Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Asian Americans?

Is there some further meaningful breakdown of the Asian American population? --AxSingh 10:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Doubt it. There's basically nothing here but census data, plundered from the U.S. Census' website.

Improved article, citations needed

I did some edits, but citations needed and research is abit messy. I want to make it clear they are well publicized facts of the US' racial demographics. Wikipedia has thousands of admins who knew better than me, maybe we can help each other to obtain better resources. I did abit too much reverts to other articles either, so forgive me as we're trying to assure the quality of the article to appear more academic or encyclopediac. I don't know the last talk page post is talking about, but mr. OMC...you thought of the implications of racism had in this country (USA)? There are plenty of hate, prejudice and discrimination towards other people because of who they are or their social group, but I agree our country has moved on away from official segregation or unfair practices that marginalized minority groups for centuries. Since you told me your age, you feel discriminated for "being old"? This is illegal and unacceptable to most people today. Housing discrimination laws cover marital status (single mothers or divorced persons), and may I mention you claim all liberals are bad? Sure you disagree with their political views, but I may disagree on conservatism, but really I don't hate you either. -Mike D. + 207.200.116.68 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

California

This article claims that California is one of four states where whites do not make up the majority. This contradicts the demographic information given in the California wikipedia article; in which the white population is cited as 60%. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.134.156 (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This data is not about majority, but most common ancestry. The California article statles clearly the Mexican ancestry is first with 25%. Notice a couple of things: 1) Hispanics are 35% minority in the State; 2) The classification "White Americans" also includes "White Hispanics", which make 17.6% based on the article data.
So everyone should take those maps as what they are: a measure of most common **ancestry**, not of majority.76.244.65.207 17:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

South Carolina

How come the racial statistics say that the largest ancestry group in S.C. is African, when over 60 percent of the population is white? How can that be right? In order to be accurate, don't you have to divide the kenyan, etheopian, and other people of different origins from within africa- or at least the people from the different regions of africa- if you're going to be accurate?

Agreed. We should all ask the US Census bureau to stop capturing those meaningless data points. If we can't tell the difference for African-americans (since they were taken by force and mostly don't know their roots), don't capture it for European-americans either.76.244.65.207 17:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "Africa" is not a country and, in fact, millions of Africans are White above all in South Africa...The Census should say "Kenyan" or "Gabonese" or "Senegalese", the same way they write "German" or "Italian" or "Irish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.240.101 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


This editor is confusing race and ethnicity. There are three races, and the Hispanic ethnicity is mixed with all three races. If you were to consider the white population being partially of Hispanic ethnic background, you should also mention that the black and asian population are also diluted with Hispanic ethnic persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.140.198.6 (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There are millions of White Hispanics (most Cuban-Americans are White, not mixed) and millions of Native American Hispanics and millions of African Hispanics even if a majority is mixed race, mestizo.

why do we need it? are we Americans?

Ok heres my take. the article wants to discuss the unique diversity of people in the US. but be in mind we should call ourselves americans first, and dont let race be a big deal to fight over jobs, education or welfare. thats what happened in my dear country i love. i find the census' need to classify and categorize people by race as sumething sneeky and smelly. i oppose racism and discrimination, but never bought into the P-c hysteria or the rule bring fear of talkin about race is BAD, WRONG, EVIL, a sin, a crime & taboo. who made it this way? the people you know and trusted to help racial minorities in the past. liberals. fair and simple. im 45 yrs. old and saw real acts of racism that would disturb you. i knew in a young age it's not right to treat others badly for the fact they cant help who they are. do we really care on "Black" people or "African Americans"? i see them as people NOT of color, and may I ask only a person FROM africa can hold the designation, not a 12th generation American who has a skin color? if you got african heritage, then the label is accurate. i always beleeved if one is born in america, he/she's an american! no need to explain it other than that. liberal p-c activism likes to stir our emotion over 'racial' or 'social' inequality, when in fact to start using race to grant quick promotion over a white male is just as appalling to me. im a white male, a christian and republican, so i should be racist or bigoted? no im not! i love people on the inside! i dont mind a woman works out the home. i dont mind gay men with no regard to their sexual preference. and any one who dont share my religious beliefs is ok and god still loves him/her. now on things on the real status of blacks, women and low income families are better than in the 1960s or 70s, much better than in 1985 or 1995. does the us census kept track of this number crunchin data? they know right away not a liberal elite poser on the examination of race issues in america. dont play the race card or the gender excuse on me if you cant get a 'fair share', i knew i never got a fair share myself for not being qualified or not worked hard enough. its ILLEGAL to discriminate based on race or sex or handicap (oops I mean disabled, but i knew it wont hold one back in life). i just dont like the double standards the P-C cause did to me, maybe you and every one in the last 15-20 yrs. you need to read history and you will find the real hate, jim crow laws and violence took place long before i was born. dont tell me i dont like other races, i just hold a fairly made opinion and to be honest, i dont always made a big deal on ones' race, but how an american is first an american and no real need to tell me im white, not hispanic or american by some census taker. we got to stop race baitin and favoritism, but focus on the work ethic and be responsible for your actions. this is the best nation in the world and nothin prevents you from success, not your race or color please! - signed: open-minded conservative

