# data[].attributes.headline
Information on Pacific Islanders & Hawai'ians

# data[].attributes.subject
Information on Pacific Islanders & Hawai'ians

# data[].attributes.body
Click here for demographics on Hawai'ians & Pacific Islanders, such as the gender balance & their income.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Comparisons of Selected Social and Economic Characteristics Between Asians, Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians (Including Alaskan Natives)

Edward W. Fernandez

Population Analysis and Evaluation Staff
Population Division
U.S. Bureau of the Census
Washington, D.C. 20233

June 1996

POPULATION DIVISION WORKING PAPER NO. 15

This paper reports the general results of research undertaken by Census Bureau Staff. The views expressed are attributable to the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Census Bureau.

This paper was initially presented at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, New Orleans, Louisiana.

ABSTRACT

COMPARISONS OF SELECTED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN ASIANS, HAWAIIANS, PACIFIC ISLANDERS, AND AMERICAN INDIANS (INCLUDING ALASKAN NATIVES)

by

Edward W. Fernandez
Population Division
U.S. Bureau of the Census

The U.S. government stipulates that federal agencies collect and present information on the White, Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian race populations, and on the Hispanic origin ethnic population. Recently, representatives of some of these groups have suggested changes to this list. Persons of Hawaiian race, for example, suggest that they either be: (1) classified uniquely and separated from the Asian and Pacific Islander group, or (2) merged with the American Indian population and classified in the group: American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiians.

This paper explores the effects of acting on these suggestions. Generally, expunging Hawaiians from the Pacific Islander group generates a Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander population which is different generally from the original Pacific Islander group. Also, including Hawaiians within the American Indian population does alter, although less radically, some of the recorded characteristics of the latter.

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.....1

2. SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF ASIANS, PACIFIC ISLANDERS, AND HAWAIIANS.....4

               Population Size.....4
      Selected Characteristics.....5

                   age-sex-families-nativity and language-
                   educational attainment level-labor force
                   status-occupation-workers in family-income-
                   poverty.

3. CONSEQUENCES OF EXTRACTING HAWAIIANS FROM THE PACIFIC ISLANDER POPULATION.....11

      Selected Characteristics.....11

                   age-sex composition-type of family-nativity-
                   language ability-educational attainment-labor
                   force status-occupation-workers in family-
                   income-income below poverty level.

4. COMPARISON BETWEEN HAWAIIANS AND AMERICAN INDIANS INCLUDING ALASKAN NATIVES).....18

      Selected Characteristics.....18

                   age-sex comparison-type of family-nativity-
                   language ability- educational attainment-labor
                   force status-occupation-workers in family-
                   income in 1989-income below the poverty level.

5. REFERENCES.....25

TEXT TABLES

A. Comparison of Population Size and Population Composition Between Selected Racial Groups: 1990 Census.....5

B. Broad Age Groups of the Asian, Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander, and Hawaiian Populations: 1990.....6

C. Family Characteristics of Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians: 1990.....7

D. Educational Attainment Levels of Selected Racial Groups: 1990.....8

E. Unemployment Rates of Selected Racial Groups, By Sex: 1990.....10

F. Education Attainment Levels of Pacific Islanders, Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians: 1990.....14

G. Income Measures for Pacific Islanders, Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians: 1990.....17

H. Unemployment Rates by Sex of the American Indian/Hawaiian, the American Indian, and the Hawaiian Populations: 1990.....21

I. Income Measures for the American Indian/Hawaiian, the American Indian, and the Hawaiian Populations: 1990.....23

FIGURES

NOTE: These figures are not available on the internet. In order to see them you must order the paper. To order please call our Statistical Information Office at 301-457-2422 or send an e-mail message to pop@census.gov.

Population Size of Selected Racial Groups: 1990 Census

Broad Composition of the Pacific Islander Population: 1990 Census

Broad Age Comparison of the Pacific Islander Pop. & Components: 1990 Census

Education Level of the Pacific Islander & Component Populations: 1990 Census

Unemployment Rates of the Pac. Islander Population & Components: 1990 Census

Type of Income for the Pacific Islander Population & Components: 1990 Census

Distribution of the Combined American Indian & Hawaiian Pops.: 1990 Census

Age Distribution of the Amer. Indian and Hawaiian Populations: 1990 Census

Educational Attainment Levels of the Amer.Ind./Hawaiian Pop.: 1990 Census

Unemployment Rates of the American Indian & Hawaiian Pops.: 1990 Census

Type of Income of the American Indian & Hawaiian Populations: 1990 Census

DETAILED TABLES

NOTE: These tables are not available on the internet. In order to see them you must order the paper. To order please call our Statistical Information Office at 301-457-2422 or send an e-mail message to pop@census.gov.

1. Comparative Characteristics of Selected Racial Groups: 1990

2. Comparison of Selected Social and Economic Characteristics between the American Indian (including Alaskan Native) Population and the Hawaiian Population: 1990

COMPARISONS OF SELECTED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN ASIANS, HAWAIIANS, PACIFIC ISLANDERS, AND AMERICAN INDIANS (INCLUDING ALASKAN NATIVES)

by

Edward Fernandez
Population Division
U.S. Bureau of the Census

INTRODUCTION

To comply with civil rights legislation and the administration of specific programs, almost all federal agencies need statistical information on the characteristics of certain racial and ethnic population groups in the United States. This information on the racial and ethnic character of the land is used, partly, by the Federal government to distribute funds, to issue grants, to monitor the implementation of the Voting Rights Act, and to determine the social, economic, and health well-being of these groups. But to satisfy the legislation that impels these actions, federal agencies must concord on what are the primary racial/ethnic groups in the nation.

To make this selection, the Federal Interagency Committee on Education in 1974 created an Ad Hoc Committee on Racial and Ethnic definitions consisting of 25 persons representing federal agencies that collect and/or use population racial and ethnic data. Two standards imposed on the committee were: (1) that it ensure that the classification of each major group selected would be serviceable to all federal agencies regardless of the racial and ethnic data detail these agencies required, and (2) that data collected for each major group would not be presented combined with that of another selected major group. After agreement on a draft of the selected categories, several agencies - including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) - agreed to test the chosen categories, with definitions, for about a year and record any difficulties in their use.

Following this test-period, another committee, namely: The Ad Hoc Committee on Racial and Ethnic Categories, was created to review the results of the year-long testing rendered by the investigating agencies. After careful analysis, thorough review, and pertinent revisions, the OMB, in May 1977 produced Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, entitled: "Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting". This directive set the rules by which all federal agencies must define, collect, and present information about distinct racial and ethnic populations in the nation. Since 1977, no revisions have ever been made to Directive No. 15.

The racial and ethnic categories and definitions included in OMB's Directive No. 15 are as follows:

White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
Black: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
Asian or Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
American Indian or Alaskan Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliations or community or community recognition.
Hispanic: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

In recent years, criticism has surfaced about the nomenclature and the definitions of the categories in Directive 15, and some data-users urge a more current and careful review of the Directive's racial and ethnic partition because the nation is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse through growing immigration. One poignant recommendation regarding Directive 15 is to add more categories to the list; another is to classify Hawaiian persons differently. We now attend to this latter issue.

The Issue of Hawaiian Classification. - In particular, some Native Hawaiian groups suggest that they be considered separately from the category Asian and Pacific Islander and included as one of the major groups in Directive 15 - their rationale: Hawaiians are inhabitants of the State of Hawaii and, contrary to many Asian persons, are not U.S. immigrants. Furthermore, Hawaiians constitute only a small portion (i.e. about 211,000 persons) of the overall Asian and Pacific Islander population (which totals about 7,274,000 persons) and Hawaiian inclusion in this group masks and conceals the unique social and economic characteristics of the Hawaiian population. (Tables A; 1).

Another issue regarding the classification of Hawaiian persons is whether they could be included with the American Indian and Alaskan Native group. If so, the current "American Indian and Alaska Native" group would be augmented to become the: "American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian" population group. Anyone in this group could be defined as: "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America or the Hawaiian Islands.....," etc.

Apart from altering the categories set in Directive 15, implementing the above could conspicuously change some of the customary socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the originally listed groups. For example, extracting Hawaiians and classifying them separately from the Asian or Pacific Islander group may not conspicuously change the aggregate total of the latter, but it could certainly affect, in some cases dramatically, the social and economic characteristics of the Pacific Islander population group in which Hawaiians are a predominant component. As the two components of the Pacific Islander population group, both Hawaiians and Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders represent similar-sized populations (i.e. 211,000 and 154,000 persons, respectively); but by contrast, they are noticeably dissimilar in some important social and economic population characteristics. Therefore, by extracting Hawaiians from the Pacific Islander group we not only reduce the size of the latter by more than one-half, we also create two separate populations markedly different from each other (i.e. Hawaiians vs. Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders).

Thus, if the Hawaiian population were selected as a major group among those in Directive 15, it would require extraction from the "Asian and Pacific Islander" group and also from the component Pacific Islander population. Consequently, numbers and characteristics of both the combined Asian and Pacific Islander group and its subgroup: the Pacific Islanders would change because of (1) Hawaiian population size, and (2) Hawaiian population socio-economic attributes.

Other noticeable changes in the original groups of Directive 15 would occur if we included Hawaiians within the "American Native" population (i.e. American Indians and Alaska natives). However, since the Hawaiian population is only about one-tenth that of the American Indian population, we would not expect too much of a difference between an American Indian, etc. population without Hawaiians and one that includes Hawaiians. But our expectation is mistaken because some Hawaiian population characteristics are so blatantly different from those of the American Indian and Alaska Native population, that adding even the relatively small number of Hawaiians will noticeably change some of the general traits of the American Indian and Alaska Native population.

