step-children) in 1960, 1970, and 1980; natural-born or adopted son or daughter (not a stepchild) in 1990; and natural-born or biological son or daughter (not a stepchild or adopted child) in 2000 and 2008–2010 ACS. I estimate that fewer than 5 percent of the chil-dren in the 1960-to-1990 samples are not biologi-cally related to the householder.7

Because the child might not be biologically related to the householder’s spouse, the child’s reported race will tend to match the race of the householder (usually the father8). In all groups in my samples, children’s race reports do tend to match the race of the householder, whether this is the mother or the father (supplementary analysis not shown). Gendered patterns in intermarriage (Qian and Lichter 2011) mean that this could affect my results. In part-black families, for example, the black parent is often the father (and householder), so his child would tend toward being reported as black. In part-Asian families, the Asian parent is more often the mother (and householder’s spouse), so the child report would tend away from Asian.

I include all children of the householder regard-less of age to achieve the numerical threshold needed for disclosure from the RDC. Public data on children like those in my study show that 28 to 34 percent are 18 or older (Ruggles et al. 2010). When I restrict my data to children ages 0 to 17 (in supple-mentary analyses with nonpublic data), I find simi-lar results. The exception is that adult “children” tend toward monoracial responses, perhaps because older children are more likely to be the product of an earlier union (perhaps a first union), and first unions are less often interracial (see Fu 2010).

In Table 1, I list the 11 parent race combinations and the approximate (unweighted) number of chil-dren in the data in each family type. Including double- minority families is rare in prior research and



554

Tab

le 1

. A

ppro

xim

ate

(Unw

eigh

ted)

Num

ber

of C

hild

ren

in D

ata.

Com

bina

tion

Rac

es o

f par

ents

1960

Cen

sus

1970

Cen

sus

1980

Cen

sus

1990

Cen

sus

2000

Cen

sus

2008

–201

0A

CS

Pare

nt 1

Pare

nt 2

1W

hite

Blac

k20

,000

15,3

0017

,000

23,0

0040

,000

16,0

002

Whi

teA

mer

ican

Indi

an o

r A

lask

a N

ativ

e12

,000

26,4

0038

,900

43,4

0042

,600

9,30

03

Whi

teC

hine

se24

,000

16,0

0013

,600

11,6

0010

,900

3,90

04

Whi

teJa

pane

se9,

000

3,90

05,

100

7,50

011

,300

5,30

05

Whi

teA

sian

Indi

an, F

ilipi

no, K

orea

n, o

r V

ietn

ames

e6,

000

11,8

0022

,200

28,5

0034

,200

15,0

006

Whi

teH

awai

ian,

Gua

man

ian,

or

Sam

oan

3,90

02,

900

3,40

02,

900

900

7Bl

ack

Am

eric

an In

dian

or

Ala

ska

Nat

ive

1,00

01,

200

1,10

01,

200

1,30

030

08

Blac

kC

hine

se20

070

060

040

040

020

09

Blac

kJa

pane

se60

020

020

020

030

010

010

Blac

kA

sian

Indi

an, F

ilipi

no, K

orea

n, o

r V

ietn

ames

e40

070

01,

600

2,20

02,

700

900

11Bl

ack

Haw

aiia

n, G

uam

ania

n, o

r Sa

moa

n10

020

020

030

010

0

Not

e: S

ee t

ext

for

sam

ple

sele

ctio

n de

tails

and

see

App

endi

x C

for

ance

stry

res

pons

es u

sed

to d

efin

e a

pare

nt a

s “m

onor

acia

l.”



Liebler 555

has been cited as an important avenue for expansion (Hall and Turner 2001). Because I include five types of double-minority families, I extend knowledge about the families themselves and also provide mul-tiple indications of the membership criteria for each race group. For example, similarities for children of white–American Indian heritage and black–Ameri-can Indian heritage point to American Indian group boundaries as the common cause.

Note that strong conclusions about change over time are not prudent because of cross-time changes in who is in the samples. For example, who is con-sidered a “child” changes as stepchildren and adopted children are gradually identified (and excluded). Parents have had increasing opportuni-ties to report their own mixed heritage (and be excluded). The chances that a stepfamily will be erroneously included in the sample varies as step-families become more common, custody arrange-ments become more equal, and fathers become less likely to be reported as householders. In sum, com-parisons across time points should be done with care. Despite these issues, there are three cross-year comparisons that are relatively sound because of key similarities in question wording: 1960 to 1970, 1980 to 1990, and 2000 to the 2008–2010 ACS.

MeasurementMeasuring race. The race question has changed considerably over the years in this study (see Appendix A). Multiple-race responses were first invited in 2000, but multiple-race codes are in the nonpublic data beginning in 1980. The number of race check-box categories has also increased dur-ing this period, as shown in Appendix B. I use only parent race categories that were presented as check box answers to maximize the extent to which par-ents are equally represented.

To achieve sufficient sample size for confidenti-ality, I present combined results for families with a parent who is Hawaiian, Guamanian, or Samoan (Pacific Islander groups). Similar research on 1990 showed that children of interracially married Pacific Islanders have relatively similar racial identification patterns and that these groups can be combined for analysis (Liebler and Kana’iaupuni 2003–2004). Rather than exclude them for small sample sizes, I analyze families with a parent who is Asian Indian, Filipino, Korean, or Vietnamese and present their combined results. These groups have distinct socio-economic profiles and immigration histories (Qian and Shah 2015; Takaki 1998) and their joint results should be interpreted cautiously.

Measuring ancestry. In 1980, the Census Bureau began collecting ancestry data with an open-ended question (“What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?”) and coded the first two responses. This question (in Appendix A) was asked in each census since 1980 and is also in the ACS. I code most ancestry responses as suggestive of a particular racial heritage (see Appendix C), following Gold-stein and Morning (2000, 2002) and Gullickson and Morning (2011). As listed in Appendix C, I use vague ancestry responses (such as “Asian”) given for children to, for example, code a black–Chinese child as “black with Chinese ancestry.” I code the child based only on the reported race(s) (e.g., X race with no Y ancestry) when all ancestry informa-tion was ambiguous, when there was no ancestry response, and when both parents’ races were repre-sented in the race response. Relative to excluding cases with no codable ancestry, by ignoring uncod-able ancestry responses I increased the proportion of children coded as monoracial.

