Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Demographics_ Diversity_ _ Divisions - The Measurement Standard


									ARTICLEID: 64067
Headline: 3rd Journal Quilt: "Opposites"
Body: This third Journal Quilt was a rather quick project. It started with a simple statement - "I wonder how stitching
through acrylic paint pieces would work?" Jens heard this simple sentence - next thing I know, I had a leftover piece
of acrylic paint (it had dried and hardened on the palette) in my hand. It was yellow ... and the new theme for our
challenge was "Opposites" ... in my opinion, that called for purple. Out came the box with my purple scraps, and I
pieced a roughly 6" square in dark-purple scraps. I layered it with a backing and some batting. Next thing I took the
acrylic paint piece ... and after all the straight seams in the background, I cut it up with some curved lines. With a little
help of Mistyfuse, I glued my two pieces down to my background. Than I quilted - with yellow thread, of course ... - a
freehand-grid over it. Last step was finishing the piece; done with a zig-zag in yellow. Conclusion: stitching through
acrylic paint pieces works ... but: it breaks very easily. When I use it again, I'll use some very thin netting on top of it
to keep stray pieces in place. I'm already glad about this Journal Quilt idea, it gives me motivation to really try new
techniques hands-on and stops me from only thinking about doing it. What will I try next ??? For the 4th Journal Quilt,
the theme will still be "Opposites" ... Der dritte Journal Quilt war ein recht schnelles Projekt. Und es begann mit einem
simplen Satz - "Wie es sich wohl durch Acrylfarben-Platten nähen läßt?" Diesen simplen Satz hörte Jens - und
zack, hatte ich so ein Ãœberbleibsel in der Hand (der Farbrest war auf der Palette getrocknet). Die Farbe: gelb ... und
das neue Thema unseres Challenge heißt ja "Gegensätze"; meiner Meinung nach ruft das dann nach Lila. Also
her mit den lilafarbenen Scraps - ein ca. 6" großer Untergrund entstand aus dunkel gehaltenen lila Stücken. Dazu
kamen dann Rückseite und Vlies. Und nun - was tun mit diesem gelben Pflatsch? hmmm ... nach den ganzen
geraden Nähten im Hintergrund habe ich das Acryl in rundliche Formen geschnitten. Mit ein bißchen Hilfe von
Mistyfuse wurden die beiden Teile dann auf dem Hintergrund fixiert. Gequiltet habe ich - natürlich mit gelbem Garn
- ein freihändiges Grid über alles. Und zu guter Letzt habe ich das Ganze mit einem gelben Zick-Zack gebunden.
Schlußfolgerung: man kann durch solche Acryl-Platten durchnähen - aber das bricht dann ziemlich schnell. Wenn
ich's nochmal mache, werde ich sehr feinen Tüll darüber legen, um eventuell losbrechende Teile zu fixieren. Und
ich bin jetzt schon superfroh über meine Journal Quilts, sie geben mir die nötige Motivation, neue Techniken
tatsächlich "in echt" auszuprobieren und nicht nur drüber nachzudenken. Was werd' ich wohl als Nächstes
ausprobieren ... für den 4. Journal Quilt wird das Thema nochmal "Gegensätze" heißen ...
Headline: All our nine-patch quilts at a glance
Body: Last week we all had our nine-patch-blocks with us. And thanks to the spacious living room at Tina's, we could
lay them all out at the same time. Another thanks to Jerry, who took this picture of all of us with our blocks! Please
note that Inge's small (very small ...) red quilt is bigger in reality - here you only see about a fourth of all her blocks.
Remember - all designs are nine-patches. All six of them. The variety is amazing - we hope to finish them for a
exhibition in March 2012. It will be so wonderful to see them all next to each other! Letzte Woche hatten wir alle
unsere Nine-Patches dabei. Dank Tinas großzügigem Wohnzimmer konnten wir sie alle gleichzeitig auslegen.