In this study, we demonstrate how some of the major racial groups specified in Directive 15 are affected when we alter their population components. Specifically, we show the demographic consequences of: (1) extracting the Hawaiian population from the Asian or Pacific Islander population, particularly by removing Hawaiians from the Pacific Islander group, and (2) including Hawaiians among the American Indian population.

Initially, however, to show the effects of the above alterations in better perspective, we describe and compare some general socio-economic attributes depicted by the 1990 census about the Asian, Pacific Islander, Hawaiian, and American Indian populations.

Some Characteristics of Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians

Population Size
In the 1990 census, a total of 7,273,662 persons identified as Asian or Pacific Islander; this population included 6.9 million Asians and 365,000 Pacific Islanders. Within the Pacific Islander group, there were 211,000 Hawaiian persons. Hawaiians, therefore, comprised about 60-percent of the total Pacific Islander population, and about 3-percent of the overall Asian or Pacific Islander population. (Tables A; 1).

Table A. Comparison of Population Size and Population Composition Between Selected Racial Groups: 1990 Census

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Population Groups             Number        Percent     Percent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Asian & Pacific Islander 7,273,662 100.0 -- Asians 6,908,638 95.0 -- Pacific Islanders 365,024 5.0 100.0 Hawaiians 211,014 2.9 57.8 Non-Hawaiians 1/ 154,010 2.1 42.2Total 2,170,248 100.0 -- American Indians 2/ 1,959,234 90.3 100.0 Hawaiians 211,014 9.7 10.8 -----------------------------------------------------------------

Selected Characteristics
Age - Hawaiians, with a median age of 26.3 years in 1990, were notably younger than Asians (median age: 30.1 years); but Hawaiians were older, on average, than Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders (median age: 23.2 years). This median age comparability was clearly reflected in the specific age distributions of these groups, for instance,Hawaiians had a higher proportion of persons under 5 years (9.8-percent) than Asians (8.0-percent), but a significantly lower proportion of persons 65 years old and over (4.8-percent versus 6.4-percent). (Tables B; 1)

Sex - In 1990, the numbers of Hawaiian males and females were about equal, but there were less Asian males than females (95.5 males per 100 females). Furthermore, the Non- Hawaiian Pacific Islander population had more males than females (103.3 males per 100 females). (Table 1)

Table B. Broad Age Groups of the Asian, Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander, and Hawaiian Populations: 1990

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                     |                Race
                     |-------------------------------------------
                     |               Non-Hawaiian
     Age             |   Asian         Pacific          Hawaiian
                     |                Islander
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                     |
All persons          |  6,908,638     154,010            211,014
                     |
  PERCENT            |
                     |
Under 5 yrs...       |   8.0           11.7                9.8
                     |
18 yrs. and over...  |  71.8           61.7               65.4
                     |
65 yrs. and over...  |   6.4            2.9                4.8
                     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Families - Over 1.5 million families in the 1990 census were Asian or Pacific Islander families; most of them Asian. A higher proportion of Asian families were married-couple families than were Non-Hawaiian pacific islander or Hawaiian families; for example, about 82 percent of Asian families were married-couple families compared to 71 percent of Hawaiian and 76 percent of Non-Hawaiian pacific islander families. Furthermore, 21 percent and 17 percent, respectively, of Hawaiian and Non- Hawaiian Pacific Islander families included a female householder with no husband present compared to only 12 percent of Asian females.

Compared to Hawaiians, who had an average of 3.84 persons per family, and to Asians, with 3.79 persons per family, Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders had the largest families among these groups with a ratio of 4.4 persons per family.

Table C. Family Characteristics of Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians: 1990

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          |               Race
                          |--------------------------------------
                          |               Non-Hawaiian
         Age              |    Asian        Pacific     Hawaiian
                          |                Islander
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          |
Total families...         |   1,486,349      29,108       43,586
                          |
      PERCENT             |
                          |
Married-Couple families.. |     81.6          75.7         71.2
                          |
Female Householders (1).. |     11.9          16.5         21.3
                          |
Male Householders (2)..   |      6.5           7.8          7.5
                          |
                          |
Persons per family...     |      3.79          4.44         3.84
                          |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Nativity and language. - Among the three mutually exclusive groups: Asians, Hawaiians, and Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders, clearly Asians had the largest proportion of foreign-born immigrants (66 percent) compared to Non-Hawaiians Pacific Islanders with 30-percent and Hawaiians with only 1.3 percent foreign born.
More than half of the Asian and Non-Hawaiian pacific islander foreign-born (57.6-percent and 54.6-percent, respectively) reported having entered the U.S. between 1980 and 1990; about one-fifth of the foreign born in each of these groups said they had entered between 1975 and 1979, and about one-fourth reported entering before 1975.

For the Asian population 5 years old and over, about three- quarters said that in the home they spoke a language other than English, and 65 percent reported they specifically spoke an Asian or Pacific Islander language. Although 62 percent of Non- Hawaiian pacific islanders age 5 years and over reported speaking a non-English language at home, only 10 percent of Hawaiians did so. Furthermore, for those speaking an Asian or Pacific Islander language, about 3,800 Hawaiians and 22,000 pacific islanders reported not speaking English "very well". (Table 1)

Educational Attainment Level. - The 1990 census showed that for persons 25 years old and over, about 78-percent of Asians, 80-percent of Hawaiians and 71-percent of Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders were high school graduates. But differences at higher educational levels were particularly evident between Asians and the other two groups; for example, although only 12 percent of Hawaiians and 9 percent of Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders had achieved a Bachelor's or higher degree, about 38 percent of Asians had gained a Bachelor's degree or higher. (Table D)

In each of the above groups, differences between the sexes in educational attainment levels was much more evident among Asians. For instance, 82-percent of Asian males 25 years old and over were high school graduates compared to 74-percent of females. Similarly, 43-percent of Asian males had earned a Bachelor's or higher degree compared to 33-percent of Asian females. By contrast, gender differences for Hawaiians and for Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders in educational attainment levels, although apparently lower for females at both the high school and bachelors levels, were not statistically significant. (Table 1)

Table D. Educational Attainment Levels of Selected Racial Groups: 1990

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                           |                  Race
                           |-------------------------------------
                           |               Non-Hawaiian
    Education Level        |    Asian        Pacific     Hawaiian
                           |                Islander
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                           |
Persons 25 yrs. and over.. |  4,140,345      68,307      107,714
                           |
      PERCENT              |
                           |
High School or more..      |     77.6          70.9         79.5
                           |
Bachelor's degree or more..|     37.7           9.1         11.9
                           |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Labor Force Status. - In 1990, about 67- percent of all Asians age 16 years and over, or about 3.5 million persons, were in the labor force; also, 71-percent of Hawaiians (about 100,000 persons) and 69-percent of Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders, or 65,200 persons, were in the labor force that year. (Table 1)

Of those persons in the civilian labor force, the unemployment rate for Asians at 5.2-percent was lower than for either Hawaiians (6.3-percent) or for Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders (8.9-percent), and gender differences in unemployment levels were also evident between these groups. For instance, although Asian males had lower unemployment rates (5.0-percent) than Asian females (5.5-percent), both Hawaiian and Non-Hawaiian pacific islander males had higher unemployment rates than the females of their respective groups. (Table E)

Occupation. - For persons age 16 years and over in 1990, there were about three-and-a-quarter million employed Asians, 91,500 employed Hawaiians, and about 55,750 employed Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders. Almost one-third of the employed Asians were working in managerial and professional specialty occupations, compared to only one-fifth of the Hawaiians and one- seventh of the Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders. Interestingly, about one-third, of employed persons in each of these three population groups were working in technical sales, and in administrative support occupations. But compared to the other two groups, Asians had lower proportions of employed persons working in service, farming, and precision production occupations or working as operators, fabricators, and laborers. (Table 1)

Table E. Unemployment Rates of Selected Racial Groups, By Sex: 1990

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          |                  Race
                          |--------------------------------------
                          |               Non-Hawaiian
         Sex              |    Asian        Pacific     Hawaiian
                          |                Islander
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          |
Persons 16 yrs. + in the  |
civilian labor force...   |   3,444,188      61,191       97,701
                          |
      PERCENT             |
                          |
      Both sexes...       |      5.2           8.9          6.3
                          |
Males...                  |      5.0           9.1          6.7
                          |
Females...                |      5.5           8.6          5.9
                          |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Workers in family. - The proportions of workers per family varied somewhat among the three groups. About 9.5 percent of Hawaiian families had no workers in the family; compared to 8.3 percent of Asian and 7.5 percent of Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander families. But among these groups, about the same proportion of families, 20 percent, had three or more workers in the family.

Income. - Generally, Asians were more affluent than either Hawaiians or Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders; for instance, median family income of Asians in 1989 was $41,583 compared to $37,269 for Hawaiian families and $28,859 for Non- Hawaiian Pacific Islander families. Similarly, the per capita income of Asians, at $13,806, was higher than for Hawaiians ($11,447) and much higher than for Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders ($8,828).

Poverty. - Expectedly, from comparing family income levels: Asians had lower proportions of families in poverty than Hawaiians or Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders. Although, 11.4-percent of Asian families were poor in 1989, 12.7- percent of Hawaiian families and 18.7-percent of Non-Hawaiian pacific islander families were below the poverty level at that time. (Table 1)

Below, we describe the statistical consequences of altering the composition of some of the major groups specified in Directive 15, specifically by: (1) extracting Hawaiians from the major population category: Asian and Pacific Islanders, and particularly from its subgroup: Pacific Islanders, and (2) combining the Hawaiian population with the American Indian population to enable Hawaiians to be categorized as "Native Americans".

