“As early as the 1820 U.S. Census, the “Free Coloreds” category was used to identify a tri-racial population in Appalachia known as Melungeons. It is generally thought that Melungeons are of white, black, and Native American ancestry (Montell, 1972; Lipsey, 1977). Genealogists who traced the family trees of Melungeons found that their racial classification varied from census to census. In other words, a family may have been listed as “white” in 1790, “Free Colored” in 1820, and “Mulatto” in 1850 (Rowe, 2009).”

“In 1970, racial classification on the Census changed from enumerator identification to self-identification. This change had a relatively minor impact on the count of racial and ethnic groups in 1970 compared to 1960. However, it created a situation that led to significant changes in counts during subsequent years. This methodological shift proved to be especially influential for American Indians. During the period between 1960 and the end of the 20th century, the size of the American Indian population as measured by the Census increased much more than could be accounted for by migration or births (Eschbach, 1993; Nagel, 1996). This increase was because persons whom enumerators had previously identified as being of another race began self-identifying as American Indian and, after 1970, there was increased self-identification as American Indian by those who earlier self-identified or were identified by their parents as being in some other group (Nagel, 1996).”

I hope that it is understandable why I might – as a multi-racial individual – find this topic close to my heart, but in reading your comments, the data analyst in me finds agreement in what you state (although I didn’t initially agree with how it was stated, and it still does rankle me, but for reasons that go beyond the point of methodology of and theory about data analysis).

And, actually, that is my job: I digest data so that other people can draw conclusions on causes and effects, or find interesting discrepancies for further research. 

Why not have a census form in which people self report ethnicities other than Hispanic, because the points you make about identity are valid. The points you make seem to argue more for allowing for greater amounts of race and ethnicity selection, not for maintaining the current set.

Perhaps I was unclear before.  If you, or anyone, truly feels that no single racial category fits you, it makes perfect sense for you to be in the “other” category.

Why are you “othering” me by default? I ask the question half in jest, but I’d like to point out your choice of language here that implies that I am not really “one of the population”. (Yes, I know that “OTHER” is a choice on the form, but it is problematic in many ways to use that categorization.) I am not “other” any more than African Americans are “other”; than Native Americans are “other”; than Asian Americans are “other”; than any “other” group is “other.”

Yes, yes, yes, I understand the point about statistical significance. Yes, I understand the difference between population assessments (in which a very small group is insignificant) versus individual assessments. (in which a very small group might well be the point of study and, therefore, significant). Yes, I understand that multi-racial self-description is a relatively new thing, and I understand that one might not really understand how to assess these major changes in data quality. Yes, I understand that “multi-racial” might not be something that people associate with (perhaps, not yet associate themselves with) at the national level.

However, disregarding the regional associations and reporting of multi-racial (especially along the Pacific coast) would mean that disregarding this group will create a problematic spatial assessment. Yes, it’s problematic when trying to determine what a person means when one says “multi-racial” (since our conversation about race and identity is – imo – somewhat stunted in the US), but is that assessment your job? (I don’t know if it is; surely, coming up with explanations from the data will need to have some insight, but what I’m asking is if it is your job to – prior to doing the assessment – your job to determine what people mean when they mark “multi-racial” any more than try to determine what people mean when thy mark “African American” or some other group?)

This re-iteration of many of the points and arguments that I inevitably have with people when it comes to multi-racial identity is one of the major reasons why I hate racial classifications: they are arbitrary, capricious, and don’t adequately serve the goals of demographers and populations that are part of the current “other”. Maybe demographers will have to add several more categories that will likely get populated as more people have inter-racial marriages, as more people become willing to accept a multi-racial identity, and as the regional acceptances of multi-racial identity expand to other parts of the nation.

Finally, “multi-racial” might not be a significant national population in terms of absolute number, but what is the attribute data for these different multi-racial groups? Does a comparison between multi-racial groups show interesting points of regional, social, economic, etc. contrast? (I.e., these questions aren’t ones that require an assessment of the national population. Are you going to still say that multi-racial groups aren’t significant when these sorts of questions render invalid your – completely valid – statement of non-significance of multi-racial individuals in the population?)

Races are socially constructed categories.  There will always be ways to break them down further, or break them up in different ways.  Identities are as numerous as the number of people in this world.

When you fill out the form, it is always a matter of lumping some people together who wouldn’t want to be in the same category.  If the American Census was conducted in Israel, Jewish Israelis, Arab Israelis, and Palestinians would all be lumped together as “white”.  The only possible ethnicities are Hispanic or “Not Hispanic”.