Und dank Jerry gibt's auch ein Foto von uns allen mit unseren Blöcken! Übrigens, der kleine (sehr kleine ...) rote
Quilt von Inge wird deutlich größer werden - sie hatte nur ca. 1/4 ihrer Blöckchen ausgelegt. Und gell, ihr erinnert
euch - es sind alles Nine-Patches. Alle sechs. Die Vielfalt ist umwerfend. Wir planen, unsere Nine-Patch-Variationen
für eine Ausstellung im März 2012 fertig zu machen. Es wird sicher ziemlich beeindruckend sein, sie alle
nebeneinander hängen zu sehen!
Headline: Multiculturalism In the United States:
Body: Multiculturalism In the United States:

Demographics, Diversity, & Divisions

Introduction One of the most unique aspects of the United States is the diversity of its people. The Statue of Liberty
states, “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,― and America has
indeed become an amalgam of people of different races, religions, and creeds. In order to better respond the needs
of its assorted citizens, the American government has sought to learn about the characteristics of its people. To this
end, the Census has been administered every ten years by the government since 1790.[1] The Census provides the
government with information ranging from household size to income; however, it is perhaps the statistics supplied by
the Census on race that allow for the most interesting deductions. Although the Census has been in place for almost
two hundred and fourteen years, it is only recently that it has been revised to allow for precise racial identification. Â
The Census Bureau notes, “the questions on race and Hispanic origin,― have been modified and expanded
“to better reflect the country’s growing diversity.―[2] For example, it was not until 1980 that Asian
Americans were able to specify their origin as Asian Indian as opposed to Asian in general. In addition, despite its
growing proportion of the population, the option to indicate Hispanic origin was not added until 1970.[3] While these
modifications are significant, the most notable recent change to the Census was the option to mark off more than one
racial group in 2000 and thus identify as multicultural or multiracial. As will be shown in this paper, analysis of the
Unites States racial composition and relevant studies indicate that America has not become the “melting pot―
of cultures and races that was once predicted. Through residential racial segregation, the continual influx of
immigrants, and the emergence of a multiracial population, America has remained a “mosaic” of cultures –
separate entities combining to create a great diversity. While indeed, some races have mixed through interracial
marriages, cultural differences have be sustained and diversity in this country has actually increased. Shifting Racial
Composition America is still a predominately white society despite the growing proportion of minorities in its total
population. The percentages the each race comprised in 2000 were reported as follows: 75.1% White, 12.3%
Black, 4.2% Asian, 5.5% Some Other Race, and 2.4% Two or More Races. In addition, 12.5% of the population
identified their origin as Hispanic. [4][5] While this basic breakdown of the races in the United States is informative,
further breakdown within each racial category is even more telling. The White population is the majority in the United
States, however its dominance seems to be diminishing. According to the Census 2000 Brief, “the term
‘White’ refers to people having origins in any of the original people of Europe, the Middle East, or North
Africa. It includes people who…wrote in entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab or
Polish.―[6] 5.5 million of the people included in the White population were actually mixed race.  Within the
population that reported White and at least one other race, 40% were White and Some Other Race, 20% were White
and American Indian and Alaska Native, 16% were White and Asian, and 14% were White and Black. It is
interesting to note that while the total population increased 13.2% from 1990 to 2000, the White population only
increased 5.9-8.6%, far below that of the total. The geographic distribution of the White population demonstrates that
it is not very clustered or racially segregated. The White population is concentrated mainly the Northeast and
Midwest counties: 34% of Whites live in the South, 25% in the Midwest, 21% in the West, and 20% in the
Northeast. However, the Northeast is comprised of 79% Whites, the Midwest is 85% White, the South is 74%
White, and the West is 72% White. From this information, it can be inferred that the white population is somewhat
concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest. [7] The Black population is the largest minority in the Unites States and it
is steadily increasing as a proportion of the population.  The Census defines “‘Black or African