Measuring the child’s reported heritage. In the Results, I present the distribution of children’s race/ancestry reports (percentages) within family type and year. Responses that were technically possible but extremely rare are not included in the results. Because only the race question was asked in 1960 and 1970 and no unsolicited race responses were included in the data, the primary variable those years has only two categories: one parent’s single race or the other parent’s single race. In the other four data sets, for each interracially married couple X–Y, I show the proportion of children reported as race X alone, race X with ancestry Y, races X and Y, race Y with ancestry X, or race Y alone.

RESULTSSocial rules defining the boundaries of race groups are reflected in the race and ancestry responses given for/by mixed-heritage children who have equal claim to two socially distinct race groups. I weight my results to represent all children in each family type at the time and present them in two tables: Table 2 for children with one white parent and Table 3 for chil-dren with two parents of color. Figures 1, 2, and 3 are visual representations of the same information. I use these results to address my hypotheses.

Focus on Mixed HeritageI expected that children of interracially married par-ents would have been predominantly reported as




Table 2. Child’s Race and Ancestry (in percentages) in Families with Interracially Married Monoracial Householder and Spouse: Six Types of Families with a White Parent and a Nonwhite Parent, 1960 to 2010.

Race/ancestry of child with a white (W) parent and . . .

1960 Census

1970 Census

1980 Census

1990 Census

2000 Census

2008–2010 ACS

Black parent W race, no black ancestry 36 34 19 12 10 10 W race and black ancestry 7 6 1 2 W and black races 5 25 57 63 Black race and W ancestry 27 18 5 4 Black race, no W ancestry 64 66 42 39 26 21American Indian or Alaska Native

(AIAN) parent

W race, no AIAN ancestry 39 57 28 25 23 23 W race and AIAN ancestry 22 23 10 12 W and AIAN races # # 17 4 AIAN race and W ancestry 15 11 6 8 AIAN race, no W ancestry 61 43 35 41 45 53Chinese parent W race, no Chinese ancestry 35 58 22 13 9 5 W race and Chinese ancestry 32 29 10 6 W and Chinese races 10 14 66 78 Chinese race and W ancestry 16 18 4 3 Chinese race, no W ancestry 65 42 21 26 11 8Japanese parent W race, no Japanese ancestry 50 81 22 14 9 6 W race and Japanese ancestry 42 35 12 7 W and Japanese races 5 10 64 74 Japanese race and W ancestry 14 18 4 3 Japanese race, no W ancestry 50 19 17 24 12 10Asian Indian, Filipino, Korean, or

Vietnamese (AFKV) parent

W race, no AFKV ancestry 40 67 24 41 15 10 W race and AFKV ancestry 43 20 15 10 W and AFKV races 1 5 54 68 AFKV race and W ancestry 9 10 3 3 AFKV race, no W ancestry 60 33 23 25 14 10Hawaiian, Guamanian, or Samoan

(Pacific Islander [PI]) parent

W race, no PI ancestry 63 27 19 17 11 W race and PI ancestry 25 27 8 13 W and PI races # 3 46 51 PI race and W ancestry 18 15 5 4 PI race, no W ancestry 37 30 37 24 22

Note: Column percentages represent only answers listed. Other answers are rare and are not included in these results. Ancestry was first asked in 1980, and multiple-race responses were first allowed in 2000, but some codes appear in the 1980 and 1990 restricted-use data. Due to rounding, column percentages may not add to 100. See text for further information. ACS = American Community Survey. # = Response is extremely rare; column percentages were calculated without the category.



Liebler 557

mixed heritage (either mixed ancestry or multira-cial) since 1980. On the contrary, the results show that these children’s mixed heritage is often hidden (see Tables 2 and 3 and Figures 1 and 2). Among non-Asians, one third to one half of the children were reported as monoracial—in other words, they were reported as one race with no sign of the other

parent’s background in the race or ancestry responses. In these cases, one parent’s group expe-rienced attrition (Duncan and Trejo 2011) while the other parent’s group absorbed a first-generation mixed-race person into its ranks. These results show that the black and American Indian groups have more often absorbed children of mixed heritage,

Table 3. Child’s Race and Ancestry (in percentages) in Families with Interracially Married Monoracial Householder and Spouse: Five Types of Double-minority Families with a Black Parent and a Nonblack Parent, 1960 to 2010.

Race/ancestry of child with a black (B) parent and . . .

1960 Census

1970 Census

1980 Census

1990 Census

2000 Census

2008–2010 ACS

American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) parent

B race, no AIAN ancestry 83 78 41 45 36 41 B race and AIAN ancestry 19 16 4 9 B and AIAN races # 3 35 10 AIAN race and B ancestry 12 11 1 0 AIAN race, no B ancestry 17 22 28 26 24 40Chinese parent B race, no Chinese ancestry 81 71 29 31 17 10 B race and Chinese ancestry 36 23 10 9 B and Chinese races # 17 61 80 Chinese race and B ancestry 19 9 # # Chinese race, no B ancestry 19 29 16 19 12 #Japanese parent B race, no Japanese ancestry 97 90 34 36 14 17 B race and Japanese ancestry 52 32 10 13 B and Japanese races # 12 70 69 Japanese race and B ancestry 7 14 # # Japanese race, no B ancestry 3 10 7 6 6 #Asian Indian, Filipino, Korean, or

Vietnamese (AFKV) parent

B race, no AFKV ancestry 83 83 34 56 26 19 B race and AFKV ancestry 39 13 12 9 B and AFKV races # 5 54 63 AFKV race and B ancestry 9 11 1 2 AFKV race, no B ancestry 17 17 18 15 7 7Hawaiian, Guamanian, or Samoan

(Pacific Islander [PI]) parent

B race, no PI ancestry 83 63 41 24 25 B race and PI ancestry 20 31 8 10 B and PI race # 6 60 65 PI race and B ancestry # # # # PI race, no B ancestry 17 17 22 9 #

Note: Column percentages represent only answers listed. Other answers are rare and are not included in these results. Ancestry was first asked in 1980, and multiple-race responses were first allowed in 2000, but some codes appear in the 1980 and 1990 restricted-use data. Due to rounding, column percentages may not add to 100. See text for further information. ACS = American Community Survey. # = Response is extremely rare; column percentages were calculated without the category.




and the white and Asian groups have been receiving few “monoracial” children of mixed heritage. Part-Chinese and part-Japanese children in recent decades have been the exception, with 61 to 80 per-cent of children reported as multiple race.