>>i always beleeved if one is born in america, he/she's an american! no need to explain it other than that
Totally agree. African-americans, European-americans and other ethnic groups that make up America have more in common between themselves than with their original ethnic groups: the American mind, which we as a nation define and share. Ask the majority of those who were born and raised here if they would like to revert back to their parents' original country way of thinking, even those with a European ancestry. If you are born and raised here, you get the American way of thinking in your bones, you're American! No further classification needed. That's what counts. All of these groups in the Census should be comfortable to call themselves Americans, and not be forced in a racial slot. Signed: "open-minded" liberal. 76.244.65.207 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, race shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it has had a profound impact on the lifes of so many Americans; thus we need to mention it. SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
When we have people out in Serbia claiming that Kosovo is Serbia when Kosovo has declared independence from Serbia due to its being populated with ethnic Albanians, rather than Serbs, for the most part, and when we have Israel refusing to accept Palestinians because of its desire to be a Jewish state, and when you note ethnic/ riots in places like Kenya and Nigeria and India and Indonesia, then of course ethnic and religious and racial demographics are going to be important. We need to find out WHO is out there so we can understand what's going on, and understand the people's needs and wants. In other words, we don't want an Aztlan or even the Conch Republic (just kidding) suddenly springing up behind our backs and surprising us when we know we should have been looking there all along. Furthermore, who knows what might divide our country tomorrow? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Millions of Asians are White in Northern India, Northern Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Tadjikistan, Israel, Syria etc...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.240.101 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Using continents as bases for races is absurd, because by that logic, a white Russian living in Siberia is considered to be Asian and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Top image

I expected the states in red to mean a Native American "Indian" majority. What does this description mean? Areas with the largest "American" ancestry populations were mostly settled by English, French, Welsh, Scottish and Irish. "American" is nowhere in that list, where's the justification for calling that "American"? Two of the nations on that list have their own color codes. Most if not all of the states have an American majority, if by that you don't mean Native. This makes no sense. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Many people, especially from Appalachia to the Mississipi (the states in red) respond, literally, that they are "American" to the question about their ancestry. But most of the area is known to be populated by descendants of the earliest British settlers (English, Scottish, Scotch-Irish, Welsh), as well as of Irish and French settlers. SamEV (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Very strange. Only people there buck this question to the point where it spoils the map? It can't be determined beyond what their response is, and made into something that's useful beside the rest of the responses and what the map is made up for? -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
No, it's a nationwide thing, but most common in that region. And no, that's all the ancestry info they provide. In fact, that's the only reason the Census Bureau accepts that response. As they write: "American was considered a valid ancestry response when it was the only ancestry provided by a respondent."Ancestry: 2000.
What's happened is that over the centuries, many families have lost some of their history.
BTW, I edited my first reply. SamEV (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that the map is made a lot less useful by the data for four states being in a different context than the rest of the map. It annoys the crap out of me, but maybe that's just me. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I too find the response unsatisfactory. But just try and think of it as another kind of British; might help. SamEV (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

Here we have an interesting comment:

There has been interest by some, including the U.S. government, president George W. Bush and private individuals, in the elimination of racial and ethnic categories and new constitutional laws to prohibit the sampling of race in government practices[citation needed]. This radical concept was practiced in California by Proposition 209, passed in 1996 to prohibit the state's use of race in decisions on employment and college admissions. Proposition 54 in 2003 failed to pass; it would have made California the first state to officially abandon racial designation but allow the US census to collect racial data[citation needed].

I have underlined "Radical concept".

Well, only a person from the United States can say that. The US is one of the few countries in the world that classifies people by "race". In most other countries, it is not done, and it is considered pretty radical indeed to do so, and a remnant of the profound racist past of the Anglo-Saxon world. Some people think that it is good to help "minorities". Well, in most civilized countries, especially in Europe, there are measures to help those with the lowest income, it does not matter what race they are. The classification of people is supposed races by governments just helps erect since childhood psychological barriers. Some minority groups favor this classification because they think they are going to benefit from it, but they are making a huge mistake. Racial classification was only done in the racist past and in racist countries to keep people apart, it is a result of that past and only continues to be done in countries with big racialist-racist issues, and this will just help perpetuate those racial issues. I am not going to change it though, just some thoughts for the article. The problem with these articles is that they are mainly written by people for the US who have no idea of what is going on in the rest of the world and they are looking incredibly racist to the rest of the world, although in many cases they are not, because they think that it is good to classify people by "races" in official documents as if they were cattle. 72.144.166.196 17:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed the word "radical" from this phrase in the article. The rest of the argument is covered in the article in large part; if anyone has some published sources that can be cited to make more evident that the U.S. government's use of this approach has been criticized by those in other countries, that certainly would be helpful. Our own opinions are largely immaterial except as they inspire us to hunt for verifiable, reliable sources. Lawikitejana 08:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any citations, but in countries such as Brazil this way of including race on everything is seen as rude and racist. It's seen as a sign of State-sponsored racism. 76.244.65.207 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have no citations, and all you have is PoV opinions then everything you've just written is useless and of no value. Stop wasting your breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.229.11 (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Canada is another country in a controversial position for the usage of ethnic categories, and the term "Visible minority" is deemed as some as an offensive term to describe non-Caucasian residents of the country. Not only the U.S., but the Census Canada continually classify persons of "English", "French", "other European" and "Caucasian but not European" backgrounds for demographic data and political purposes as well.