Consequences of Extracting Hawaiians from the Pacific Islander Population

The Census Bureau collects, analyzes, and presents a substantial amount of statistical information on the major racial/ethnic population groups of Directive 15; but it also presents statistical data on the subcomponents of those groups such as the Pacific Islander population and its own component groups: Hawaiians, Samoans, Tongans, Guamanians, Melanesians, and Other pacific islander groups. Thus, the indicated characteristics of the overall Pacific Islander population include those of one of its components: the Hawaiian population. But how would the characteristics of the Pacific Islander population change if we excluded Hawaiians? Would the residual Non-Hawaiian pacific islander population be very different from the original total Pacific Islander population? If so, in what ways would the former population differ from the latter? Below, we compare selected socio-economic characteristics between the total Pacific Islander population and the Pacific Islander population excluding Hawaiians (i.e. the Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders).

Selected Characteristics
Age. - In general, Hawaiians are a slightly older population than Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders; for example, only 9.8-percent of Hawaiians were under 5 years of age in 1990 compared to 11.7-percent of Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders and about 4.8-percent of Hawaiians were 65 years old and over compared to 2.9-percent of Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders.

Thus, if we extract Hawaiians from the Pacific Islander (PI) population, the residual Non-Hawaiian pacific islander population will become a somewhat younger population than the original Pacific Islander population. Specifically, the Non-Hawaiian pacific islander population would have a slightly higher proportion of persons under 5 years of age, namely, 11.7-percent compared to 10.6-percent, and a lower proportion of persons age 65 years and over, 2.9-percent, compared to 4.0-percent for the original Pacific Islander population. (Table 1)

Sex composition. - In 1990, the sex ratio (i.e. males per 100 females) of the Hawaiian population was 100.6, which represents almost equal numbers of males and females in the population. On the other hand, the overall Pacific Islander population clearly had more males than females as indicated by its sex ratio of 101.7 males per 100 females.

Therefore, extracting Hawaiians from the Pacific Islander population generates a Non-Hawaiian pacific islander population with an even higher sex ratio, namely: 103.3 males per 100 females. (Table 1)

Type of family. - Of the 72,694 Pacific Islander families in 1990, about 60-percent were Hawaiian and 40-percent were Non-Hawaiian pacific islander families. About 71.2-percent of Hawaiian families were married-couple families as were 75.7- percent of non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander families. Furthermore, one-fifth of Hawaiian families and one-sixth of non-Hawaiian families were families headed by a female householder with no husband present. In addition, the average number of persons in a Hawaiian family - 3.84 persons per family - was about the same as in a Non-Hawaiian pacific islander family: 4.4 persons per family.

Extracting Hawaiians from the Pacific Islander population leaves a Non-Hawaiian pacific islander population with a higher proportion of married-couple families (75.7-percent) than in the original Pacific Islander population (73.0-percent). Furthermore, the Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders will have lower proportions of families with female householders with no husband present (16.5-percent) compared to the original Pacific Islander population (19.4-percent). However, there is no discernible difference between these two populations in the proportions of families with male householders and no wife present, nor in their average number of persons per family. (Table 1)

Nativity. - In 1990, thirteen-percent of the Pacific Islander population reported being foreign born, but only slightly over one-percent of Hawaiian persons were foreign born.

However, since more than half of the Pacific Islander population are Hawaiians and very few Hawaiians are foreign born, removing Hawaiians from the Pacific Islander population leaves a residual Non-Hawaiian pacific islander population with a substan- tial proportion of foreign born persons (i.e. 29.5-percent). Therefore, the proportions foreign born between the Pacific Islander and the Non-Hawaiian pacific islander populations will be greatly disparate. By contrast, removing Hawaiians (and their few foreign born) from the Pacific Islander population creates a foreign born Non-Hawaiian pacific islander population whose period-of-entry to the U.S. and U.S. citizenship status distributions are identical to those of the original Pacific Islander foreign born. (Table 1)

Language ability. - Since Hawaiians include such a small number of foreign born (2,591 persons), we would anticipate only a small proportion of them to report speaking a foreign language at home, and expectedly, in 1990 only 10-percent did so. By contrast, almost one-third (31.2-percent) of the overall Pacific Islander population age 5 years and over spoke a foreign language at home.

If we extract the large component of Hawaiian persons from the Pacific Islander population, we discover that 62-percent of the remaining Non-Hawaiian population reports speaking a language other than English at home. Furthermore, one-half of this Non- Hawaiian Pacific Islander population age 5 years and over reports speaking an asian or pacific Islander language compared to only one-quarter of the Pacific Islander population that normally includes Hawaiians. Also, about one-third of both the total Pacific Islander population and the Pacific Islander population minus Hawaiians (i.e. the Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders) who report speaking an Asian or Pacific Islander language at home also report not speaking English "very well". (Table 1)

Educational attainment. - The educational attainment levels of Hawaiian persons 25 years old and over were higher than for Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders: about 80-percent of Hawaiians, compared to 71-percent of Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders were High school graduates. Similarly, about 12- percent of Hawaiians compared to 9-percent of Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders had Bachelor's degree or higher.

Since the educational attainment level of Hawaiians is discernibly higher than for Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders, removing Hawaiians from the overall Pacific Islander population leaves a residual Pacific Islander population with lower educational attainment levels. This follows similarly when we compare the educational attainment levels of the males and of the females of both these pacific islander groups. (Table F)

Table F. Education Attainment Levels of Pacific Islanders, Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians: 1990

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                           |                  Race
                           |-------------------------------------
                           |    Total      Non-Hawaiian
     Education Level       |   Pacific       Pacific     Hawaiian
                           |  Islander      Islander
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                           |
Persons 25 yrs. and over...|   176,021       68,307      107,714
                           |
      PERCENT              |
                           |
High School or more...     |     76.1          70.9         79.5
                           |
Bachelor's degree or more..|     10.8           9.1         11.9
                           |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Labor Force status. - The proportion of Hawaiians 16 years old and over in the labor force was slightly higher than for Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders, 71.2-percent versus 68.5-percent, respectively; And for those persons in the civilian labor force, a noticeably larger proportion of Non- Hawaiian pacific islanders were unemployed (9-percent) compared to Hawaiians (6-percent). This same contrast in unemployment levels also occurred between the males and females of each of the two population groups.

The substantially lower number of employed Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders and their higher unemployment rates vis--vis the Hawaiian population accentuates the differences in overall employment status when we compare the Pacific Islander population with that same population minus Hawaiians. (Table 1)

Occupation. - A higher proportion (20.2-percent) of employed Hawaiians were working in managerial and professional specialty occupations than were Non-Hawaiian Islanders (14.6- percent). Interestingly, the same proportions (32.0-percent) of both these populations were in technical sales and administrative support jobs and in farming, forestry, and fishing jobs (2.5- percent). Also, the proportional differences between employed Hawaiians and Non-Hawaiians Pacific Islanders working in service, precision products, craft and repair, and as factory machine operators, or laborers, were not statistically significant.

When we compare the occupational distribution between Pacific Islanders and Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders we find similar relationships as between Hawaiians and Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders, namely, higher proportions of Pacific Islanders than of Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders working as managers, and professionals, but about the same proportions in these two populations working as machine operators, fabricators, and laborers. Furthermore, Pacific Islanders had a higher proportion of families with no-workers (8.7-percent) than Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders (7.5-percent). By contrast, Pacific Islander families had a lower proportion of families with onlyone worker (26.1-percent) than did Non- Hawaiian pacific islander families (28.1-percent). But the proportions of families with eithertwo workers orthree or more workers in the family was about the same in both populations.

Workers in family. - In 1990, about 61-percent of all Pacific Islander families were Hawaiian families (i.e. 43,080 families) and 39-percent were Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander families (i.e. 28,016 families). Among the Hawaiian families, 9.5-percent, had no workers in the family and among Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander families, 7.5-percent had no workers. The proportion of Hawaiian families with one worker per family was 25-percent compared to 28.1-percent for Non-Hawaiian pacific islander families. And the proportions of families with 2 workers or with 3 or more workers in the family were about the same for both groups of families.

Because of its large Hawaiian population content, the total Pacific Islander population showed a higher proportion of families with no workers (8.7-percent) than that of Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders (7.5-percent). By contrast, Pacific Islander families had a lower proportion of families with only one worker (26.1-percent) than did Non-Hawaiian pacific islander families (28.1-percent). But the proportions of families in both these populations with either two workers or three or more workers in t the family, was about the same. (Table 1)

Income. - The median household and the median family incomes, as well as the per capita income of the Hawaiian population was substantially higher than for the Non-Hawaiian pacific islander population. For example, the Hawaiian median household income in 1989 was $34,830 compared to $27,141 for Non- Hawaiian pacific islanders. This income disparity also occurred at the level of family income, where Hawaiians showed median family income of $37,269 compared to a median of $28,589 for Non-Hawaiian pacific islander families. Furthermore, Hawaiian per capita income at $11,447, was much higher than that of Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islanders ($8,828).

The greater affluence of Hawaiians over Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders is confirmed by the 1989 median household, family, and per capita income disparity between these two groups. And this contrast is so marked, that it strongly affects and clearly displays the income differences between the Pacific Islander and the Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander populations. (Table G)

Table G. Income Measures for Pacific Islander, Non- Hawaiian Pacific Islanders, and Hawaiians: 1990

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          |                  Race
                          |--------------------------------------
      INCOME              |    Total      Non-Hawaiian
        in                |   Pacific       Pacific     Hawaiian
       1989               |  Islander      Islander
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          |
Median household          |
income..(dollars)..       |   $31,980       $27,141      $34,830
                          |
Median family             |
income..(dollars)..       |   $33,955       $28,859      $37,269
                          |
Per Capita                |
income..(dollars)..       |   $10,331        $8,777      $11,447
                          |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Income below poverty level. - In 1989, almost the same number of Hawaiian families (i.e. 5,453 families) as of Non-Hawaiian pacific islander families (i.e. 5,238) were below the poverty level. But the proportion of Hawaiian families in poverty, 12.7-percent was much lower than for Non-Hawaiian families, 18.7-percent. Similarly, the proportion of Hawaiians persons below the poverty level was 13.9-percent compared to 20.4-percent of Non-Hawaiian pacific islander persons.