American’ as people having origins in any of the Black race groups of Africa. It includes people who reported
‘Black, African American, or Negro’ or wrote in entries such as African American, Afro American, Nigerian, or
Haitian.― Of the total Black population reported, Black and at least other race comprised 1.8 million. This
segment of the population can be broken down further into 45% Black and White, 24% Black and Some Other Race,
10% Black and American Indian and Alaska Native, and 6% Black and White and American Indian and Alaska
Native. From the years 1990 to 2000 the Black population increased 15.6-21.5% compared to a 13.2% total
population increase. Thus, the Black population is growing as a proportion of the American population. [8] The
Black population is highly concentrated, which is illustrated through its population percentages. The South contains
54% of the total Black population, the Midwest contains 19%, the Northeast holds 18%, and the West holds 10%.Â
Inside these regions, the statistics regarding dispersal are even more striking. In the South the population is 20%
Black, in the Northeast the Black population drops to 12%, in the Midwest it is 11%, and finally in the West it is a
meager 6%. About 86.5 percent of Blacks lived in metropolitan areas in 2000.[9] As indicated from these data, the
Black population is extremely concentrated in the South.[10] Hispanics are the third largest minority in the United
States and are growing at a rapid pace, likely to overtake Blacks as the second largest population shortly.  The
Census notes, “People of Hispanic origin, in particular, were those who indicated that their origin was Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or some other Hispanic origin. For example, people who indicate
that they are of Mexican origin may be either born in Mexico or of Mexican heritage. People of Hispanic origin may
be of any race.”[11][12] In the 2000 Census, Hispanics “could identify as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or
other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.―  If they chose “other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino― they could write in their
specific origin (e.g. Salvadoran or Dominican).[13] Of the 12.5% of the total population that Hispanic comprised 7.3%
was Mexican, 1.2% was Puerto Rican, 0.4% was Cuban, other 3.6%.[14] While the total population in the United
States increased by only 13.2% from the years 1990 to 2000, the Hispanic population increased by a whopping
57.9%. This growth can be attributed to a 52.9% growth of the Mexican population, 24.9% of the Puerto Rican
population, 18.9% of the Cubans, and a 96.9% growth of Hispanics of other origins.[15] Hispanic origin groups are
highly concentrated; they are concentrated regionally by their specific origin. 43.5% of the total Hispanic population
lives in the West, 32.8% in the South, 14.9% is in the Northeast, and 8.9% can be found in the Midwest. The racial
makeup of the West is 24.3% Hispanic, 11.6% Hispanic in the South, 9.8% Hispanic in the Northeast, and 4.9%
Hispanic in the Midwest. 55.3% of Mexicans are found in the West, 609% of Puerto Ricans in the Northeast, and
74.2% of Cubans live in the South.  It should be noted that this population is exceedingly regionally
concentrated.[16] The Asian population comprises a much smaller proportion of the population than the other groups;
however this racial category is experiencing notable growth. “‘Asian’ refers to people having origins in
any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (for examples, Cambodia,
China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam).―[17] Asians are
able to identify as Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, or other Asian. Within the Asian
population, 2.7 million were Chinese, 2.4 million were Filipino, and 1.9 million were Asian Indians. 1.7 million
people reported Asian and at least one other race; they were counted in the total Asian population. These mixed
race people are 52% Asian and White, 15% Asian and Other, 8.4% Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander, and 6.4% Asian and Black. Asians increased in number by 48-72% from 1990 to 2000, considerably
larger than the total population growth of 13.2%.[18] Asians are regionally concentrated the West; despite their
smaller numbers, they comprise a fairly sizable population there. 49% of the Asian population lives in the West,
20% in the Northeast, 19% in the South, and 12% in the Midwest. Within each district, the West is 9.3% Asian, the
Northeast is 4.4%, the South is 2.3%, and the Midwest is merely 2.2%. 95.1% of Asians lived in metropolitan areas
when the 2000 Census was taken.[19] The Asian population reached up to 62% in Hawaii, demonstrating extreme