The Canadian government is officially bilingual (in English and French for the Francophone majority in the province of Quebec constantly dealt with provincial separatism) in order to provide services for the French-speaking population who may or may not be proficient in English. The language barrier between Anglo- and Francophone populations in Canada proved to be MORE divisive than the sociocultural issue of race, color and ethnicity in the United States.

Despite our traditional concept of the absorbing of immigrants into the single Americanized "melting pot" of ethnic groups (and nowadays, a "colorblind" but multiracial society) whom are just plain "Americans", we're just as racially divided than before and during our worst economic crisis in 80 years, the issue of class and income distribution would make the U.S. a closed society obsessed with class distinctions as much it's hailed to be obsessed with ones' race and skin color.

In America, we prized religious freedom more than economic security and the US Census considers not using data on ones' religious denomination unlike the Canadian Census does collect information on how many Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and other faiths in that country, but objects to make people "Black", "white" or "mixed" although the Canadian Census has a "First Nations" category when it comes to demographic data on how many persons of indigenous American Indian descent live in Canada (including the Inuit in the Arctic region). + 71.102.32.144 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in introduction

>>As of 2005, four states — California, Hawaii, New Mexico and Texas — have "minority-majorities," where non-Hispanic whites are not a majority of their state populations.

I checked each Wikipedia article on those states, and the data seems to validate that for Hawaii, California and New Mexico. For Texas however the article didn't say other than Texas has 80% of whites - definitely a majority. The following article (http://www.utsa.edu/today/news/archive/2002/april/hrc.cfm) says that in 2000, non-Hispanic whites were 53%, still a majority. I didn't find data in 2005 anywhere, so that's why I added the "Citation needed" tag. 76.244.65.207 18:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The change occurred since 2000. You can see it in the 2006 ACS [Population Estimate],[1] though you have to compute it. At the bottom it shows that there were 11.35 million white Texans who were non-Hispanic or Latino. Divide that by Texas' total population of 23.5 million and you get 48.3%. And keep in mind that that 80% white figure is just about race, so it includes white Hispanics, whereas the non-Hispanic percentage figure does not, because it's about the non-Hispanic white ethnic group. SamEV (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly Texas under governor (now president) George W. Bush long insisted to officially abandon racial categories to combat Affirmative action and to promote more unity of Texans (and later Americans, in post 9-11 America he presided). As state governor, Bush succeeded in June 2000 when he signed a state bill to officially eliminate 5 American Indian tribes based in the state of Texas.

Bush at first wanted the U.S. Census to discard the "Hispanic/Latino" category but without success, but emphasized what large numbers of anthropologists said about the artificial construct of a "race" based on language (i.e. Spanish) and cultural origin (i.e. Spain and Portugal in the Americas).

Also he managed to block or derail new official ethnic categories for "Middle East American" in hopes to give affirmative action status for Arab Americans, but are already classified as White American and European Americans along with Iranian Americans and attempts to redesignate South Asian Americans not as "Asians". However, the U.S. Census will not eliminate "Latino", "Asian American" and "Pacific Islander", which was created separate from Asians in the 2000 Census.

But, critics charge Bush for absolute refusal to officially eliminate the concept of "blackness" and "African Americans" from the US Census and official government usage, thus to indicate Bush and the last administrations (2001-09) is just as racially charged while conservative Republicans claim to oppose racial categorization of people. + 71.102.32.144 (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

European American, African American, Latino American, but no page for American?

If the word American does not mean citizen of the United States when it stands alone, than how can it magically re-gain a definition when you place it behind African, European or Latino? If just "American" is too ambiguous and overbroad to mean a citizen of the United States then shouldn't the same rule be applied to the terms African Americans, European Americans, and Latino Americans? This rule is not being applied consistently and is unfair. Americans needs to be linked, or redirected to People of the United States Skeeter08865 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


can someone explain me,why if people of some other race are basically mixed,sometimes are considered white?that is racist,they aren't necesarily more white than indigenous or black,is unjust .