Since the poverty differentials between Hawaiians and Non- Hawaiian pacific islanders are so large, removing Hawaiians from the total Pacific Islander population shows that the remaining Non-Hawaiian Pacific Islander population is also substantially less affluent than the entire Pacific Islander population. (Table 1)

1/ Non-Hawaiian pacific islanders (and 1990 census counts) include the following: Samoans (62,964 persons), Tongans (17,606), Guamanians (49,345), Melanesians (7,195), Other Non- Hawaiian pacific islanders (16,900).

2/ This group represents the category: American Indian and Alaska Native.

Comparisons Between Hawaiians and American Indians (Including Alaskan Natives)

According to the 1990 census the American Indian (including Alaskan natives) population totaled almost 1,960,000 persons, and we recall that the Pacific Islander population included about 365,000 persons of which 211,014 persons were of Hawaiian race. Thus, the Hawaiian population is only about one-tenth the size of the American Indian population, and we expect that combining them will barely change the characteristics of the latter. Neverthe- less, in some few aspects, the American Indian population does differ from a combined American Indian/Hawaiian population. (Table 2)

Selected Characteristics
Age. - Although Hawaiians have proportionally less persons under age 5 years (9.8 percent) than American Indians (10.3), the American Indian population has a slightly higher proportion of persons age 65 years and over, 5.8 percent, compared to 4.8 percent for Hawaiians.

Thus, adding Hawaiians to the much larger American Indian population does not alter the proportional broad-age-group distribution of the original American Indian population. (Table 2)

Sex comparison. The Hawaiian population in 1990 had almost equal number of males and females, with the sex ratio indicating 100.6 males per every 100.0 females. But the American Indian population had more females than males - generating a sex ratio of 97.5 males per 100.0 females.

Since there are so many more American Indians than Hawaiians in the U.S., combining Hawaiians and American Indians to form a composite American Indian/Hawaiian population will not affect appreciably the original sex ratio of the American Indian popula- tion. (Table 2)

Type of family. - In 1990, there were about 43,590 Hawaiian families in the nation compared to about 10 times that many American Indian families. But there were some differences between these two population groups regarding family types: for instance, the proportion of Hawaiian married-couple families was higher at 71.2-percent than that of American Indian families, 64.2-percent. Furthermore, the proportion of American Indian families with a female householder and no spouse present was 27.3-percent compared to 21.3-percent of Hawaiian families; and the percent of American Indian families with male householder without a spouse was, at 8.5-percent, also higher than for Hawaiian families: 7.5-percent.

But regardless of these proportional differences in family types between Hawaiians and American Indians, the vast size of the latter population relative to the former will not cause a the combined American Indian/Hawaiian population to have a different family-type distribution from that of the original American Indian population. (Table 2)

Nativity. The Hawaiian and American Indian populations in 1990 show only small proportions of foreign-born persons among their populations: Only 2,591 Hawaiians (1.3- percent) reported being foreign born, as did 46,919 of American Indians, 2.3-percent.

Since the Hawaiian foreign born represent only about one- twentieth the number of the American Indian foreign born, adding them to the latter to generate the American Indian/Hawaiian foreign born does not change either the proportion or the character of the reported foreign born contingent of the original American Indian population. (Table 2)

Language ability. Almost one-fourth of all American Indian persons 5-years old and over, about 433,000 persons, speak a language other than English in the home compared to about 18,601, or 10-percent, of Hawaiians. But only a small proportion of American Indians (0.4 percent) report speaking an Asian or Pacific Islander language in the home contrasted to almost 8 percent of Hawaiians. For both these subgroups who speak an Asian or Pacific Islander language, 44-percent of American Indian persons report not speaking English "very well" compared to 27 percent of Hawaiians. Also, 25-percent of the American Indians who report speaking an Asian or Pacific Islander language at home live in linguistically isolated households compared to 8.1 percent of Hawaiians.

Since only 10-percent of Hawaiians 5 years old and over reported speaking a language other than English at home compared to almost one-fourth of American Indian and Alaska Native persons, the proportional differences of persons who speak a language other than English at home are not significant between a combined American Indian/Hawaiian population (22.5-percent) and the American Indian population (23.8-percent). Table 2.

Educational attainment. - The 1990 census showed that the educational attainment level of the Hawaiian population age 25 years and over was generally higher than for the American Indian population: About 80-percent of Hawaiians had attained at least a High school diploma compared to 66-percent of American Indian persons; furthermore, 11.9-percent of Hawaiians had achieved a Bachelor's or higher degree compared to 9.3- percent of American Indians. These same relationships were evident by sex: both males and females 25 years old and over in the Hawaiian population had reached higher educational attainment levels than their counterparts in the American Indian population.

The impact of these differences in educational attainment persist when we merge Hawaiians and American Indians to form the American Indian/Hawaiian population, and we note that the educational attainment level categories of this augmented population continues to differ significantly from those of the American Indian population taken alone. (Table 2)

Labor force status. A substantially higher proportion of Hawaiians age 16 years and over were in the civilian labor force than were American Indians of the same age group. Furthermore, the unemployment rate in 1990 of Hawaiian persons, at 6.3 percent, was much lower than that of American Indians, 14.4 percent. These differences in labor force characteristics between Hawaiians and American Indians were also evident by sex: Hawaiian males, as well as Hawaiian females, both had higher proportions in the civilian labor force and lower unemployment rates than their counterparts in the American Indian population.

Of the very few socio-economic differences we have detected so far between the combined American Indian\Hawaiian population and the American Indian population, we must add another important one: the unemployment rate. Such a large gap exists between the Hawaiian and the American Indian populations in their levels of unemployment, that the combined American Indian/Hawaiian popula- tion actually begets a lower unemployment rate (13.5-percent) than that of the American Indian population (14.4-percent). Furthermore, this same discrepancy in unemployment levels also occurs between the males as well as between the females of these populations. (Table 2)

Table H. Unemployment Rates by Sex of the American Indian/Hawaiian, The American Indian, and the Hawaiian Populations: 1990

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          |                  Race
                          |--------------------------------------
        SEX               |  Combined
                          |American Indian   American   Hawaiian
                          | and Hawaiian      Indian
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          |
Persons 16 yrs. and       |
and in the civilian       |
labor force...            |   947,013        851,312      97,701
                          |
     PERCENT              |
                          |
     Both Sexes...        |    13.5           14.4         6.3
                          |
Males...                  |    14.5           15.4         6.7
                          |
Females...                |    12.4           13.1         5.9
                          |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Occupation. - Marked differences were evident in the occupation distribution of Hawaiians and American Indians. For example, 20.2-percent of employed Hawaiians were working in managerial and professional occupations, compared to 18.3-percent of American Indians, and 32.1-percent of Hawaiians where working in technical sales and administrative support jobs compared to 26.8 percent of employed American Indian persons. By contrast, proportionally more employed American Indians than Hawaiians were working in jobs concerning farming, forestry, and fishing; precision production, and repair; and in jobs requiring work as: operators, fabricators, and laborers. Both population groups, however, had the same proportion of persons, 18.5 percent, working in service occupations. (Table 2)

In 1990, the employed Hawaiian population age 16 years and over was only one-eighth the size of the employed American Indian population, and even though some noticeable differences existed between these populations in the proportions employed in certain types of jobs, the occupational distribution of the combined American Indian/Hawaiian population is not significantly different from that of the American Indian population taken singly. (Table 2)

Workers in family. - The distribution of the number of workers-in-the-family varied markedly between Hawaiian families and American Indian families. Specifically, Hawaiian families with no workers, 9.5 percent, was noticeably lower than for American Indian families, 14.5 percent. Similarly, about one-fourth of Hawaiian families had only one worker in the family compared to one-third of American Indian families. But the proportions of families with two workers or with three or more workers in the family were consistently larger for Hawaiian families than for American Indian families; for example, 46-percent of Hawaiian families had two workers in the family compared to 41-percent of American Indian families, and 20-percent of Hawaiian families had three or more workers in the family compared with 12-percent of American Indian families.

The above-noted differences between Hawaiians and American Indians in number of workers-per-family persist (except for the proportions of two-worker families) when we compare the composite American Indian/Hawaiian with the American Indian population. (Table 2)

Income in 1989. - In 1989, the median household income, the median family income, and the per capita income of the Hawaiian population was substantially higher than for the American Indian population. The Hawaiian median household income, for instance, was $34,830 compared to $20,025 for American Indian households; similarly, Hawaiian median family income was $37,269 compared to $21,750 for American Indian families, and the Hawaiian population per capita income was $11,447 compared to $8,328 for American Indian persons.

The 1989 income disparity between Hawaiians and American Indians was sufficiently large to display income differences between a combined American Indian/Hawaiian population and the original American Indian population. For example, the median household income of a combined American Indian/Hawaiian population was, at $21,283, higher than for the American Indian population; similarly, medianfamily income of the American Indian/Hawaiian population was $23,069, once again higher than that of American Indian families; and finally, theper capita income of the combined American Indian/Hawaiian population ($8,593) was slightly higher than that for American Indian persons. (Tables H; 2)

Table I. Income Measures for the American Indian/Hawaiian, the American Indian, and the Hawaiian Populations: 1990

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          |                  Race
                          |--------------------------------------
      INCOME              |  Combined
        in                |American Indian    American   Hawaiian
       1989               | and Hawaiian       Indian
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          |
Median household          |
income..(dollars)..       |   $21,235         $20,025     $34,830
                          |
Median family             |
income..(dollars)..       |   $23,069         $21,750     $37,269
                          |
Per Capita                |
income..(dollars)..       |    $8,617          $8,328     $11,447
                          |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Income Below the Poverty Level. - Although about 5,400 Hawaiian families were below the poverty level in 1989, almost 5-times as many (about 125,400) American Indian families were then living in poverty. In particular, the 12.7-percent of all Hawaiian families below the poverty level was much lower than that of American Indian families: 27.0-percent, and this family poverty-level disparity was also replicated at the person-level. For instance, although about 28,600 Hawaiian persons (14.3- percent) were in poverty in 1989, over 600,000 American Indian persons (30.9-percent) were below the poverty level.