racial concentrations.[20] The last racial group in the 2000 Census is the two or more races population, which was
new to the Census in 2000 and constituted only 2.4% of the total population. It must be remembered that the
reported racial percentages are based on self-identification; thus, if someone is multiracial but only associates him or
herself with one race, they will be duly recorded. In addition, “a respondent who indicated ‘White and
Black’ was counted in the White alone or in combination category as well as in the Black alone or in combination
category.―[21] The two or more races category includes all people who chose more than one of the six races listed
on the Census. About four-fifths of the mixed race respondents included White, about half marked some other race,
and Black, American Indian and Alaska Native and Asian were each indicated by about one-fourth of mixed raced
people.[22] ` Geographically, the mixed race population was found to be stationed predominately in the West. 40%
of the two or more race population was in the West, 27% in the South, 18% in the Northeast, and 15% in the
Midwest. The West reported its population as being 4.3% mixed race, the Northeast reported on 2.3%, the South
1.8%, and the Midwest 1.6%. Hawaii was home to all four counties with the highest population of two or more races
people.[23] In conclusion, over the last ten years the proportion of Whites has fallen, while Blacks, Asians &
Hispanics have increased (Black 15.6-21.5%, Hispanics 57.9%, Asians 48-72%) Whites tend to be concentrated in
the Northeast & Midwest, while Blacks are highly concentrated in the South, and Asians in the West. Hispanics fall
along further racial divides with Mexicans concentrated in West, Puerto Ricans in Northeast, and Cubans in South.Â
The new multiracial population is concentrated in the West. Racial Segregation: Overview According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, “segregation can result from, among other factors, voluntary choices people make about where
they want to live or from the involuntary restriction of choices, such as through discrimination in the housing
market.―[24] Segregation is measured on the degree to which racial groups are spread across an area, share
common neighborhoods, are concentrated in dense areas, are centralized, and live near others of same race.Â
Although it would seem logical to assume that as the diversity in the United States increases (e.g. the proportion of
minorities grows) racial segregation would diminish, this has not been the case. There are factors that have both
supported a rise in segregation and others that have led to its waning. The net result has been a negligible net
difference. Over the past twenty years, there have been shifts in the level of segregation of different racial groups.Â
Blacks have undergone a small but steady “overall reduction in racial segregation,― however; they still
maintain the highest rate of segregation of any group. The highest levels of segregation for Blacks are found in
Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Newark. Hispanics has seen a slight increase in their level of racial
segregation and have the second highest level of segregation of all racial groups. The areas with highest Hispanic
segregation levels are Providence, New York, Newark, Hartford, and Los Angeles. Lastly, Asians also experienced
a small increased in racial segregation. They have the third highest level of segregation of all groups. The areas
in which they are most concentrated are New York, San Francisco, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Diego.[25] Racial
Segregation: Reasons for Growth Racial segregation has endured in American society for many different reasons;
some can be changed, others are inevitable. Segregation has been supported first and foremost by both perceived
discrimination and loan discrimination. Secondly, racial segregation has continued because of social barriers of
immigration and the cyclical nature of segregation. “Voluntary― segregation is to a large extent driven by the
perceptions and assumptions of minorities. According to a study at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
“perceived discrimination…motivate[s] households to pursue a course intended to avoid confrontations and
barriers that they believe exist.― The study goes on to state that Blacks will “seek neighborhoods where they
expect to encounter the least resistance, whether or not the ethnic composition of the neighborhood is in accord with
their preferences. The presence of other blacks in an area provides a good indication of whether they will encounter
certain types of barriers to entry.―[26] This study implies that all minorities, not merely Blacks, will choose to
racially segregate themselves in order to avoid segregation that they believe they will endure in integrated areas.