The existence of an American ethnicity

I am an academician whose research includes issues of race and ethnicity. Despite popular assumption, there is no consensus on the existence of an American ethnicity. A sizable percentage of the American population - 7.2 percent, to be exact - chose to identify itself as having American ancestry in the 2000 census. To put the term "American" in quotation marks in the table listing white ancestries is to belittle those who support the concept of American ethnicity. We consider those in England to be ethnically English even though their ancestors came from present-day Germany and France. The Normans themselves were descendants of Vikings from Scandinavia. Why then do we not consider those in the United States who can trace their heritage back 400 years in this country to be ethnically American? - signed by anon IP

I came to notice the four states with the largest plurality of "American"-only ancestry are Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia. I'm concerned on how it fits the profile of the states' rural/conservative image as a "backward" society where these people only call themselves "American". Another stereotype of people from these states are White supremacists and Neo-Confederates, and how often the political fringe groups may use "American" as a code word for something else. I always thought the Appalachians and Ozarks regions have the highest density of Scotch-Irish American ancestry in the country, dates back to waves of Scots-Irish settlement from southwest Scotland and Ulster (Northern Ireland) during the British colonial era in the early 18th century. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it reflects large numbers of people who simply can't trace their ancestry back to anywhere but America and large numbers of people of mixed ancestry. If the furthest back you can trace your family tree is mid-1800s Virginia no matter which branch you try, are you supposed to put down something from Europe or Africa as your ethnicity? Perhaps, not being able to trace back, you try to rely on family names to establish your background, but you have a mixture of names from places like England, Germany, France, Ireland, Norway. What ethnicity can you select other than "American"? For many people born and raised in America who only know ancestors from America, there can be something offensive about being asked to claim a European or African ethnicity that simply doesn't have real meaning to them. One may think, "I was born and raised in America; my parents were born and raised in America; my grandparents were born and raised in America; my great-grandparents were born and raised in America. Beyond that I haven't a clue. And you want me to say I'm 'Japanese American' just because of my skin color and last name? I like hamburgers and soda, not seaweed and tea."
I'm not sure exactly what user:71.102.2.206 was trying to say, whether he was agreeing or disagreeing, but the suggestion that people who believe they have an American ethnicity are racist is indeed offensive. Readin (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

a merge from People of the United States of America

I am proposing a merge from People of the United States of America, definityvely the same topics, but more expanded on this one, that one is not even wiki-linked properly to other articles. Greetings --Andersmusician NO 03:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
I'm neutral right now on that idea. But I ask you to consider whether that article should be merged with Race in the United States, or renamed Racial relations in the United States, or the like. It in no way deserves its current title, which should, when it's all said and done, be redirected to Demographics of the United States. In any case, I don't think that the article should remain as is. SamEV (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Did a very crude cut & paste merge, which can be better integrated by people more in tune with the contents of this article. There's yet a third article out there that needed to be moved: the awkwardly titled "American people of the United States", which I just moved to People of the United States. I couldn't see having two articles, "people of the US" and "people of the USA", which is what motivated me to go ahead with the merger. That might be another merge, though the emphasis is different than this article. kwami (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map is ridiculous, it counts Europeans by specific nationality but Africans by the continent.

Most European-Americans trace their ancestry to the Irish, German, English, Scotch, Polish, etc. African Americans and the African Diaspora are a combination of various ethnic Africans, not one particular country, and are unable to trace to one specific place. Also unfortunately this knowledge is unavailable since it was wiped out via the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

I agree that the classification is ludicrous. But this is the same map generated by the US Census in 2000 (see detail on other map in the page). Deleting it won't make the distortions go away. What is needed is to basically eliminate the slicing of media topics in racial classifications (as others countries did), and therefore allow everyone to feel as being American with no further differentiation. An African-american is closer to a European-american than Africans themselves. Why? Because they share the same American mind. If we were to differentiate among anything, let's choose topics such as State investment in Education, and let the States compete.76.244.65.207 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point being made above about grouping all African-Americans, but I strongly suspect that putting the map showing ethnicity simply by state, and furthermore listing the ethnicities in the caption will cause many people to make some simplistic conclusions. I am putting the more detailed map about the map back in top position, and will put the simplified map somewhere with a note that is is just that: dangerously over -simplified. Spettro9 (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Superficial

isn't it racist and superficial to say just white americans?we should specify there descent even because you can't say there is actually an american prototype,they all have different descents,from germans to italians,besides jews are white,are they considered white americans?so are asians,No, asians are an entirely differnet race altogether, you and mexicans are partially and probably there are more I t dosen't Matter, if yu mean the mexicas of pure European descent, then yes, But if you mean the Latino Mexicans, then no, they are a genetic mix of all kind of different genetics, European, Asian, native, African, ect, they are a mix race of their own —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.165.76 (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Line Chart Needed?

I think that this article could really use a line chart, identifying the proportion of ethnicities in the country over the centuries. For simplicity's sake, we'd probably have to use current ethnic views - classifying Germans and Irish as fully white even though they may not have been perceived as such at the time - and there could be complications there. Overall, however, I feel that such a chart could be quite informative. Thoughts? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Critical view on Hispanics needed for NPOV

This article completely ignores the growth of the Hispanic demographic from the illegal alien invasion. MILLIONS of Hispanics are illegal aliens. There is no information about crime committed by Hispanics. Or the identity theft, the environmental ruin in the Southwest, the gang violence, the drain on tax dollars and social services, and the anchor babies. This article needs info on the growing grassroots movement to stop the ruin to our nation caused by Hispanic illegals and the fact that most Americans support Arizona, and most Americans believe these Hispanics criminal welfare roaches are destroying our economy and indeed our way of life. I wonder if Obama (illegal alien in chief) administration officials are editing this article as I type to censor facts that do not support their POV. DarienBrewer (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there something very ironic about the above appeal coming under a heading asking for NPOV? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

49 out of 50 states have white majority?