Similarly to the income analysis noted above, the poverty level differentials between Hawaiians and American Indians are so large that differences do occur when we compare poverty-levels between the combined American Indian/Hawaiian population and the American Indian population. For example, 27-percent of American Indian families were below the poverty level in 1989 compared to 25.8-percent of American Indian/Hawaiian families. And the same circumstance occurred for persons, where 31-percent of American Indian persons were in poverty compared to 29-percent of persons in the combined American Indian/Hawaiian population. (Table 2)

We have seen above that many noticeable socio-economic differences exist between the individual Hawaiian and the American Indian populations, but when both populations are combined and compared to the initial American Indian population, most of these differences vanish. However, one particularly significant exception, among others, occurs when we compare the income levels of the combined American Indian/Hawaiian and the American Indian populations. Our analysis shows quite clearly that the income differentials between Hawaiians and American Indians are so great that even when the much smaller Hawaiian population is combined with the American Indian population, the resulting American Indian/Hawaiian population differs noticeably from the original American Indian population at the household, family, and personal income levels.

3/ Although at first it may seem improbable that some American Indian persons are truly foreign born, this need not be an implausible occurrence. For example, in recent years an increasing number of native (i.e. indigenous) Indians born in Canada, Mexico, or Central and South America have immigrated to the United States and they and their tribal affiliations were reported in the American Indian and Alaska Native category of the decennial census Race question.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division,
Population Analysis & Evaluation Staff
Author: Edward W. Fernandez
Last Revised: October 31, 2011 at 10:03:02 PM

Thank you for your feedback.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comparisons of Selected Social and Economic Characteristics Between Asians, Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians (Including Alaskan Natives)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The U.S. government stipulates that federal agencies collect and present information on the White, Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian race populations, and on the Hispanic origin ethnic population. Recently, representatives of some of these groups have suggested changes to this list.

# data[].attributes.body
Pacific Islander is the last of the big races of the world. Pacific Islanders usually have dark skin. Lots of Pacific Islanders worship a god of some kind & celebrate their religion, their culture, & their friends & family. A well known type of Pacific Islander is Native Hawai'ian. Pictured below are a couple from Kiribati.

# data[].attributes.body
Here is a link to a webpage that describes the customs of these isolated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NATIVE PEOPLES of NORTH AMERICA - Arctic Culture Area

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Arctic culture area is the aboriginal homeland of the Inuit and Yuit (both previously called "Eskimos.") and Aleut. The area is vast, more than 5,000 miles stretching across the circumpolar region and embraced by the political boundaries of four nations: Russia, the U.S.A., Canada, and Denmark (Greenland).

# data[].attributes.body
Arctic tribes are very sparse. They only live in the cold Arctic. It is estimated that less than 4 million people worldwide are of an Arctic tribe. The majority of this race is found in Alaska, Russia, Canada, & Greenland. They seem to share characteristics with both Native Americans & Northeastern Asians. It is theorized that these people lived over 10,000 years ago.

# data[].attributes.headline
A study on Native Americans by a Cherokee researcher

# data[].attributes.subject
A study on Native Americans by a Cherokee researcher

# data[].attributes.body
Check out the characteristics of Native Americans here

# data[].attributes.body
Native Americans can be found in the American continents. They are one of the least common races (tied with Middle Eastern), making up only about 8% of the world's population. Many Americans have large earlobes & an inverted breastbone. They also have black hair like Asians.

# data[].attributes.body
A link to a list of characteristics in Asians

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ASIAN PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

People classified as Asians are physically different in some ways than people of European descent. In almost all cases Asians have straight, black hair and dark eyes. They also tend to have less body hair, less facial hair, flatter faces, smaller noses, wider cheekbones, and "shovel-shaped" incisor teeth (slightly scooped out shape of back side of the front teeth).

Asians are less likely to get some diseases than Westerners and more likely to get others. Many Asians get acne at a later age than Westerners. Fewer Asian men go bald than European men. There also appears to be less Asians with grey hair, but it is not clear whether this is because they get grey hair at a later age or dye their hair. Many Asian children find red and blonde hair and hairy arms and legs to be fascinating.

Northern Asians are generally stockier and have lighter skin and thinner eyes than southern Asians. All skin contains about the same number of melanocytes but the amount of melanin they produce varies. Dark skinned people produce more and light skin people produce less.

Some people think that difference between Asians and Europeans have existed for some times. While holding a cast made of Peking Man in the 1930s, Chinese archeologist Jia Lan told National Geographic, "This skull has some characteristic of modern Chinese people. For instance, the nose bone of Peking man was low and cheeks were flat, as in Asians today."

Books: Human Variation, Races, Types and Ethnic Groups by Stephen Molnar (Prentice Hall, 1992); The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould (Norton, 1991); The Evolution of Racism by Pat Shipmen (Simon & Schuster, 1994); Human Biodiversity by Jonathan Marks of Yale University (Walter Gruyter).
Yellow Skin
Asians are sometimes referred to as having yellow skin. It is not clear where the term comes from especially when one rarely sees an Asian with yellow skin unless they have jaundice. Biologists who deal with such matters classify most Asians as having the same skin color as people living in northern North America.

Some trace its origins to the term "yellow peril"---fear of Oriental hordes overwhelming the West"---which first appeared shortly after Japan defeated China in 1895 and has been attributed to the German Kaiser Wilhelm II but was used before him by the Hungarian General Turr in an assessment of Bismark. Several American newspapers used the term, including Ohio paper The Sandsuky Register, which ran a story in June 1895 with the following passage: "The "yellow peril" is more threatening than ever. Japan has made in a few years as much progress as other nations have made in centuries."

Westerners rarely use the term yellow or yellow skin in association with Asians anymore but sometimes Asians do. Chinese athlete Liu Xiang dedicated the gold medal he won in 110 meter hurdles at the 2004 Summer Olympics to "all the yellow-skinned people" and called his performance a "miracle." "Because I'm Chinese," he said, "and have the physiology of the Asian race to me this is a miracle. But because of it I expect more miracles in the future." In China Liu is nicknamed the "The Yellow Bullet"
Skin Color and Zebrafish
The are number of theories that attempt to explain why there are difference in skin color. One theory holds that lighter skin evolved as an adaption to weaker sunlight and the need to extract more sunlight to manufacture Vitamin D. Pale skin makes this easier when the sun's rays are not particularly strong. But unfortunately , malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, is more common among lighter skin people than darker skinned ones.

In 2005, scientists discovered a tiny mutation in a gene that plays a key role in determining skin color, with Caucasians inheriting a different version than other groups. The gene---named slc245a5---was discovered in a cancer research study using zebrafish, which have the same gene and come in dark and light skin versions. Slc245a is believed to be responsible for between 25 and 38 percent of color variation between Europeans and Africans.

Researchers found that people in Africa and China have one variation of slc245a5 and people of European ancestry have another. The research indicated that the dark version was the original and the light version evolved as humans migrated from Africa into northern areas and is consistent with a theory that lighter skin evolved as an adaption to weaker sunlight.

On the relevance of this finding to race, Gregory Barsh of Stanford University told the Times of London: "The paper indicates how the genetics of skin color variation is quite different from, and not be confused with, the concept of race...One of the most obvious characteristics that distinguishes different humans is nothing more than a simple change in the activity of a protein expressed in pigment cells. Skin color does not equal race period."

Asian Ears, Eyes and Squatting

The small webs of skin over the corners of Asian eyes are described by scientists as epicanthic folds. It is not understood why Asians have them and Europeans don't. Most Asians have a dry kind of ear wax that is relatively odorless while Africans and Europeans have wet and sticky ear wax that gives off more smell.

Many Asians also don't have a crease around the top of their eyelid like Westerners do. Some Asian women consider and eylid with a crease to be more beautiful than an eyelid without one and they spend a lot of money for "double slit operatation," to have a crease surgically insisiced into their eyelid. Many Asians also consider round eyes to be more beautiful than almond-shaped eyes. Some Asians prefer glasses with wide, narrow frames that look better with their eyes.

Asians are more comfortable squatting and crouching than Westerners. In many Asian countries people relax and rest for long periods of time in a squatting position that many Westerners find unbearbaly uncomfortable after only a few seconds. Some scientists claim that the squatting position is better for digestion. Many Asians also spend more time sitting on the floor than on chairs and couches, which Westerners prefer. see Japan, China. See Toilets.

Asian Hair

Individual strands of Chinese women's hair are circular and wider and more resistant to breaking than the oval hairs of Western women. Chinese hair has higher pigment concentrations that makes it glossier and shinier than the hair of Western women and less likely to turn white. Chinese hair is less dense than Western hair with fewer hairs per square centimeter of scalp.

When stripped of its natural pigment, Asian hair has reddish undertones while European hair has yellow-orange undertones. As a result hair dyes for Asian women are made with green that cancels out red while those for European women are made with violet that cancels out the yellow-orange undertones.

More than 150 million Chinese men aged 25 to 35, or about 40 percent of the male population in that age group, suffer from baldness or significant hair loss. Fast-paced living and long periods of stress are blamed for high rates of hair loss.

Many that have hair that goes grey or white prematurely dye it.

Asian Skin and White Versus Tanned Skin in Asia

Many Asian women eschew the tanned sporty look and favor the white, frail look. Pale skin is considered beautiful and has traditionally been associated with sophistication and wealth while brown skin traditionally has been a sign of being poor and working outside in the sun. One 38-year-old Hong Kong public relations executive who spends hundred of dollar a month on face masks, scrubs and whitening creams told Reuters, "I love to be pearly white because that is more beautiful."