I also expected that children would be reported as multiple race rather than a race/ancestry combi-nation. Because multiple-race responses in the data were unsolicited in 1980 and 1990, this hypothesis

is best addressed with data from 2000 and later. Results show that multiple-race responses have been more common than mixed-race/ancestry responses in all almost all groups since 2000. Notably, however, in all years since 1980 and in most family types, one tenth to one fifth of families gave a single-race response and used the ancestry question to express their nuanced preferences in a way that privileges one group over the other.

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008-10

W race, no Black ancestryW race & Black ancestryW & Black racesBlack race & W ancestryBlack race, no W ancestry

W race, no AFKV ancestryW race & AFKV ancestryW & AFKV racesAFKV race & W ancestryAFKV race, no W ancestry

W race, no PI ancestryW race & PI ancestryW & PI racesPI race & W ancestryPI race, no W ancestry

W race, no Japanese ancestryW race & Japanese ancestryW & Japanese racesJapanese race & W ancestryJapanese race, no W ancestry

W race, no Chinese ancestryW race & Chinese ancestryW & Chinese racesChinese race & W ancestryChinese race, no W ancestry

W race, no AIAN ancestryW race & AIAN ancestryW & AIAN racesAIAN race & W ancestryAIAN race, no W ancestry

W &

BW

& A

IAN

W &

Chi

nese

W &

Jap

anes

eW

& P

IW

& A

FK

VChild's race and ancestry

Figure 1. Child’s race and ancestry in families with interracially married monoracial householder and spouse: Six types of families with a white parent and a nonwhite parent, 1960 to 2010.Note: See Table 2 for a numeric version of this information.



Liebler 559

Increase over TimeI expected to see an increase over time in the for-mal disclosure of a child’s mixed heritage with the idea that strict enforcement of socially constructed rules has fallen out of vogue. Cross-year variation in the types of families in the sample limits the abil-ity to make a strong test of this idea. To make a beginning, in Figure 3 I depict cross-time changes in the proportion of responses that are mixed heri-tage of any kind.

Between 1980 and 1990, when mixed heritage was reported via the ancestry question or by unso-licited multiple-race responses, there was not a clear upward trend in the prevalence of mixed-heritage

reports; mixed-heritage responses were about as common in 1990 as in 1980: between 35 and 60 per-cent in most groups. In the second period shown (2000 to 2010), there was more of a clear increase in mixed-heritage responses. This later period included more widespread and intricate societywide conver-sations focused on mixed-heritage people’s need to be socially and officially allowed to self-define as multiracial.

As expected, there was a jump in mixed responses between 1990 (when one race response was requested) and 2000 (when the race question instructed respondents to “mark one or more”). However, because mixed-heritage responses were

1960 1980 2000

B race, no AIAN ancestryB race & AIAN ancestryB & AIAN racesAIAN race & B ancestryAIAN race, no B ancestry

B race, no Chinese ancestryB race & Chinese ancestryB & Chinese racesChinese race & B ancestryChinese race, no B ancestry

B race, no Japanese ancestryB race & Japanese ancestryB & Japanese racesJapanese race & B ancestryJapanese race, no B ancestry

B race, no AFKV ancestryB race & AFKV ancestryB & AFKV racesAFKV race & B ancestryAFKV race, no B ancestry

B race, no PI ancestryB race & PI ancestryB & PI racesPI race & B ancestryPI race, no B ancestry

h

Child's race and ancestryB

& A

IAN

B &

Chi

nese

B &

Jap

anes

eB

& A

FK

VB

& P

I

Figure 2. Child’s race and ancestry in families with interracially married monoracial householder and spouse: Five types of double-minority families with a black parent and a nonblack parent, 1960 to 2010.Note: See Table 3 for a numeric version of this information.




fairly common already in 1990, the overall increase in mixed-heritage reports in 2000 was moderate. Though the race question wording shifted the spe-cific ways in which this was reported, children of interracially married couples have been reported as mixed heritage since at least 1980.

Group DifferencesBeyond a tendency to report mixed heritage, I anticipated cross-group variation in the social con-struction of race. Specifically, I expected group-specific histories, racial formation projects, and orientation toward other groups to influence pat-terns in children’s reported racial heritage.

White. I expected few part-white children to be reported monoracially white, with relatively more white responses in the earliest years. In a notable departure from the supposedly dominant “one-drop rule” of blackness (Davis 2001), over one third of

black–white children were reported as white in 1960 and 1970. In 1960, a similarly large proportion of American Indian–, Chinese–, and Filipino–white chil-dren were also reported as white. After 1970, the pat-tern shifted away from monoracial white responses; a small and decreasing proportion of part-white children were reported as monoracially white (with the excep-tion of white–American Indians). It is possible that the white race boundary is becoming less permeable (with the exception of white–American Indians) as the “multiracial” option becomes a more viable alterna-tive (ProjectRACE n.d.; OMB 1997).

Asian. In the past half century, part-Asian children have been rarely reported as only Asian. In 1970, when mixed heritage could not be reported, white–Asian and black–Asian children were almost always reported as their non-Asian parent’s race. In later years, monoracial Asian responses remained rare in a way that parallels the white group. Like part whites, socially enforced norms and internalized

Panel A

Panel B

0102030405060708090

100 Black & White

American Indian & White

Chinese & White

Japanese & White

Other Asian (AFKV) & White

Pacific Islander & White

1980 1990 2000 2008-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 White & Black

American Indian & Black

Chinese & Black

Japanese & Black

Other Asian (AFKV) & Black

Pacific Islander & Black

1980 1990 2000 2008-10

Figure 3. Percentages of children reported as having mixed heritage, 1980 to 2010. Panel A: Mixed-heritage reports among children with a white parent. Panel B: Mixed-heritage reports among children with a black parent.Note: A mixed heritage response includes multiple-race responses and responses with a race/ancestry combination that mentions both parents’ races. Major questionnaire changes preclude direct comparison between 1990 and 2000. See Tables 2 and 3 for numeric versions of this information.