I remember hearing that CA recently became the first state with no majority. White people had slipped to 49.5%, and so they were the largest minority. In the White Americans section, it says otherwise. Any thoughts, guys?72.78.27.186 (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the article more carefully. White includes White Hispanics and Latinos. The statistics you cite do not, as they speak only about non-Hispanic Whites. In other words: California is now less than 50% non-Hispanic white. But it is still more than 50% white. SamEV (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, California is still 59% White (Hispanic is not a race but a culture)- signed by anon IP

Whites are not a majority in about 24 counties in California and 5 counties are over half Hispanic than other racial or ethnic groups. Imperial on the US-Mexican border is one and four based in the agricultural San Joaquin Valley around Fresno County and city, itself a subject of a book "Mexifornia" written by lifelong local and political analyst David Hansen). It's not suprisingly to see large African-American populations, multiple Asian-American communities and the sudden growth of various ethnicities in California's urban areas is an example of where America is heading (and always has been), but to imagine what it'll be like the year 2050 when all of the U.S. is a non-white/ Caucasian "minority majority" country. Maybe racial identity will not be an issue in America 2050, or like the TV show Torchwood on a futuristic extra-terrestrial colony when sexual orientation and identities too is jokingly decried by a character "Earthlings...you and your little pity categories". + Mike D 26 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

America will never be a non-white country because illegals will be sent back and immigration will be chopped down to size. You are a fool Mike D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.33.223 (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content

This was added to article on July 3, 2010, unsourced. It's been slow-going enough to source what's currently in the article, so I'm moving any new unsourced additions here and notifying the 'adders'.

According to U.S. Census figures, approximately 62% of white Americans today are either wholly or partly of English, Welsh, Irish, or Scottish ancestry. Approximately 86% of white Americans today are of Northwestern European descent, and 14% are of Southern and Eastern European ancestry.

Based on a study of Census results from 1980, 1990, and 2000, U.S. Census Bureau statisticians determined that one out of every three white Americans today is descended from just one European ethnicity; one of every three is descended from two European nationalities; and one out of every three white Americans is descended from three or more European ethnic origins.

SamEV (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of individual census reporting

I was wondering if there was any existing research into the accuracy in reporting ethnicity? No so much much in the sense of people claiming to be from an alternative ancesteral group to their true heritage, but whether or not there is a tendancy for those of mixed heritage to report their links in one group more than another for an reason. For exmaple and individual of equal Irish, Scottish, Swedish and German stock from many different lines may prefer to pick one because of the predominant influence of their peers/community or simply their own preferences in identity. Whether the current zeitgeist populuarizes some groups over others or for any other reason, there may inevitably be a dilution the reporting of certain groups and overestimation in that of others. I admit that Being half Irish and half English (with some splattering of Scottish in both sides) I suspect if I was living in New York or Boston with all the Irish culture, it may be tempting to immerse myself into that scene! Dainamo (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ditch that stupid map

Will someone else please agree with me that the first map is utterly useless. Listing each state by highest ancestery is plain misleading and incorrect. for instance, the map lists a group of people as having "American" ancestery: which if you look at the map key is any portion of Great Britian. If anything, that is a linguistic not biological/cultural ancestery. how could someone in America trace their ancestery as "American" unless their native, which surely wouldn't be on the east coast?

I listed myself in the 2000 census as "American" - its not because I speak English, or am confused. I can trace my ancestry to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Germany, The Netherlands, and Cherokee. My wife's is just as mixed together. The only term that applies to me is American. I've been the the above mentioned European countries and I certianly cannot classify myself as any of them. Yes, I share genetic ancestry with people on that continent, but my values and culture are very different. Therefore, there is no other place on earth that contains people like me, except in the United States - that is why I am American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.229.46.94 (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If your aim is to show diasporic populations and how they have spread across the country then show regional or continental points of origin. To trace populations to specific countries (Alienating others) is rude and leaves too many gaps. This map completly ignores issues of Jewish populations from multiple countries, eastern/western european immigration, etc. Lastly, it doesn't even tell us percentages which really gets to the core of the demographics at the state level.

I agree that this map should be explained as the agregate of data from the other map in the page. Notice that it is shown as the detail there. 76.244.65.207 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to be really helpful, try generating maps showing a very specific group over time (i.e. African-American migration northward after the civil war, or Cape Verdeans into the New England area.