Women often refuse to go out in the summer unless they have an umbrella, a makeshift cape or some other kind of skin protection. One 27-year-old accountant told the Times of London, "I prefer women with light skin. Westerners look healthy with bronzed skin, but Asians look dirty."

In China Pregnant women have traditionally avoided soy sauce out of concern it might make their baby dark. Skin whitening products are a huge industry. Among the skin whiteners available in China are White Detox by Biotherm, Pure by Dior, Blanc Expert by Lancom and Derma White by Clinique.

The skin of Chinese women is denser and, some say, better quality than the skin of Western women. Chinese women tend to have skin that is free of blemishes and lines for ten years longer than Western women. When the ageing process begins it happens suddenly---with pre-auricular wrinkles developing vertically from the ears and an interocular line crossing horizontally between the eyes and wrinkles appearung on the chin.

In recent years in China dark skin has become a symbol of wealth---a sign that someone has enough money to take a beach vacation in place like Thailand. Honolulu or Spain---with models with sexy tans being featured in fashion magazines . The first tanning salon in Beijing opened in the city's chic Jiawai Soho area in the mid 2000s. It is patronized mainly by young office ladies, who pay $12 for a ten minute session. Especially among the older generation, dark skin is considered ugly and lower class, and pale white skin is considered beautiful and an expression of sensitivity and cultivation. There is an expression in Japan that white skin can "hide the seven shortcomings of a woman."

In Japan many women walk around with "sun umbrellas" in the summer so they don't get tan. Umbrellas treated with chemicals sell for up to $350, and special attachments can be purchased so women can an attach their umbrellas to their bicycles. Hats, gloves and arm coverings that protect women from the sun are widely available in Japan. White face powder and paint is used by geishas and male Kabuki actors. Cosmetic stores sell a variety of cleansers, moisturizers and foundations aimed at generating bihaku ("beautiful white") skin. Some clinics offer special skin-peeling procedures that whiten the skin through laser treatments and application of ultra-cold liquid nitrogen or acid. In the mid 1990s, young Japanese with natural, bottled and booth tans were common sights. Ganguros ("black faces") was a name given to girls who with orangish, tanned faces, white lipstick, and heavy make-up, platform shoes and outrageous and colorful clothes. See Women.

Asian Blood and Body Odor

Type B blood is more common among East Asians and Africans than it is among Europeans. Asians generally do not have Rh-negative blood and hospitals do not store it for transfusions. Foreign travelers who have O Rh negative are in big trouble because they can only accept O negative blood, which generally isn't available.

Deodorants are sometimes difficult to find in Asia although they have become more common in recent years, in part through marketing efforts by deodorant makers. Body odor is produced apocrine glands in the armpits and genital area. Men have more and larger apocrine glands than women, and Caucasians and Africans have more and larger glands than Asians.

Milk, Butter, Cheese and Lactase Races

Some Asians don't like cheese, butter, milk or other dairy prodcuts and in some cases get physically sick if they eat them. In the old days, many Asian didn't even like their smell. Nineteenth century Japanese described Europeans traders as bata-kusai ("stinks of butter").

The aversion for dairy products is partly the result of the fact that many Asians lose lactase, an the enzyme which helps in digestion of milk sugar, as they get older. Groups that don't possess the lactase enzyme are called lactase negative races and those that have it are called lactase positive races.

Almost all mammalian milk contains lactose, a complex sugar that is broken down in the body of most people into simpler sugars like glucose by lactase. If people who lack lactase consume a lot of dairy products, undigested lactose accumulates in their large intestines, ferments, and emits gas. This leads to bloating and diarrhea.

Most adult animals can not tolerate lactose. Over time through evolution humans have developed a tolerance to lactose. Around 8000 years ago most people were lactase negative because they stopped consuming milk when they were weaned form their mothers. Beginning around 4000 B.C. some groups of people began drinking milk from domesticated animals, and later milk became an important food source for people in northern and central Europe, Arabia and parts of West Africa. Natural selection enabled these people to retain the lactase enzyme into adulthood while groups that drink milk lost the enzyme in childhood.

Exposure to American food like pizza and cheeseburgers have made dairy products more palatable to young Asians.

Red Faces and Mongolia Birth Marks

About half of all Asians lack an active enzyme which breaks down acetaldehyde, a toxic chemical derived from ethanol found in most forms of alcohol. As a result, when they drink they often get sick to their stomach or turn red in the face. Most westerners have this enzyme, and consequently they need to drink much more to get drunk or turn red.

Some Asians turn bright red after only a few sips of alcohol. If they continue drinking they often vomit because their bodies reject the alcohol.

Almost all Japanese, Korean, Mongolians, and some Chinese are born with a Mongolian birthmark, a small patch of brown pigment located on their butts or lower back. The mark vary in size and usually disappear within a few years. Indians in North, Central and South Americas also have these marks. Some scientists have suggested that these marks are evidence that these people originated from Asia. "Mongolian spots" are also found in Bushmen (See Below).

Asians are Getting Taller

Asians on average are also generally thinner and shorter than Westerners but they are getting taller and fatter. Some believe that at least some of the difference are explained by diet. Japanese today are around three inches taller than Japanese who grew up around World War II. Most scientist attribute the increase to nutritional changes, such as more milk and meat in their diets. Others have proposed more far-fetched theories. One researcher suggested that the switch from sitting on the floor to sitting Western-style in chairs has straightened some Japanese out and made them taller.

In South Korea, 14-year-old children are 4½ inches taller that their counterpart in 1954. According to another study between 1962 and 1996 the average height of women rose from 5-foot-1-inches to 5-foot-3-inches and men rose from 5-foot-5-inches to 5-foot-8-inches.

Most scientist attribute the increase to nutritional changes, such as more milk and meat in their diets and more food period. Since 1954 rice consumption has increased by 40 percent and the caloric intake of the average Korean has increased by a third. Others have proposed more far-fetched theories. One researcher suggested that the switch from sitting on the floor to sitting Western-style chairs has straightened out the backs of Koreans and made them taller.

Breast shape and size, nipple color and shape, the form of a woman's labia and buttocks and the angle of man's erection also varies somewhat between races. by Richard Bernstein, author of Book: The East, the West, and Sex: A History of Erotic Encounters describes the women of Asia as "more plumlike than melonlike of breast, spare rather than full of buttocks and hips."

Asian women generally have smaller breasts than Western women. Writer Paul Theroux once wrote that the brassier is "probably the most superfluous garment in China." Even so Wonder Bra developed a special product line for slim Asian women. An accountant in Hong Kong told Newsweek, "There's a strong desire to be sexy. People want to marry a good husband, and a push-up bra is part of the package to achieve that goal."

DNA Studies and Asian Traits Found Among Other Groups

DNA studies have shown that all Asians descend from two common lineages: 1) one more common in southern Asia, particularly among Vietnamese, Malays and New Guineans; and 2) one more common in northern Asia, particularly among Tibetans, Koreans and Siberians.

Khoisians ("bushmen") from southern Africa also have epicanthic folds and Mongolian birthmarkes. Many Swedes and native Americans have shovel shaped incisors. Many American Indians also have lack enzyme that helps the body metabolize alcohol.

Lactase negative races include east Asians, some African blacks, American Indians, southern Europeans and Australian aborigines. Lactase positive races include northern and central Europeans, Arabians and some West African groups such as the Fulani.

Explanation for Physical Differences

No one knows why Asians have thin eyes or flat facial profiles. None of these traits appear to give groups or individuals any kind of evolutionary advantage or particular adaption to environment. Epicanthic folds and thin eyes, some scientist have specualted, may have developed in northern Asia as a way of protecting the eyes from cold and glare off the snow.

Some anthropologists believe that people in northern climates developed stockier bodies because they have less surface area and retain internal heat better than long thin bodies with long limbs which that have more surface area to dissipate heat. This may be why many Africans in hot climates have long thin bodies, while eskimos and some northern Asians are stocky and squat.

Small noses are commonly found among Asians who live in humid tropical areas. Long noses are common among North Africans in dry climates and among northern Europeans in cold or dry climates. One of the main purposes of the nose is to moisten air that enters the body (an excess amount of dry air is harmful to lungs) and therefore long noes may be an adaption among people in dry climates to moisturize air.

Variations in Skin Color and Other Traits

"By definition we are all capable of interbreeding with all other human beings of the opposite sex to produce fertile offspring," wrote James Shreeve in Discover magazine. "In practice, however, people do not mate randomly; they normally choose their partners from within a social group or population immediately at hand and have been doing so for hundreds of generations."

More so than today, people in the past were divided into specific geographical regions by mountain ranges, deserts and oceans. They generally stayed pretty close to their homelands until the beginning of European colonialism in the 16th century, when people from far away regions began mixing and interbreeding. People still seem to prefer their own kind. Studies have shown that people tend to mate with people who resembles themselves in term so things like eye, hair and skin color.

"As a result," Sheeve wrote, "the physical expressions of the genes inherited for an expanding chain of parents and grandparent---most of whom lived in the same region as one another---also tend to cluster, so that there is a great deal of variation from geographical region to another in skin color, hair form, facial morphology, body proportion and a host of immediately less obvious traits."

History of the Concept of Race

Early explorers like Marco Polo traveled by camel or boat over reality short distances each day. "It never occurred to them to categorize people, because they had seen everything in between," University of Michigan anthropologist Loring Brace told Discover magazine. "That changed when you could get into a boat, sail for months, and wind up in a different continent entirely."