Liebler 561

preferences seem to strongly discourage a monora-cial response (whether Asian, white, or black) by/for a part Asian. Importantly for social and statistical reasons, the part-Asian children have not been dis-appearing from the enumerated Asian group (if ancestry reports are utilized); most have been reported as mixed whenever possible.

Black. Given the social history and legal definitions of blacks in the United States, I expected part-black children to be often reported as monoracially black and rarely as single-race nonblack. My results show that monoracial black responses have been com-mon—about twice as common as monoracial-non-black responses in most double-minority family types. However, monoracial black has almost never been the modal response; mixed ancestry and multi-ple race have been widely used. Children of black–Asian and black–Pacific Islander intermarriages are rarely reported as monoracially Asian/Pacific Islander; perhaps the long-standing definition of Asians in contrast to “racial triangulation” with blacks (Kim 1999) has specifically disallowed an Asian-race claim from someone with black heritage.

Indigenous peoples. I proposed two contradictory hypotheses about indigenous children of mixed heri-tage. The results support one of these: the idea that political standing (e.g., tribal enrollment) encour-ages monoracial American Indian identification for some and non–American Indian identification for others. The proportion of white–American Indians reported as monoracially American Indian has been high and steady, while the proportion of black–American Indians reported as monoracially Ameri-can Indian has been increasing. These patterns are in clear contrast to the other nine types of families in which children are increasingly reported as mixed. Very few children with an American Indian parent were reported as multiracial or mixed heritage. Part–Pacific Islander children (some of whom are indig-enous Native Hawaiians) are more similar to the other groups in the study but have tended to be reported as single race more often than part-Asian children, lending support to the same hypothesis that political considerations can provide an important and persistent push toward monoracial responses.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONSPeople report mixed heritage for a variety of reasons that apply to the children of interracial marriages

studied here. Many people of mixed-race heritage report feeling both inside and outside the boundaries of their component groups (e.g., Anzaldúa 2007; Rockquemore 1999; Root 1996; Tashiro 2011) and uncomfortable identifying with just one group. A race group may be socially defined in exclusion or opposition to another group, thus imposing norma-tive constraints against a mixed-heritage person fully identifying with that group. Alternatively, interracially married parents may wish to be equally represented to the outside world and therefore push against imposed group boundary norms (e.g., the “one-drop rule” of blackness).

Most analysts ignore substantial information about a person’s heritage by relying only on an individual’s answer to the race question to identify race group members. This simplification draws a deceptively clean line between race groups. My results show that an analyst using this strategy would identify as mixed heritage only half to three quarters of the children of the interracially married couples studied here (fewer part American Indians; also see Pew Research Center 2015). Researchers and theorists (see Song 2004) hoping to understand the experiences and characteristics of people with ties to a specific group would do better to use the full range of information available, including fam-ily members’ race responses and responses to the ancestry question.

Children of interracial marriages are not univer-sally reported as mixed heritage; in all years, a siz-able proportion of the non-Asian mixed-heritage children were described as monoracial. This is notable because the children in this study are prob-ably among people most likely to be reported as mixed—they live with parents from two different race groups. Their specific monoracial responses are telling about group boundaries—monoracial white and monoracial Asian responses are rare for white–Asians, black–Asians, and white–blacks, implying that the boundaries of white and Asian are defined in contrast to one another and to the black group. This is consistent with the racial triangula-tion hypothesis proposed by Kim (1999). Monoracial black responses are common (though not as common as some would predict), highlight-ing the well-known inclusiveness of the definition of “black.” This is not always reciprocated; for example, there is an uneven overlap between black and Pacific Islander such that a variety of responses are common so long as black is named as a race.

Part American Indians are exceptionally likely to be reported as monoracial (white or black or




American Indian). This may reveal a distinct form of group boundary definition due to the sociopoliti-cal context. Government entities and group mem-bers have a stake in who is considered American Indian, formal membership criteria are legally defined (Robertson 2013), and some see the identity as more about nation than race (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). My results seem to show that people tend to fall on one side or the other of this boundary. Those white– and black–American Indians who for some reason do not identify as American Indian might find that a monoracial white or monoracial black response is socially acceptable because of overlap in the race group boundaries.

Readers, analysts, and theorists must keep in mind, however, that social forces and personal identities shift such that a person’s race and ancestry response can change over time (Lieberson and Waters 1993; Liebler et al. 2014; Mowen and Stansfield 2015). The people in this study—first-generation mixed-heritage chil-dren—are probably among those most likely to change their race/ancestry responses if asked again when dif-ferent social pressures are in play.

Children of interracially married parents have been reported as mixed heritage since at least 1980 and increasingly so with the change in race ques-tion wording. This pattern makes it clear that a “mixed” response is not simply a reaction to the new race question or to recent social change. Instead, families of mixed-heritage children have long been interested in expressing the child’s diverse heritage to outsiders.

Multiracial responses are extremely common among the part-Asian children in this study and also quite common among part blacks. The prior research that highlights the social emphasis on “just black” (e.g., Davis 2001) is focused on the legal and “social other” views of a part-black per-son’s race. In-home identification (as done in the census) is not so simple, and there is likely more to be revealed by qualitative research (Rockquemore and Brunsma 2007; Tashiro 2011). Demographic predominance is a key to the development of new race groups (Bashi 1998) and could drive racial formation processes (Omi and Winant 1994). Thus, we may see Asian multiracial and black multiracial develop as socially (if not federally) recognized race groups (see King and DaCosta 1996).

Overall, I have shown social patterning in the range of responses deemed plausible for a child who has equal claim to two major race groups. I found that not all response options are used, and

there can be change in the set of socially viable claims. Social constraints on mixed-heritage peo-ple’s group membership can cause race group attri-tion and thus affect the size, location, and characteristics of various race populations and how these transform over time. The race data collected in censuses and surveys and analyzed by social researchers, and indeed, the boundaries of the race groups themselves, are affected by race response choices made by people in multiracial families.

