{"id":42218,"date":"2010-01-21T09:00:38","date_gmt":"2010-01-21T14:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/2010\/01\/21\/race-and-the-census-the-negro-controversy\/"},"modified":"2024-04-14T04:20:05","modified_gmt":"2024-04-14T09:20:05","slug":"race-and-the-census-the-negro-controversy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/social-trends\/2010\/01\/21\/race-and-the-census-the-negro-controversy\/","title":{"rendered":"Race and the Census: The “Negro” Controversy"},"content":{"rendered":"

The topic of racial identification on census forms has a long, fascinating history<\/a>, which has generated fresh debate as the 2010 Census begins. Why, some ask, does the form include the word \u201cNegro,\u201d along with \u201cblack\u201d and \u201cAfrican American,\u201d among the options that Americans can choose for their self-identification? Isn\u2019t that term out of date?<\/p>\n\n

As you can see from the review that follows here, racial terms have come in and out of favor from one decade to the next. There was a similar debate about \u201cNegro\u201d in the 2000 Census, as there have been about other race terms in previous census years.<\/p>\n\n

Before 1960, census-takers filled out the enumeration forms and chose the category for each American they counted. They used a detailed set of instructions from the government, key points of which are listed below. The 1960 Census was a transitional year in which census-takers chose the race for some Americans, and others self-identified from a list of categories.\u00a0 From 1970 to 1990, most Americans filled out their own forms and checked off a race category for themselves. Starting in 2000, they could choose more than one.<\/p>\n\n

When the census began in 1790, the racial categories for the household population were \u201cfree white\u201d persons, other \u201cfree persons\u201d by color, and \u201cslaves.\u201d Census-takers did not use standard forms in the early censuses.<\/p>\n\n

For 1850-1880, the codes for enumerators were generally white (W), black (B) and mulatto (M). Beginning in 1850, the data item was labeled \u201ccolor.\u201d In 1870, Chinese (C) and Indian (I) were added. In 1880, the data item was not labeled; it was \u201cwhether this person is\u2026\u201d In 1890, “Japanese,” “quadroon\u201d and \u201coctoroon\u201d were added. <\/p>\n\n

In 1900, there were no specified categories on the census listing form, but the instructions called for enumerators to list \u201cW\u201d for white, \u201cB\u201d for \u201cblack (or negro or negro descent)\u201d, \u201cCh\u201d for Chinese, \u201cJp\u201d for Japanese, or \u201cIn\u201d for Indian \u201cas the case may be.\u201d There was no mention of \u201cquadroon\u201d or \u201coctoroon.\u201d\u00a0This appears to be the first appearance of \u201cnegro\u201d (lower case) in the instructions but it was not listed on the form itself.<\/p>\n\n

In 1910, the data item was called \u201ccolor or race\u201d for the first time.\u00a0 The instructions allowed for \u201cMu\u201d for mulatto and \u201cOt\u201d for other with an instruction to write in the race; \u201cB\u201d was called \u201cblack\u201d only. The definition for \u201cB\u201d and \u201cMu\u201d is: \u201cFor census purposes, the term \u2018\u2018black\u2019\u2019 (B) includes all persons who are evidently full blooded negroes, while the term \u2018\u2018mulatto\u2019\u2019 (Mu) includes all other persons having some proportion or perceptible trace of negro blood.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

In 1920, there were no changes. In 1930, there were specific instructions that used the term \u201cNegro.\u201d Persons who were mixed \u201cWhite and Negro blood\u201d were to be counted as \u201cNegro\u201d (apparently capitalized) no matter how small the share of \u201cNegro blood.\u201d\u00a0(This so-called \u201cone-drop rule\u201d or variations of it appeared in census instructions beginning in 1870.) Persons who were mixed white-Indian were to be counted as Indian \u201cexcept where the percentage of Indian blood was very small or where he or she was regarded as White in the community.\u201d\u00a0Any person who was \u201cwhite\u201d and \u201ccolored\u201d was to be counted according to the \u201ccolored\u201d race, and mixed colored races were to be counted according to the race of the father.\u00a0There was an attempt in this census only to obtain figures for \u201cMex\u201d (Mexicans), who were defined as \u201call persons born in Mexico, or having parents born in Mexico, who were not definitely White, Negro, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

In 1940, the only change was the elimination of the \u201cMex\u201d category, and Mexicans \u201cwere to be listed as White unless they were definitely Indian or some race other than White.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

In 1950, the census form listed the following categories:\u00a0 \u201cWhite (W), Negro (Neg), American Indian (Ind), Japanese (Jap), Chinese (Chi), Filipino (Fil),\u201d and other races to be spelled out.\u00a0Note that the form did not contain the term \u201cBlack.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

Beginning in 1960, the Census Bureau began to use forms similar to the ones in use today, with a single form for an entire household rather than having multiple households included on the form completed by an enumerator.\u00a0Census forms were mailed to most people, but census-takers picked them up. The data item is called \u201cColor or race\u201d with categories for \u201cWhite, Negro, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Part Hawaiian, Aleut, Eskimo, (etc.)\u201d\u00a0 Note that \u201cblack\u201d did not appear on the form. The instructions called for census-takers to complete the race item by observation, and directed that Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, or other persons of Latin descent \u00a0would be classified as \u2018\u2018White\u2019\u2019 unless they were definitely \u201cNegro,\u201d \u201cIndian,\u201d or some other race. Southern European and Near Eastern nationalities also were to be considered \u201cWhite.\u201d Asian Indians were to be classified as \u2018\u2018Other,\u2019\u2019 and \u2018\u2018Hindu\u2019\u2019 was to be written in.<\/p>\n\n