Generating a map such as this is near-sighted and stuck in racial views of the 19th century. jt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extremenachos (talk • contribs) 01:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Agree. But that's the US census view. The whole census methodology is rotten with such contradictions, and that's why it should go away. 76.244.65.207 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that map is unnecessary, misleading, and incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.10.151.13 (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't pay attention, this map is the same as in the detail of the other one below, showing by counties. It's now showing the agregate numbers by state. This comes from the US government. Deleting it here won't make it go away in the detail below. 76.244.65.207 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As an African-American, Im quite annoyed that "White" is broken up into all kinds of categories: Dutch, German, Irish, Norwegian... but "african-american" is just that. Do we forget Africa is a continent with just as much history and more people than the the white population. We are American, and we are more than just African-American. Many of us have Native American, "white," and African in us. The ancestry should reflect that... we are from Kenya, Nigeria, Barbados, etc. Why is that information not accounted for? It makes me feel like we're still not considered true Americans. Meb025 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

2000 US Ancestry Chart

Why are African Americans listed as second in the 2000 US Ancestry chart? I thought it was suppose to be Irish Americans? And also why is Hispanic Americans seperated with Mexican Americans? I proposed this chart removed from the article. Schoolistic (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Further problem is that the table is unreliable, the data in the book listed as source 35, gives only 2000census not 2010, the 2010 counting is not backed up by any source! e.g in 2000 census showed about 10.000.000 hispanics (according to 35) and here we've got info, that in 2010 there were already 40 million more! which would mean that all the increase of population during these years was Hispanics... sorry but this is false data and needs removing or at least revising! 89.72.45.20 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

about racial categorization of hispanics

sometimes hispanics will mark them selves as white(even if they have some or a lot of native ancestry latin american, or some of indigenous heritage) since there is no category for amerindians that come from outside the u.s. also sometimes the forms don't give the options two or more races. also, there one time where i had to fill out the race category for some form i was signing that didn't even give out the option "other". these factors must be taken into account.--Crossovershipper (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


Jewish descent?

I just came by this article to seek an answer to a completely valid and benign question: how many persons of Jewish descent live in the United States, and for some reason there is no concrete information in the article. I understand completely why the US government does not probe such a sensitive aspect, but nevertheless this article should have some information regarding the topic. My understanding is that Jewish people are of a race (hence the Semitic in anti-semitic). I do sense a double standard or self-censorship here. And the article should not necessarily be constrained to definitions or conventions used by the US Government.

Information: American Jews and United Jewish Communities. ~ Rollo44 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It probably should be handled by renaming the article, something along the lines of "Race and ethnicity in the United States census" (as someone else suggested in the discussion of merging the U.S. Census articles on "race" and "ethnicity"). That would clarify that only topics addressed by the census are covered in the article. Lawikitejana 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of renaming the article. It would represent better what is included in it. 76.244.65.207 16:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This article predominantly describes ancestry by nationality, notwithstanding the title. Jews would be included within other nationalities.124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Parent article

Could some of the editors familiar with this article please spare the time to clean up the corresponding section of Ethnic group? It's short on sourcing, and needs a little wikilove. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

British American excludes the Irish

Why are the Irish erroneously counted seperately from the other British peoples when the great majority of Irish emigration occured when Ireland as a whole was British and part of the United Kingdom? The Irish were, and arguably still are, just as 'British' as are the Scots, English and Welsh and wikipedia should not be held ransom to the political fashions/Nationlistic POV which flatly contradict history. 132.185.240.122 (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Why is there only reference to England in the article when presumably they are refering to Britain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.113.250 (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the more than 300 million people currently living in the United States consists of White Americans, who trace their ancestry to the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

North Africans and Middle Easteners are counted as white? This is novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.27.243 (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This is indeed less than intuitive. Apparently it is indeed a "novel" concept, introduced for the 2010 census. Some background on this would be nice. Perhaps they felt 1 million was too small to bother introducing a separate category. Clearly, this isn't going to be the last word, as the Middle Eastern American is one of the most rapidly growing. --dab (𒁳) 09:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

See Gualtieri's book, "Between Arab and White". Basically, in the early 1900s, only "whites" could become US citizens, so the early Arab Americans argued in court that they were white, in order to have the chance to have political rights. After 9/11, as Arab Americans are sometimes called out or targeted based on how they look, and identified by others as non-white, many have begun to change (or have grown up with) a different racial identity than white. But as of 2000 the US census still codes Arab Americans as white.

Number of African Americans

Something cannot be right here, for 2000, we report 25 million and for 2010, we report 41 million. What? 16 million African Americans appeared out of nowhere within a decade? Does anyone know what is going on here? --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

so, the African American article reports

2000 34.6 million
2010 38.9 million

so apparently both figures are off by millions. This is terrible, perhaps somebody who knows what they are doing can fix it? Also, even with these figures I ask myself where did 4.3 million come from in just ten years? Natural population growth seems unlikely, especially in a purely self-reported category. Does this reflect that the category "mixed race" has again become less popular during the 2000s? Any other ideas? --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Why so many Germans?