Future research can build on these results in at least four ways. First, children whose parents, grandparents, or other ancestors were mixed heri-tage may have different response patterns than the children in this study because of varying connec-tion to the groups in their family tree. Case counts show that the nonpublic data can support a separate analysis of these children. Second, in a small pro-portion of cases, siblings’ race/ancestry reports dif-fer, perhaps due to variations in phenotype, friendship groups, experiences, and interest. With more suitable data (e.g., data collected separately for each sibling), a researcher could identify per-sonal factors causing within-family variation in responses. Third, there is room to expand the tradi-tion of multivariate models by predicting a child’s race/ancestry/Hispanic response with focus on diverse family race compositions (e.g., single- parent families and cohabiting couples) and includ-ing multiple decades. And fourth, if data were available on the parental race(s) of people who do not live with their parents, a researcher could improve understanding of how these processes play out among adults of mixed heritage.

My results are consistent with prior research, but stretch knowledge about boundaries of race groups in the United States over half a century. I illustrate changes in society during a period when interracial marriage became more common, the “multiracial” race project was established, and the Census Bureau’s question wording was revised. By including double minorities, I expand informa-tion about these groups, viewing within-group continuities in how race responses are assigned and delving more deeply into constraints affecting membership in America’s race groups. These expansions are particularly robust, even for rare groups, because the nonpublic census data are dense and contain information about multiple-race and mixed-heritage responses in 1980 and 1990, decades before federal rules acknowledged people of mixed racial heritage.



Liebler 563

Appendix A. Questions about Race, Ancestry, and Hispanic Origin in Decennial Censuses (1960–2000) and the American Community Survey (2008–2010).

year Question

Race questions (see Table 2 for response categories)

1960 5. Is this person . . . White, Negro, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Part Hawaiian, Aleut, Eskimo, (etc.)?

1970 4. Color or race. Fill one circle. 1980 4. Is this person . . . Fill one circle. 1990 4. Race. Fill one circle for the race that the person considers himself/

herself to be. 2000 and 2008–2010 6. What is this person’s race? Mark (X) one or more races to indicate

what this person considers himself/herself to be.Ancestry questions 1980 14. What is this person's ancestry? If uncertain about how to report

ancestry, see instruction guide. (For example: Afro-Amer., English, French, German, Honduran, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Jamaican, Korean, Lebanese, Mexican, Nigerian, Polish, Ukrainian, Venezuelan, etc.)

1990 13. What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? (See instruction guide for further information.) (For example: German, Italian, Afro-Amer., Croatian, Cape Verdean, Dominican, Ecuadorean, Haitian, Cajun, French Canadian, Jamaican, Korean, Lebanese, Mexican, Nigerian, Irish, Polish, Slovak, Taiwanese, Thai, Ukrainian, etc.)

2000 and 2008–2010 10. What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? (For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)

Note: Not all listed categories are available in the long-form data for 1960. Also, the ancestry question was not asked in 1960 or 1970.

Appendix B. Race Response Categories Offered as Check Boxes in Decennial Censuses (1960–2000) and the American Community Survey (ACS; 2008–2010).

Category1960

Census1970

Census1980

Census1990

Census2000

Census2008–

2010 ACS

White x x x x x xBlack or African American x x x x x xAmerican Indian or Alaska Nativea x x x x x xChinese x x x x x xJapanese x x x x x xAsian Indian x x x xFilipino x x x x x xKorean x x x x xVietnamese x x x xHawaiianb x x x x xGuamanian x x x xSamoan x x x x“Other race” x x x x x x

Note: In 1990, the category “other Asian or Pacific Islander” was also offered. In 2000 and in the 2008–2010 ACS, “other Asian” and “other Pacific Islander” were offered separately. In 2000 and later, the instructions allowed for more than one race response. Some multiple-race responses were coded in 1980 and 1990 and are available in the restricted-use data used here.aEskimo and Aleut categories were not included in the available 1960 data. Alaska Natives were not mentioned in the 1970 census outside of Alaska. Eskimo and Aleut were offered as separate Alaska Native check box categories in 1980 and 1990.bHawaiian and part Hawaiian were not included in the available 1960 data.



564

App

endi

x C

. C

odin

g A

nces

try

Res

pons

es in

to R

ace

Gro

ups:

Val

ues

for

Anc

estr

y V

aria

bles

in 1

990

Cen

sus

Non

publ

ic D

ata.

Rac

e/or

igin

gro

up in

dica

ted

Val

ues

for

ance

stry

var

iabl

es

Anc

estr

y va

lues

am

ong

pare

nts

clas

sifie

d as

mon

orac

ial

Whi

teN

ot 5

00–5

71, 5

73–7

99, 8

02, 8

08–9

23

Blac

kN

ot 1

–299

, 572

, 600

–799

, 802

, 808

–900

, 913

–925

A

mer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

a N

ativ

eN

ot 1

–905

, 924

–925

A

sian

(al

l gro

ups)

Not

1–5

99, 8

02, 8

08–9

25

Paci

fic Is

land

er (

all g

roup

s)N

ot 1

–799

, 900

–925

Chi

ld a

nces

try

resp

onse

indi

cate

s a

spec

ific

race

Whi

te1–

209,

572

, 800

–801

, 803

, 924

, 925

Bl

ack

500–

571,

573

–599

, 900

–904

, 908

A

mer

ican

Indi

an/A

lask

a N

ativ

e91

3–92

3

Chi

nese

706–

718

Ja

pane

se74

0–74

8

Asi

an In

dian

615–

675

Fi

lipin

o72

0

Kor

ean

750

V

ietn

ames

e78

5

Haw

aiia

n81

1–81

3

Gua

man

ian/

Cha

mor

ro82

1–82

2, 8

62

Sam

oan

814,

861

Chi

ld a

nces

try

resp

onse

indi

cate

s m

ixed

her

itage

, con

text

giv

en b

y pa

rent

rac

es

V

ague

Asi

an79

3–79

5

Vag

ue P

acifi

c Is

land

er80

8, 8

20, 8

40, 8

50, 8

60

Vag

ue m

ixed

(fo

r al

l chi

ldre

n)90

5–90

7, 9

95

Not

e: A

nces

try

code

s lis

ted

here

are

tho

se in

the

199

0 de

cenn

ial c

ensu

s re

stri

cted

-use

dat

a co

debo

ok (

vari

able

s A

NC

P an

d A

NC

S), h

ouse

d at

Inte

r-un

iver

sity

Con

sort

ium

for

Polit

ical

and

Soc

ial R

esea

rch

at d

oi:1

0.38

86/IC

PSR

2198

3.v2

, and

are

rep

rese

ntat

ive

of c

odin

g de

cisi

ons

in o

ther

yea

rs. A

nces

try

code

s fo

r th

e ot

her

rest

rict

ed-u

se d

ata

sets

are

not

in t

he p

ublic

dom

ain.