Self-identification was fully in place for 1970 and later censuses.\u00a0The 1970 data item was still called \u201ccolor or race\u201d with the following response categories:\u00a0\u201cWhite, Negro or Black, Indian (Amer.), Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, Other (with write-in).\u201d\u00a0This was the first appearance of \u201cblack\u201d since 1920.<\/p>\n\n

In 1980, the \u201crace\u201d item was not labeled; it read \u201cIs this person\u2026\u201d\u00a0The list of categories was expanded to include: \u201cVietnamese, Asian Indian, Guamanian, Samoan, Eskimo, Aleut.\u201d\u00a0 In addition, the order of terms was changed to \u201cBlack or Negro.\u201d<\/p>\n\n

In 1990, the data item was relabeled; it was called \u201cRace\u201d for the first time, not \u201cColor or Race.\u201d The categories remained the same as in 1980, but the \u201cAsian or Pacific islander\u201d categories were grouped together with a heading and an \u201cOther API\u201d category with a write-in was added.<\/p>\n\n

In 2000, respondents were allowed to pick more than one race for the first time.\u00a0 The \u201crace\u201d data item retained essentially the same categories as in 1990 with a few\u00a0adjustments.\u00a0\u201cBlack or Negro\u201d became \u201cBlack, African Am., or Negro\u201d marking the first appearance of \u201cAfrican-American\u201d on the Census form.\u00a0 The three Native American categories were grouped together as \u201cAmerican Indian or Alaska Native\u201d with a write-in of tribe.\u00a0 \u201cGuamanian\u201d became \u201cGuamanian or Chamorro\u201d and \u201cHawaiian\u201d became \u201cNative Hawaiian\u201d.\u00a0 The \u201cOther API\u201d group was split into \u201cOther Asian\u201d and \u201cOther Pacific Islander\u201d with a separate write-in.\u00a0 Finally, \u201cOther\u201d became \u201cSome other race\u201d with its own write-in line.<\/p>\n\n

For 2010, the categories are the same as in 2000 but examples are given separately for \u201cOther Asian\u201d and \u201cOther Pacific Islander.\u201d \u00a0The form also has an instruction (in bold<\/strong>) appearing before the Hispanic-origin data item that says \u201cNOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and Question 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic origins are not races.\u201d<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The topic of racial identification on census forms has a long, fascinating history, which has generated fresh debate as the 2010 Census begins.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sub_headline":"","sub_title":"","_crdt_document":"","_prc_public_revisions":[],"_ppp_expiration_hours":0,"_ppp_enabled":false,"ai_generated_summary":"","relatedPosts":[],"reportMaterials":[],"multiSectionReport":[],"package_parts__enabled":false,"package_parts":[],"_prc_fork_parent":0,"_prc_fork_status":"","_prc_active_fork":0,"datacite_doi":"","datacite_doi_citation":"","_prc_seo_qr_attachment_id":0,"spoken_article_player_enabled":true,"displayBylines":true,"footnotes":"","prc_watchers":[]},"categories":[149,101,28,144],"tags":[],"bylines":[950],"collection":[],"datasets":[],"level_of_effort":[],"primary_audience":[],"information_type":[],"_post_visibility":[],"formats":[458],"_fund_pool":[],"languages":[],"regions-countries":[515],"research-teams":[519],"workflow-status":[],"class_list":["post-42218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-black-americans","category-discrimination-prejudice","category-race-ethnicity","category-racial-ethnic-identity","bylines-dvera-cohn","formats-report","regions-countries-united-states","research-teams-social-trends"],"label":false,"post_parent":0,"word_count":1087,"canonical_url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/social-trends\/2010\/01\/21\/race-and-the-census-the-negro-controversy\/","art_direction":false,"_embeds":[],"watchers":[],"table_of_contents":[],"report_materials":"","report_pagination":{"current_post":null,"next_post":null,"previous_post":null,"pagination_items":[]},"parent_info":{"parent_title":"Race and the Census: The “Negro” Controversy","parent_id":42218},"materialsOrdered":[],"chaptersOrdered":[],"partsOrdered":[],"partsEnabled":false,"datacite_doi":"","prc_seo_data":{"title":"Race and the Census: The “Negro” Controversy","description":"The topic of racial identification on census forms has a long, fascinating history, which has generated fresh debate as the 2010 Census begins.","og_title":"Race and the Census: The “Negro” Controversy","og_description":"The topic of racial identification on census forms has a long, fascinating history, which has generated fresh debate as the 2010 Census begins.","schema_type":"Article","noindex":false,"canonical_url":"","primary_terms":[],"custom_schema":[],"og_image":0,"indexnow_submitted_at":null,"gsc_index_status":null},"prepublish_checks":{"prc-image-alt-text":{"status":"complete","message":"No image blocks in content.","data":null},"prc-about-this-research":{"status":"incomplete","message":"Add an \"About this research\" details block.","data":null},"prc-paragraph-count":{"status":"complete","message":"Found 16 paragraphs.","data":{"count":16}},"prc-internal-link":{"status":"incomplete","message":"Add at least one internal link.","data":{"count":0}}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"relatedPostsOrdered":[],"bylinesOrdered":[{"key":"9861e1ab916d6612253ffe73709a76d8","termId":950}],"acknowledgementsOrdered":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42218"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42218\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":138562,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42218\/revisions\/138562"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"bylines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/bylines?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"collection","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"datasets","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/datasets?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"level_of_effort","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/level_of_effort?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"primary_audience","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/primary_audience?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"information_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/information_type?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"_post_visibility","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_post_visibility?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"formats","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/formats?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"_fund_pool","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_fund_pool?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"languages","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/languages?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"regions-countries","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/regions-countries?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"research-teams","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/research-teams?post=42218"},{"taxonomy":"workflow-status","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/workflow-status?post=42218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}