Has there ever been mass German migrations into the United States? It seems like a very high percentage. I'd expect English ancestry to be higher. 184.96.236.163 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, there has been a massive German immigration into the U.S. from the XVII to the XX Centuries. But in my opinion it is true that the English ancestry is at least as high as the German. The difference is that a great part of those of "English" ancestry just call themselves "American". British (English, Scot, Welsh, Irish) ancestry would be more appropiate. Also in Argentina there was a large Italian immigration and now there are more people who considers themelves of Italian ancestry because those of Spanish ancestry are just called "Argentines" (Criollos) with some exceptions of XIX and XX cetury immigrants (Galicia, Asturias regions) who still remember their past.--83.44.104.174 (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have recently added a paragraph explaining the serious under-count of English and British-Americans and that they are still by far the largest ethnic group; however how German-American have suddenly self-reported in such huge numbers is bizarre as they only make up 5.8% of the population according to the latest dna surveys. Twobells (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Maps are disingenuous

The maps at the top of the ancestry section are disingenuous. Why compare descendants from a continent (e.g. Africa) to those from a country (e.g. Germany)? We should either compare countries (e.g. Germany to Guinea) or countries (e.g. Europe to Africa). Anything else skews the results. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Weird Unsourced Statements

Under White Americans this statement appears "Other 'white' Americans include people of Iranian, Jewish, Afghan, Turkish, Armenian, Romanian, Dutch/Flemish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Polish, Austrian, Luxembourgian, former Yugoslav, Greek, Hungarian, Azerbaijani, Portuguese, Czech, Slovak, Albanian, Australian, and New Zealander."

Uhh I understand that it's trying to clarify that white in this context doesn't just mean western Europe, but also includes places like the middle east.

But for one this was already clarified in the top of the paragraph in a much clearer way. Two is that nowhere else is the word "white" in quotes but there, which gives it a weird vibe. Three is that though it seems specific, all it does is confuse, as it is a incomplete listing of counties that are consider ethnically "white" (I use the word white in quotes because I, personally, consider race to be a cultural construct, but I sure as hell am not going to do that in the article.)Which is realated to the point of that the contries it includes seems to be completely random, like okay Afghan, alright I didn't know that was counted as "white" interesting, but Dutch? Like have you guys ever met a dutch person? They are the whitest motherfuckers alive. I really don't ANYONE was wondering "Hmm what race is my tall, blonde, blue-eyed, who's pale skin is the very essence of the word white, and I wonder if her West Germanic Language is a creole of a Bantu or something?" Four, no source. So just kinda seems like this person thought of a list of Denonyms that sound vaguely foreign and non-white and said "yeah these people are white betcha didn't know that" So I'm removeing it. As well as any other places "White" is inappropriately in qoutes. Sam Dufus (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Americans

Where are more than 5 mln Jewish Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.98.229.241 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh mass immigration from Europe in the early and mid 20th century? Sam Dufus (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course! To escape a wave of horrifyingly violent anti-Semitic pogroms, especially in Eastern Europe. The entire page has the word "Jew" on it once! Unbelievable. --Daviddwd (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Who is checking reliable sources for this article?

I see there is a lot of I.P. edit-warring about this article recently. Meanwhile, which editors are checking reliable sources to find ways to improve this article over the long term? You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues from time to time since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. I'd be glad to hear suggestions of new sources through comments on that page too. Let's see what the sources say to add content to this article and make it more informative and accurate. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Undated statistics are almost useless

Quoting numbers without dates is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.115.138 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Odd statement, possibly with racist intent

I found this in the page:

The hypodescent social construction related to the racial caste that was associated with African slavery and the conditions of the slave societies. It was made explicit by Virginia and other colonies' laws as early as 1662. Virginia incorporate the Roman principle of partus sequitur ventrem into slave law, saying that children of slave mothers were born into their status. Under English common law for subjects, children's social status was determined by the father, not the mother. But the colonists put Africans outside the category of English subjects. Generally, white men were in positions of power to take sexual advantage of black women slaves. But, historian Paul Heinegg has shown that most free African-American families listed in the censuses of 1790-1810 were, in fact, descended from unions between white women and African men in colonial Virginia, from the years when working classes lived and worked closely together, and before slavery had hardened as a racial caste


You might have noticed the last sentence begins with 'But,' and then says most free Afroamericans were of female whites and male blacks as though this goes against white men taking advantage of black women, however it says the social status of mixed race children was taken from the mother. I should think this supports the rest of the paragraph, not that it is to the contrary. Does everyone agree or am I misreading it? I think it should be reworded but I might be wrong. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I mist that bit at the end (about hardening into a racial caste) so I don't think it supports it, but surely it still does not contradict it? Maybe there was just a ridiculous number of interracial births, drowning out the later abuse? At the very least I think it needs more data and rewording, but not to say it supports the previous point. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism?