All

valu

es n

ot li

sted

wer

e tr

eate

d as

if n

o re

spon

se w

as g

iven

. Fir

st a

nd s

econ

d an

cest

ry r

espo

nses

wer

e us

ed t

o cl

assi

fy r

espo

nden

ts.



Liebler 565

ACKNOWLEDGMENTI am grateful to the Minnesota Research Data Center (MnRDC) Small Grants Program for financial support and to Marie DeRousse-Wu for helpful research assis-tance. I thank Caren Arbeit, Julia Rivera Drew, Catherine Fitch, Liying Luo, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments. This research was conducted in the MnRDC, which receives funding from the National Science Foundation (SES-0851417). I also gratefully acknowl-edge support from the Minnesota Population Center, which is funded by a center grant from the National Institutes of Health (R24-HD041023). A version of this research has been published as Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies discussion paper 12-24.

AUTHOR’S NOTEAny opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Census Bureau. All results have been reviewed to ensure that no confidential information is disclosed.

NOTES 1. ProjectRACE, a multiracial social movement orga-

nization, was founded in 1991—one year after thou-sands of interracially married parents disregarded census instructions to report multiple races for their children (see Tables 2 and 3).

2. For example, strength of parents’ ties to their respective groups and the racial context of the loca-tion are generally predictive of how the child is

reported (e.g., Bratter 2007; Holloway et al. 2009; Kana’iaupuni and Liebler 2005; Liebler 2004, 2010b; Xie and Goyette 1998).

3. In supplementary analyses, I found that results excluding Hispanic parents are extremely similar to the results presented here.

4. Census Bureau research shows that the person fill-ing out the census form almost always lists him-self or herself as either the householder or spouse (Sweet 1994). The parents in my sample are always householder and spouse, so answers given for the child are most likely supplied by his or her parent. An adult child might answer the questionnaire, and a child of any age can influence a parent’s reports via myriad interactions and conversations. Answers provided by a parent or the child can be seen as a combination of the child’s internal identity, expressed identity, and observed identity (Harris and Sim 2002).

5. A parent’s indigenous race claim may be based on his or her physical appearance, cultural knowl-edge, or personal history with a homeland, yet these characteristics might not apply to the child. Tribal enrollment based on blood quantum can also exclude the younger generation.

6. Enumerators visit households in very rural areas and those that do not respond to the mailed ques-tionnaire. In 1960, census questionnaires were mailed to people in urban areas only; enumera-tors visited dwellings in nonurban areas. In 1970, enumerators were instructed to assume that the race of the respondent was the race of everyone in the household (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1976),

Appendix D. Number of Children from 11 Types of Intermarriages between Parent(s) of Mixed Ancestry.

Race of parents1980

Census1990

Census2000

Census2008–10

ACS Type Parent 1 Parent 2

1 White Black 6,300 6,700 8,700 4,3002 White American Indian or Alaska Native 24,500 22,700 14,500 3,8003 White Chinese 1,300 1,700 800 4004 White Japanese 800 900 700 2005 White Asian Indian, Filipino, Korean, or

Vietnamese6,300 4,800 3,300 2,100

6 White Hawaiian, Guamanian, or Samoan 3,300 2,600 900 4007 Black American Indian or Alaska Native 800 1,000 700 3008 Black Chinese 200 100 # #9 Black Japanese 100 100 100 #10 Black Asian Indian, Filipino, Korean, or

Vietnamese400 500 500 300

11 Black Hawaiian, Guamanian, or Samoan 200 100 100 #

Note: These cases were not included in this study but could be used in a future study. Table shows the number of children in the nonpublic data who have one or two parents of mixed ancestry. A parent of mixed ancestry is one who marked a single race but does not qualify as “monoracial” according to the definition used in this article. Child, here, is defined as elsewhere in the article. A child’s case is not included here if the child or either parent had an imputed race response. There are no indications of mixed-heritage people in the 1960 or 1970 census data. Numbers are rounded case counts. ACS = American Community Survey. # = Less than 50.




so some 1970 intermarriages were not recorded. In later decades, enumerators were instructed not to make this assumption. See U.S. Bureau of the Census (1989) for more information on censuses before 2000.

7. In 2000, when stepfamilies were more common than in the past, 92.3 percent of children of the householder were natural born, 2.4 percent were adopted, and 5.2 percent were stepchildren (public-use census data from Ruggles et al. 2010).

8. In my samples, fathers are listed as householder (aka head of household or person 1) in all cases in 1960 and 1970, in 97 percent of cases in 1980, in 94 percent of cases in 1990, in 89 percent of cases in 2000, and in 63 percent of cases in the 2008–2010 American Community Survey. The person filling out the form was not necessarily the householder; a member of a couple with a traditional idea of family might list the husband as householder, especially in 1960 and 1970, when the term head of household was used (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1989).

REFERENCESAnzaldúa, Gloria. 2007. Borderlands/La Frontera: The

New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.Bashi, Vilna. 1998. “Racial Categories Matter because

Racial Hierarchies Matter: A Commentary.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 21(5):959–68.

Bauerlein, Mark. 2012. “Elizabeth Warren’s Judgment.” Chronicle of Higher Education. May 30. Retrieved June 1, 2012 (http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/elizabeth-warrens-judgment/47391).

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2004. “From Bi-racial to Tri-racial: Towards a New System of Racial Stratification in the USA.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27(6):931–50.

Bratter, Jenifer. 2007. “Will ‘Multiracial’ Survive to the Next Generation? The Racial Classification of Children of Multiracial Parents.” Social Forces 86(2):822–49.

Brunsma, David L. 2005. “Interracial Families and the Racial Identification of Mixed-race Children: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study.” Social Forces 84(2):1131–57.

Burton, Jonathan, Alita Nandi, and Lucinda Platt. 2010. “Measuring Ethnicity: Challenges and Opportunities for Survey Research.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 33(8):1332–49.