The notion of using science to define race can be traced back to Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), the Swedish biologist who helped develop the modern system of classifying living things into genus and species. In 1758, Linnaeus took the radical step of establishing Homo sapiens as a species within a group of animals called primates and then divided mankind into four races: 1) Europeans, 2) Native Americans, 3) Asians and 4) Africans. He also mentioned tow other categories: monstous (hairy creatures with tails described by explorers) and ferus ("wild boys"). Members of the latter group were occasionally found in the forest and were believed to have been raised by animals (most were actually mentally ill or retarded youngsters abandoned by their parents).

Linnaeus then went a step further and defined four races in terms of personality and dress. He said Native Americans were "red, choleric, upright" and "ruled by habit"; Europeans were "white, sanguine, muscular" and "ruled by custom"; Asians were "pale yellow, melancholy, stiff" and "ruled by belief"; and Africans were "black, phlegmatic, relaxed" and "ruled by caprice." About a century after Linnaeus, Charles Darwin attributed the difference in human races to sexual preference in his second most influential book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.

Problems with the Concept of Race

"Race is supposed to be a strictly biological category, equivalent to animal subspecies," Yale anthropologist Jonathan Marks told Discover magazine. "The problem is that humans also use it as a cultural category, and it is difficult if not impossible, to separate those two things from each other."

Racial categories based on skin color and geography often doesn't make any sense. Indians from India, for example, have dark skin (like "blacks") and Europeanlike facial features (like "Caucasians") but they inhabit the continent of Asia (like "Asians").

About 70 percent of cultural anthropologist and half of physical anthropologists have rejected the concept or race as a biological category according to a 1989 Central Michigan University study. Even so, many anthropology textbooks still define five major races: "whites," "African blacks," "Mongoloids," "aboriginal Australians," and "Khoisans." This in turn are divided into various number of sub-races. American Indians fall into the Mongoloid category.

Modern Science, Race and Physical Characteristics

Much of the information that scientists use to study genetics and "race" is ascertained from the analysis of blood types and specific antigens, antibodies and other proteins found in blood. Stanford University population geneticist Luca Cavalili-Sforza, author of The History and Geography of Human Genes, has attempted to put together a genetic map of the world by analyzing blood samples taken from different places around the globe.

Cavalli-Sforza's team often had difficulty collecting blood from people in remote places for their study. A farmer in the Central African Republic, for example, brandished an ax when he was asked if it was alright if the scientists took blood samples from his children. He said, "if you take the blood of the children. I'll take yours."

Studies in the United States have shown that many people with mostly European DNA look black and East Asian DNA is common in native Americans.

Diversity Among Peoples

From a genetic perspective, grouping people by skin color or "race" doesn't have a foundation in science. Blacks from the United States, Ghana and Somalia, for example are no more similar to each other that they are to Arabs, Swedes or Greeks.

Many physical traits have nor correlation to skin color or race. Groups with a predominance of "loops" in the fingerprint patterns include most Europeans, black Africans and east Asians, while groups with mostly "whorls" include Mongolian and Australian aborigines. Groups with "arches" include Khoisians and some central Europeans.

Black Americans generally have higher rates of hypertension (high blood pressure) than white Americans but Finns and Russians also have high rates of hypertension while black Africans generally have remarkably low rates of the disease.

Unlike the United States, which has clear difference between whites, blacks and Asians, people in most of the world, says Harvard biologists Orlando make social and class "distinctions based on gradation of color."

Racial Differences and What It Means

In regard to physical differences between groups of people, Cavalili-Sforza has said that once surface traits such as skin color, hair texture, and shape of the nose, eyes and body are discounted, human races are remarkable alike. The differences between individuals within a race are much greater than the difference between races and the diversity among individuals is "so enormous that the whole concept of race becomes meaningless at a genetic level." [Source: Time magazine, January 16, 1995]

In 1972, Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin studied 17 genetic markers in 168 different populations (such as Germans, Thais and Apaches) and concluded "there is more genetic difference within race than there is between that race and another" and "only 6.3 percent of genetic differences could be explained by the individual's belonging to different races."

In 1994, the Human Genome Diversity Project concluded that "genetic variation from one individual to another of the same 'race' swamps the average difference between racial groupings." Hampshire College's Alan Goodman told Newsweek that group people by geographical origin (ethnicity) "is more correct both in a statistical sense and in understanding the history of human variations."

Law enforcement authorities and doctors are some of the few people that can put the concept of race to some positive use. Forensic experts examining murder cases can usually determine whether or not the victim was black, white or Asians based on the measurements of certain bones. Some groups are more likely to get certain diseases than other groups (blacks and sickle cell anemia, for example) and thus doctors can direct preventive measures towards these groups.

Races Evolving Apart at an Accelerated Pace?

Mark Henderson wrote in Times of London: "Races have evolved away from each other over the past 10,000 years, according to new research that challenges standard ideas about the biological significance of ethnicity. A genetic analysis of human evolution has shown that rather than slowing to a standstill it has speeded up, with different pressures on different populations pushing racial groups further apart. Scientists behind the findings suggest that European, African and Asian populations grew genetically more distinct from each other over several thousand years, as their environments took them down different evolutionary paths. [Source: Mark Henderson, Times of London, December 2007]

"The work indicates that variations tend to differ between races, and that these became more, not less, pronounced. "Human races are evolving away from each other," said Henry Harpending, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Utah, who led the study. "Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity...The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence." [Ibid]

On the same study the The Dail Mail reported: "Humans are evolving at a faster rate than at any time in history, according to a study. Scientists say the speed of natural selection has accelerated so much that within a few generations we will have evolved resistance to diseases such as diabetes and malaria. Instead of people from different parts of the world becoming more alike over time, they have actually been diverging, the study suggests. The research showed that the population explosion since the Ice Age 10,000 years ago had accelerated the rate of genetic change.

The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. One paper on the subject was written by Andrea Migliano and her colleagues at Cambridge University. Another was by Robert Moyzis of the University of California, Irvine, and his colleagues. They found is that about 1,800 protein-coding genes, some 7 percent of the total known, show signs of having been subject to recent natural selection.

There was an implication that if the trend continued separate species could evolve. Scientists however are careful to point out that these changes took place in prehistoric and ancient times. Today, they say, with increased movement of people and increased gene flow that has occurred from intermarrying among ther races the trend has probably been slowed or even reversed.

Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons

Text Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, The Guardian, National Geographic, The New Yorker, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, AP, AFP, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, Global Viewpoint (Christian Science Monitor), Foreign Policy, Wikipedia, BBC, CNN, NBC News, Fox News and various books and other publications.

&copy 2008 Jeffrey Hays

Last updated March 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ASIAN PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS People classified as Asians are physically different in some ways than people of European descent. In almost all cases Asians have straight, black hair and dark eyes. They also tend to have less body hair, less facial hair, flatter faces, smaller noses, wider cheekbones, and "shovel-shaped" incisor teeth (slightly scooped out shape of back side of the front teeth).

# data[].attributes.body
Asian people are the most numerous people on the Earth. More than half of the world is Asian. They can be found on the continent of Asia. Asians are usually referred to as having yellow skin, but that is an irrational statement. Most Asians have white skin like most Caucasians do, but some have darker skin. Lots of Asians have a skin fold on the outer corner of the eyes. This group is divided into 2 main subgroups: Northeast Asian, & Southeast Asian. There is a denomination of Southeast Asian peoples called Filipinos that used to be considered Pacific Islanders.

# data[].attributes.body
A study of Caucasian facial features in Brazil

# data[].attributes.body
Caucasian people make up 16% of the world population. This race is very widely distributed, & can be found in most of Europe, but also in parts of India & the Middle East, & even the African Horn. They can have different colors of skin, but what characterizes them is the shape of their skull.

# data[].attributes.body
click link to find out

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The word " race," denoting lineage, comes from a French translation of haras (silent "h") into the Italian razza - which in Italian of that time applied to animals, not people. This points to current English and Italian usage being derived and adapted, respectively, from the French.

[ad name="Adsense160x600_orange"]

A human race is defined as a group of people with certain common inherited features that distinguish them from other groups of people. All men of whatever race are currently classified by the anthropologist or biologist as belonging to the one species, Homo sapiens.This is another way of saying that the differences between human races are not great, even though they may appear so, i.e. black vs white skin. All races of mankind in the world can interbreed because they have so much in common. All races share 99.99+% of the same genetic materials which means that division of race is largely subjective, and that the original 3-5 races were also probably just subjective descriptions as well.

The Major Divisions of the Human Race

Most anthropologists recognize 3 or 4 basic races of man in existence today. These races can be further subdivided into as many as 30 subgroups.

Ethnographic division into races from Meyers Konversationslexikon of 1885-90 is listing:

Caucasian races (Aryans, Hamites, Semites)

Mongolian races (northern Mongolian, Chinese and Indo-Chinese, Japanese and Korean, Tibetan, Malayan, Polynesian, Maori, Micronesian, Eskimo, American Indian),

Negroid races (African, Hottentots, Melanesians/Papua, "Negrito", Australian Aborigine, Dravidians, Sinhalese)

Caucasion:
Skull: Dolicephalic(Long-Head),High forehead,Little supraobital development.
Face: Mainly Leptoproscopic( Narrow)Sometimes Meso- or even Euryproscopic, Neither Facial nor alveolar prognathism occurs except among some archaic peoples.
Nose:Long,narrow,high in both root and bridge.

Mongoloid:
Skull: High incidence of Brachycephaly(Short Round Head)
American Indians while Mongoloid are often Dolicephalic.
Foreheads slightly lower than that of the Caucasoid.
No Supraobital development.
Face: Wide and short, projecting cheek bones, Prognathism rare. Shovel shaped incisors common especialy in Asia.
Nose: Mesorine(Low and Broad in both root and bridge.

Negroid:
Skull: usually Dolicephalic, a small minority are Brachycephalic.
Forehead most often high, little supraobital development.
Face: Leproscopic (to a much lesser degree than the Caucasion), Prognathism common in most Negro populations.
Nose: Low & broad in root and bridge with characteristic depression at root.