Shouldn't there be a section on how the racial categorization of individuals in the US is viewed in other countries? Maybe a word on how it is perceived as blatant racism built on utterly arbitrary divisions made without meaningful criteria? These categorizations of race and ethnicity are a US peculiarity. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think we should include that. And really the article should be split into two separate articles. One for race and one for ethnicity. This is just sloppy structure. Sure they are both part of demography (ignore criticism for a moment) but that does not mean that they are the same thing. AlwaysUnite (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting section would be how these categories have changed over time, for example how irish/italians weren't considered 'white' a until fairly recently (currently theres like a short sentence about it) and how Middle Eastern people have now been separated

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Race and ethnicity in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Anglocentric much?

Why does this page go out of its way to point out that the German and Irish American numbers are self reported? Last time I checked so were the English numbers, and more than half of those English numbers were from people who had more ancestries than just English according to the 1980 census. Sounds like someone is trying to undermine the other groups in the US, typical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalissa47 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What... this doesn't even make any sense. All Census data consists of racial self-identification. There is no preference given to any specific group. --Iamozy (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is true, but the page should reflect that instead of trying to make it seem like the other numbers are fake while the English one is real. It's clear the pages try their hardest to undermine other groups and make it seem that the English are still the dominant force. Even on the German-American page before it was edited, an editor tried to undermine the German number in the opening paragraph and directed attention to the supposed true English number. It went as far as to use the amount of Americans claiming American heritage to boost the English number, despite the reality that the people claiming solely American are more than likely multiple ancestries. Knowing that, and knowing how numerous the Irish and Germans are, it would not be so far-fetched to guess that these people claiming American could also have Irish and German ancestry. That would make it pretty redundant to add them to the English number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalissa47 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"Self-identified" does not mean "fake" - it simply means that the number was derived from the US Census. The statement about the "true" Anglo-American descendants is supported by sources. If you can find a source claiming that self-identified "Americans" are equally German or Irish, then please include it. If the sources do not support the claim, then it can be removed. Otherwise, a sourced statement will remain where it is.
BTW to converse on Wikipedia, put the ":" in front of the paragraph to indent, and sign your post with "~~~~" --Iamozy (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court decisions -- all ancestry groups covered under term race and how it really works

These supreme court cases should be reviewed for introduction as well as the social definition of race section. St. Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji 481 U.S. 604 (1987), Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (1987)

It's not clear that the collective wikipedia authors really understand how this all works. The Census doesn't designate "racial" categories, really. Congress mandates what must be asked in the race question and whether a race question is even required. It does this every 10 years. There is no constitutional requirement that race be defined by the census bureau or that 'race' must be counted. In fact, the "race" question has changed over the decades. 2601:14F:8003:DAFC:1948:BAF5:8A41:1D72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Pie chart

  • Could someone please just make a pie chart so people can easily see that the nation is X% white, Y% black, etc.? As it is, the reader has to go through a lot of text just to get this basic data. Sonicsuns (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I can give it a shot in a bit. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Internal Contradiction

Most African Americans are the direct descendants of captives from West Africa, who survived the slavery era within the boundaries of the present United States.[40] As an adjective, the term is usually spelled African-American.[41] The first West African slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. The English settlers treated these captives as indentured servants and released them after a number of years. This practice was gradually replaced by the system of race-based slavery used in the Caribbean.


If they were "treated as indentured servants", when were they slaves?

Every page on Wikipedia with information about slavery and indentured servants in colonial times makes clear distinction between the two. The institution of slavery did not exist in 1619.

Most importantly however, the two sentences above are not internally consistent. It would make sense to say they were slaves who were later freed, or to say they were indentured servants. How could they be both, if there is real distinction between the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienkind (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The sentence about Jamestown is a relatively recent addition. I think the intent is to say that the early West Africans were treated as indentured servants and released; the system of race-based slavery emerged later.
If the Jamestown sentence is causing issues, should it be removed or restructured? If all else fails, go back to the status quo. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am aware that pages should not include "original research", but I am not quite sure exactly where that line is drawn. As best as I have been able to determine thus far, the Jamestown sentence seems to be taken from this page:

http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery

Which, itself, may come from this book: "Freedom on My Mind, Combined Volume: A History of African Americans, with Documents Combined Edition by Deborah Gray White , Mia Bay, Waldo E. Martin

But, having gotten that far without having gained any greater insight about the West Africans in the Jamestown colony, I figured I could more easily stay on the safe side of "no original research" by returning to Wikipedia pages as points of reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Punch_(slave)

If the history detailed on these pages is accurate, then the line from the History.com page is apparently just sloppy writing. Slavery in the US did not begin in 1619 Jamestown. There was a system of indentured servitude at that time. Slavery began decades later, with John Casor and John Punch

Alienkind (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

According to Slavery in the colonial United States#Virginia, the Jamestown Africans were indentured servants (which is what I have read elsewhere). I think it's impossible to identify "the first African slave" in the modern-day United State; I think the best that can be done, as is done in that article, is to identify the first Africans and describe the establishment of the institution of classical American slavery. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this really true?

> Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to 98% of the population

98% of the US is hispanic/latino? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.64.165 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No, that was vandalism. The correct percentage, 17%, has been restored. Thank you for pointing it out. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Race and ethnicity in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1142775462"