Cheng, Chi-Ying, and Fiona Lee. 2009. “Multiracial Identity Integration: Perceptions of Conflict and Distance among Multiracial Individuals.” Journal of Social Issues 65(1):51–68.

Cheng, Simon, and Kathryn J. Lively. 2009. “Multiracial Self-identification and Adolescent Outcomes: A Social Psychological Approach to the Marginal Man Theory.” Social Forces 88(1):61–98.

Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner’s Sons.

Cornell, Stephen. 1990. “Land, Labor, and Group Formation: Blacks and Indians in the United States.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 13(3):368–88.

Curington, Celeste Vaughan. 2015. “Rethinking Multiracial Formation in the United States: Toward an Intersectional Approach.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2332649215591864

Davis, F. James. 2001. Who Is Black? One Nation’s Definition. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Duncan, Brian, and Stephen J. Trejo. 2011. “Intermarriage and the Intergenerational Transmission of Ethnic Identity and Human Capital for Mexican Americans” Journal of Labor Economics 29(2):195–227.

Farley, Reynolds. 2004. “Identifying with Multiple Races: A Social Movement that Succeeded but Failed?” Pp. 123–48 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by M. Krysan and A. E. Lewis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fu, Vincent Kang. 2010. “Remarriage, Delayed Marriage, and Black/White Intermarriage, 1968–1995.” Population Research and Policy Review 29:687–713.

Garroutte, Eva Marie. 2003. Real Indians: Identity and the Survival of Native America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goldstein, Joshua, and Ann Morning. 2000. “The Multiple Race Population of the United States: Issues and Estimates.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(11):6230–35.

Goldstein, Joshua, and Ann Morning. 2002. “Back in the Box: The Dilemma of Using Multiple-race Data for Single-race Laws.” Pp. 119–36 in The New Race Question: How the Census Counts Multiracial Individuals, edited by J. Perlmann and M. C. Waters. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gullickson, Aaron, and Ann Morning. 2011. “Choosing Race: Multiracial Ancestry and Identification.” Social Science Research 40(2):498–512.

Guo, Guang, Yilan Fu, Hedwig Lee, Tianji Cai, Kathleen Mullan Harris, and Yi Li. 2014. “Genetic Bio-ancestry and Social Construction of Racial Classification in Social Surveys in the Contemporary United States.” Demography 51(1):141–72.

Hagan, William T. 1985. “Full Blood, Mixed Blood, Generic, and Ersatz: The Problem of Indian Identity.” Arizona and the West 27:309–26.

Hall, Christine C. I., and Trude I. C. Turner. 2001. “The Diversity of Biracial Individuals: Asian–White and Asian-minority Biracial Identity.” Pp. 81–92 in The Sum of Our Parts: Mixed-heritage Asian Americans, edited by T. Williams-León and C. L. Nakashima. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Haney López, Ian F. 2006. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York University Press.


http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/elizabeth-warrens-judgment/47391

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/elizabeth-warrens-judgment/47391


Liebler 567

Harris, David R., and Jerimiah Joseph Sim. 2002. “Who Is Multiracial? The Fluidity of Racial Identity among U.S. Adolescents.” American Sociological Review 67:614–27.

Holloway, Steven R., Richard Wright, Mark Ellis, and Margaret East. 2009. “Place, Scale and the Racial Claims Made for Multiracial Children in the 1990 US Census.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 32(3):522–47.

Hout, Michael, and Joshua Goldstein. 1994. “How 4.5 Million Irish Immigrants Became 40 Million Irish Americans: Demographic and Subjective Aspects of the Ethnic Composition of White Americans.” American Sociological Review 59(1):64–82.

Jacobs, Michelle R. 2015. “Urban American Indian Identity: Negotiating Indianness in Northeast Ohio.” Qualitative Sociology 38:79–98.

Jones, Nicholas A., and Amy Symens Smith. 2003. “New Explorations of Race Reporting for Interracial Couples and Their Children: Census 2000.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, May 2, Minneapolis, MN.

Kana’iaupuni, Shawn Malia, and Carolyn A. Liebler. 2005. “Pondering Poi Dog: Place and Racial Identification of Multiracial Native Hawaiians.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(4):687–721.

Khanna, Nikki. 2011. “Ethnicity and Race as ‘Symbolic’: The Use of Ethnic and Racial Symbols in Asserting a Biracial Identity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(6):1049–67.

Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. “The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans.” Politics and Society 27(1):105–38.

King, Rebecca Chiyoko, and Kimberly McClain DaCosta. 1996. “Changing Face, Changing Race: The Remaking of Race in the Japanese American and African American Communities.” Pp. 227–44 in The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontiers, edited by M. P. P. Root. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

King-O’Riain, Rebecca Chiyoko. 2004. “Model Majority? The Struggle for Identity among Multiracial Japanese Americans.” Pp. 227–44 in The Politics of Multiracialism: Challenging Racial Thinking, edited by H. M. Dalmage. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Korgen, Kathleen Odell. 1998. From Black to Biracial: Transforming Racial Identity among Americans. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lee, Jenifer, and Frank D. Bean. 2007. “Reinventing the Color Line Immigration and America’s New Racial/Ethnic Divide.” Social Forces 86(2):561–86.

Lewontin, Richard. 1972. “The Apportionment of Human Diversity.” Evolutionary Biology. 6:391–98.

Lieberson, Stanley, and Mary C. Waters. 1993. “The Ethnic Responses of Whites: What Causes Their Instability, Simplification, and Inconsistency?” Social Forces 72(2):421–50.

Liebler, Carolyn A. 2004. “Ties on the Fringes of Identity.” Social Science Research 33:702–23.

Liebler, Carolyn A. 2010a. “A Group in Flux: Multiracial American Indians and the Social Construction of Race.” Pp. 131–44 in Multiracial Americans and Social Class, edited by K. O. Korgen. New York: Routledge Press.

Liebler, Carolyn A. 2010b. “Homelands and Indigenous Identities in a Multiracial Era.” Social Science Research 39(4):596–609.

Liebler, Carolyn A., Renuka Bhaskar, and Sonya R. Porter. Forthcoming. “Joining, Leaving, and Staying in the American Indian/Alaska Native Race Category between 2000 and 2010.” Demography.