Another popular division recognizes 4 major races

The world population can be divided into 4 major races, namely white/Caucasian, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid/Black, and Australoid. This is based on a racial classification made by Carleton S. Coon in 1962. There is no universally accepted classification for "race", however, and its use has been under fire over the last few decades. The United Nations, in a 1950 statement, opted to "drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of "ethnic groups". In this case, there are more than 5,000 ethnic groups in the world, according to a 1998 study published in the Scientific American.

What is Race?

What is Race? When some people use the "race" they attach a biological meaning, still others use "race" as a socially constructed concept. It is clear that even though race does not have a biological meaning, it does have a social meaning which has been legally constructed.
Biological Construction
By . . ."biological race," I mean the view of race espoused by Judge Tucker, and still popular today, that there exist natural, physical divisions among humans that are hereditary, reflected in morphology, and roughly but correctly captured by terms like Black, White, and Asian (or Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid). Under this view, one's ancestors and epidermis ineluctably determine membership in a genetically defined racial group. The connection between human physiognomy and racial status is concrete; in Judge Tucker's words, every individual's race has been "stampt" by nature. . . .Despite the prevalent belief in biological races, overwhelming evidence proves that race is not biological. Biological races like Negroid and Caucasoid simply do not exist. A newly popular argument among several scholars, is that races are wholly illusory, whether as a biological or social concept. Under this thinking, if there is no natural link between faces and races, then no connection exists.

There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by non- Blacks; similarly, there is no gene or cluster of genes common to all Whites but not to non-Whites. One's race is not determined by a single gene or gene cluster, as is, for example, sickle cell anemia. Nor are races marked by important differences in gene frequencies, the rates of appearance of certain gene types. The data compiled by various scientists demonstrates, contrary to popular opinion, that intra-group differences exceed inter-group differences. That is, greater genetic variation exists within the populations typically labeled Black and White than between these populations. This finding refutes the supposition that racial divisions reflect fundamental genetic differences.

Notice this does not mean that individuals are genetically indistinguishable from each other, or even that small population groups cannot be genetically differentiated. Small populations, for example the Xhosa or the Basques, share similar gene frequencies. However, differentiation is a function of separation, usually geographic, and occurs in gradations rather than across fractures.. .. . . The notion that humankind can be divided along White, Black, and Yellow lines reveals the social rather than the scientific origin of race. The idea that there exist three races, and that these races are "Caucasoid," "Negroid," and "Mongoloid," is rooted in the European imagination of the Middle Ages, which encompassed only Europe, Africa, and the Near East.. . Nevertheless, the history of science has long been the history of failed efforts to justify these social beliefs. Along the way, various minds tried to fashion practical human typologies along the following physical axes: skin color, hair texture, facial angle, jaw size, cranial capacity, brain mass, frontal lobe mass, brain surface fissures and convolutions, and even body lice. As one scholar notes, "[t]he nineteenth century was a period of exhaustive and-as it turned out-futile search for criteria to define and describe race differences.". . . Attempts to define racial categories by physical attributes ultimately failed. By 1871, some leading intellectuals had recognized that even using the word "race" "was virtually a confession of ignorance or evil intent." The genetic studies of the last few decades have only added more nails to the coffin of biological race. Evidence shows that those features usually coded to race, for example, stature, skin color, hair texture, and facial structure, do not correlate strongly with genetic variation. . . The rejection of race in science is now almost complete. In the end, we should embrace historian Barbara Fields's succinct conclusion with respect to the plausibility of biological races: "Anyone who continues to believe in race as a physical attribute of individuals, despite the now commonplace disclaimers of biologists and geneticists, might as well also believe that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy are real, and that the earth stands still while the sun moves."

. . . Unfortunately, few in this society seem prepared to fully relinquish their subscription to notions of biological race.. . .[including the] Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress' anachronistic understanding of race is exemplified by a 1988 statute that explains that "the term 'racial group' means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of physical characteristics or biological descent." The Supreme Court, although purporting to sever race from biology, also seems incapable of doing so. In Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, the Court determined that an Arab could recover damages for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. . . Despite a seeming rejection of biological race, Justice White [stated]: "The Court of Appeals was thus quite right in holding that § 1981, 'at a minimum,' reaches discrimination against an individual 'because he or she is genetically part of an ethnically and physiognomically distinctive subgrouping of homo sapiens."'. . . By adopting the lower court's language of genetics and distinctive subgroupings, Justice White demonstrates the Court's continued reliance on blood as a metonym for race. . . .In Metrobroadcasting v. FCC, Justice Scalia again reveals the Court's understanding of race as a matter of blood. During oral argument, Scalia attacked the argument that granting minorities broadcasting licenses would enhance diversity by blasting "the policy as a matter of 'blood,' at one point charging that the policy reduced to a question of 'blood . . . blood, not background and environment."'
Social Construction
. . . I define a "race" as a vast group of people loosely bound together by historically contingent, socially significant elements of their morphology and/or ancestry. I argue that race must be understood as a sui generis social phenomenon in which contested systems of meaning serve as the connections between physical features, races, and personal characteristics. In other words, social meanings connect our faces to our souls. Race is neither an essence nor an illusion, but rather an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing process subject to the macro forces of social and political struggle and the micro effects of daily decisions. . . Referents of terms like Black, White, Asian, and Latino are social groups, not genetically distinct branches of humankind.

Filed Under: Tagged With: Life, All Races, anthropological races, anthropology, asian, Asian People, australoid, Australoid Race, basic races of man, Biological Race, biology, black, caucasian, Caucasian Race, ethnographic races, Historical Race Concepts, homo sapiens, Human Race, human races, Mongolian Race, mongoloid, negroid, Negroid Race, Racism, Social Interpretations Of Race, sociology, white Modern World, Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Lt Col Richard Frederick, "Dickie" Dull, USAF, Ret.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How many major races are there in the world? - World Mysteries Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The word "race," denoting lineage, comes from a French translation of haras (silent "h") into the Italian razza - which in Italian of that time applied to animals, not people. This points to current English and Italian usage being derived and adapted, respectively, from the French.

# data[].attributes.body
click here to see some stats on African Americans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Source Spotlights are often updated as new data become available. Please click here to find the most recent version of this Spotlight.

This spotlight examines the foreign born from Africa. It is the second in a series on the size and characteristics of the foreign-born population in the United States by region and country of birth (for the first article, click here).

While the African born make up a small proportion of the foreign-born population in the United States, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of immigrants born in Africa over the past couple of decades.

As a group, the African born are more likely to be proficient in English, work in higher-level occupations, and have higher earnings than the overall foreign-born population. However, closer examination of the African born immigrants from specific countries reveals a great deal of diversity in migration patterns, political conditions, economies, and group histories.

The series draws primarily from Census 2000 data, including social, economic, and housing profiles of the foreign born developed by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The African born accounted for about three percent of the total foreign-born population.

In 2000, of the 31.1 million foreign born in the United States, about 881,300, or 2.8 percent, were born in African countries.

Back to the top

The number of African born increased 142 percent between 1990 and 2000.

In 2000, there were about 880,000 African born residing in the United States, an increase of 142 percent since 1990, when there were only 363,819 African born.

Figure 1. Number of African Born in the United States: 1980-2000

Note: Africa n.e.c (not elsewhere classified).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Gibson, Campbell and Emily Lennon, U.S. Census Bureau, Working Paper No. 29, "Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1850 to 1990."

Back to the top

Eastern Africa includes British Indian Ocean Territory, Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Europa Island, Glorioso Islands, Juan de Nova Island, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mayotte, Mozambique, Reunion Rwanda, Mauritius, Seychelles, Somalia, Tanzania, Tromelin Island, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Middle Africa includes Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sao Tome & Principe, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire).

Northern Africa includes Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, and Western Sahara.

Southern Africa includes Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland.

Western Africa includes Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, St Helena, and Togo.

Note: Regions are defined by the United States Census Bureau.

Immigrants born in Western African countries accounted for most of the increase in the numbers of African born between 1990 and 2000.

Figure 1 (above) indicates that the bulk of the increase after 1990 is a result of growing numbers of foreign born from Western African countries (see sidebar for definitions), which increased 214,941 (192.7 percent), between 1990 and 2000.

The Eastern and Northern African populations also showed a sizable increase during the past decade, growing by 140,999 (195.0 percent) and 91,447 (92.3 percent) respectively. The number of foreign born from Middle Africa grew by 18,100 (205.7 percent) and Southern Africa's grew by 31,785 (91.6 percent).

Back to the top

Western Africans made up the largest proportion of the African born, followed by those from Eastern, Northern, Southern, and Middle Africa.

Back to the top

More than half of the African born living in the U.S. arrived between 1990 and 2000.

Of the total African born in the United States, 56.6 percent arrived between 1990 and 2000, 25.7 percent arrived between 1980 and 1989, and 17.2 percent arrived before 1980.

Back to the top

Nigeria, Egypt, and Ethiopia accounted for the largest number of arrivals between 1990 and 2000.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Characteristics of the African Born in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Source Spotlights are often updated as new data become available. Please click here to find the most recent version of this Spotlight. This spotlight examines the foreign born from Africa. It is the second in a series on the size and characteristics of the foreign-born population in the United States by region and country of birth (for the first article, click here ).

# data[].attributes.body
African humans can be found in large numbers in the continent of Africa. They make up about 15% of the world's population. They usually have very dark colored skin, & there are over 15,000 different languages spoken by the African people.

# data[].attributes.body
If pictures look too little resolution, then press/click on it & press 'show original file'

# data[].attributes.body
The eight main racial groupings of humans are:
African
Caucasian
Northeast Asian
Arctic
American
Southeast Asian
Pacific Islanders
Oceanian
These are also put into subcategories