Liebler, Carolyn A., and Shawn Malia Kana’iaupuni. 2003–2004. “Races in the Pacific: Comparisons of Racial Identification among Mixed-race Native Hawaiians and Other Mixed Race Pacific Islanders.” Journal of Intergroup Relations 30(4):23–48.

Liebler, Carolyn A., Sonya Rastogi, Leticia E. Fernandez, James M. Noon, and Sharon R. Ennis. 2014. “America’s Churning Races: Race and Ethnic Response Changes between Census 2000 and the 2010 Census.” Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications Working Paper 2014-09. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Mowen, Thomas J., and Richard Stansfield. 2015. “Probing Change in Racial Self-identification: A Focus on Children of Immigrants.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2332649215611685

Office of Management and Budget. 1977. “Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.” Federal Register Notice, May 12.

Office of Management and Budget. 1997. “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.” Federal Register Notice, October 30.

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.

Painter, Nell Irvin. 2010. The History of White People. New York: Norton.

Park, Robert E. 1928. “Human Migration and the Marginal Man.” American Journal of Sociology 33:881–93.

Pew Research Center. 2015. “Multiracial in America: Proud, Diverse and Growing in Numbers.” Washington, DC: Author.

ProjectRACE: Reclassify All Children Equally. N.d. Home page. Retrieved January 8, 2016 (http://www .projectrace.com/).

Qian, Zhenchao. 2004. “Options: Racial/Ethnic Identification of Children of Intermarried Couples.” Social Science Quarterly 85(3):746–66.

Qian, Zhenchao and Daniel Lichter. 2011. “Changing Patterns of Interracial Marriage in a Multiracial Society.” Journal of Marriage and Family 73: 1065–84.

Qian, Zhenchao, and Priyank Shah. 2015. “Assimilation Paths of Immigrant Children: Asian Indians and


http://www.projectrace.com/

http://www.projectrace.com/



Filipinos Compared.” Chinese Journal of Sociology 1(3):356–79.

Robertson, Dwanna. 2013. “A Necessary Evil: Framing an American Indian Legal Identity.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 37(4):115–39.

Rockquemore, Kerry Ann. 1999. “Between Black and White: Exploring the Biracial Experience.” Race and Society 1:197–212.

Rockquemore, Kerry Ann, and David Brunsma. 2002. “Socially Embedded Identities: Theories, Typologies, and Processes of Racial Identity among Black/White Biracials.” Sociological Quarterly 43(3):335–56.

Rockquemore, Kerry Ann, and David Brunsma. 2007. Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roediger, David R. 2005. Working Toward Whiteness: How America's Immigrants Became White. New York: Basic Books.

Rohrer, Judy. 2008. “Disrupting the ‘Melting Pot’: Racial Discourse in Hawai’i and the Naturalization of Haole.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 31(6):1110–25.

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

Roth, Wendy. 2005. “The End of the One-drop Rule? Labeling of Multiracial Children in Black Intermarriages.” Sociological Forum 20(1):35–67.

Ruggles, Steven, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek. 2010. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Russell, Kathy, Midge Wilson, and Ronald Hall. 1992. The Color Complex: The Politics of Skin Color among African Americans. New York: Anchor Books.

Saenz, Rogelio, Sean-Shong Hwang, Benigno E. Aguirre, and Robert N. Anderson. 1995. “Persistence and Change in Asian Identity among Children of Intermarried Couples.” Sociological Perspectives 38(2):175–94.

Sillars, Alan L. and Pam J. Kalbflesch. 1989. “Implicit and Explicit Decision-making Styles in Couples.” Pp. 179–215 in Dyadic Decision Making, edited by D. Brinberg and J. Jaccard. New York: Springer.

Smith, William C. 1934. “The Hybrid in Hawaii as a Marginal Man.” American Journal of Sociology 39(4):459–68.

Song, Miri. 2003. Choosing Ethnic Identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Song, Miri. 2004. “Introduction: Who’s at the Bottom? Examining Claims about Racial Hierarchy.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27(6):859–77.

Song, Miri, and Ferhana Hashem. 2010. “What Does ‘White’ Mean? Interpreting the Choice of ‘Race’ by

Mixed Race Young People in Britain.” Sociological Perspectives 53:287–92.

Spickard, Paul R. 1991. Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth Century America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Spickard, Paul R. 2001. “Who Is an Asian? Who Is a Pacific Islander? Monoracialism, Multiracial People, and Asian American Communities.” Pp. 13–24 in The Sum of Our Parts: Mixed-heritage Asian Americans, edited by T. Williams-León and C. L. Nakashima. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Spickard, Paul R., and Rowena Fong. 1995. “Pacific Islander Americans and Multiethnicity: A Vision of America’s Future?” Social Forces 73(4):1365–83.

Stonequist, Everett V. 1937. The Marginal Man. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Sturm, Circe. 2011. Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the 21st Century. Santa Fe, NM: School of Advanced Research Press.

Sweet, Elizabeth. 1994. “Who Fills Out the Census Questionnaire Study.” 1990 DSSD REX Memorandum Series #PP-9. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Takaki, Ronald. 1998. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. New York: Little Brown.

Tashiro, Cathy J. 2011. Standing on Both Feet: Voices of Older Mixed Race Americans. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Tilly, Charles. 2004. “Social Boundary Mechanisms.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34(2):211–36.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1976. U.S. Census of Population and Housing: 1970 Procedural History PHC(R)-1. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1989. 200 Years of Census Taking: Population and Housing Questions, 1790–1990. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. 2007 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultations Final Report. Retrieved January 24, 2014 (https://www.census.gov/aian/pdf/CensusFinalReport_07_color-hi_res.pdf).

Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Xie, Yu, and Kimberly Goyette. 1998. “The Racial Identification of Biracial Children with One Asian Parent: Evidence from the 1990 Census.” Social Forces 76(2):547–70.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHyCarolyn A. Liebler is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota. Her areas of interest include relationships between racial identity and racial identification, indigenous peoples, and the social demog-raphy of race.


https://www.census.gov/aian/pdf/CensusFinalReport_07_color-hi_res.pdf

https://www.census.gov/aian/pdf/CensusFinalReport_07_color-hi_res.pdf


on the boundaries of race - american sociological association · heritage” versus “monoracial...

Documents