Involuntarily, segregation is enforced by loan discrimination, which thwarts racial groups own attempts to integrate.Â
As stated in a recent article from the Boston Herald, “mortgage lending…is, in general, operating to
reproduce…segregated residential patterns.―[27] While Asians are denied least for loans (11.8%), other
minorities encounter a large deviation of the normal denial rate when applying for loans. Whites are denied
approximately 25.5%; however, Blacks are denied a staggering 49%, and Hispanics are not much better off with a
denial rate of 35%.[28] This statistics clearly demonstrate that discrimination in loan practices exists, both inhibiting
minorities’ ability to move and propagating racial segregation. The socioeconomic condition of minorities also
serves to maintain the racial segregation level in the United States. The Census shows that although 36.6% of
Whites workers are employed in management, professional, and related occupations, only 25.2% of Blacks are, and
this percentage shrinks to 18.1% for Hispanics (Asians are an exception with 44.6%).[29] These occupational trends
of each racial group result in similarly distributed poverty levels. Non-Hispanic Whites have a poverty rate of 8.1%,
Asians have 12.6%, Blacks, 24.9%, and Hispanics, 22.6%.[30] Thus, there are extremely limited means to improve
one’s economic prospects within their racially segregated communities. Without access to capital, poverty-
stricken minorities are unable to help one another gain financial clout, a condition necessary for moving into racially
integrated communities. The process of integration is additionally hindered by cultural differences that divide minority
groups. In a report from University of California, researchers found that acculturation is correlated to racial
integration into American society. Acculturation is defined as the changing “of cultural patterns to those of the
host society.―[31] Acculturation is measured in this study as the proportion of the population who do not speak
English well or at all and the proportion of population that are foreign born and recently immigrated. These two
parameters are key to gauging the level of exposure and adaptation that immigrants have undergone. The report
indicates that as the level of acculturation increases, the level of integration likewise increases.[32] Hence, the
cultural disparity between recent immigrants and long-term American citizens discourages racial integration. One
force, which continues to prevent acculturation, is the self-perpetuating nature of residential segregation. A study
from Brown University reports that “physical isolation [or segregation] leads to cultural and linguistic isolation: the
urban underclass comes to resent signs and messages of the dominant culture that they see as hypocritical.―[33]
Another theory from the University of California paper suggests that even if minorities do not come to resent
American culture, acculturation may be difficult because “residential segregation can inhibit the acculturation
process by restricting opportunities of contact with American culture.―[34] Moreover, William Wilson argued that in
the case of poor Blacks, “geographic concentration …severely limits opportunities for economic mobility.―[35]
Thus, barriers seem to exist that prevent the acculturation or acclimatization of immigrants, thereby impeding racial
integration. The other force which continues to prevent acculturation and sustain segregation is the ongoing
immigration of minorities into the United States. The 2000 Census reveals that between 1990 and 2000, the
foreign-born population increased by 57%, while the native population increased only 9.3%. Within the total
population of foreign-born immigrants, 52% were from Latin America, 26% were from Asia, 16% were from Europe,
and 6% were from other countries.[36] Having the greatest number of recent immigrants, one would predict that
Asians and Hispanics would be “the least acculturated and have the highest segregation indexes.―[37] The
Census indeed confirms this relationship between immigration, acculturation, and segregation. Data indicate that
the proportions of people speaking foreign languages have actually increased as of late, demonstrating little
acculturation. From 1990 to 2000 the percentage of people that spoke a language other than English increased
from 14% to 18%. In addition, the population claiming to speak English “less than very well― grew from 4.8%
to 6.1% to 8.1% from 1980 to 1990 to 2000 respectively.[38] Since the number of Spanish-speakers increased by
60% and the number of Chinese-speakers increased by 40%, the level of acculturation of each group has fallen
according to acculturation measures. Thus, it is appropriate that an increase in people with poor English skills
correlates to the rise in each racial group’s segregation level. The conclusion to be taken from this section is that
“in some broad way, then, more immigration is associated with greater segregation.―[39] Racial segregation is
already almost inevitable due to discrimination against and poverty of minorities. However, the situation is made
considerably worse by immigration, which continually increases the number of those segregated. Immigration
supplies a population of people who have the highest propensity for racial segregation and the most difficulty
escaping it, because of the difficult and cyclical quality of acculturation. Racial Segregation: Reasons for Decline
Although relatively imperceptible, racial segregation has declined in some segments of the population.  Most of
this decline has been due to successful acculturation; however the rising immigration population has countered an
overall effect. Another recently emerging factor supporting racial integration is the increasing number of mixed
raced children and interracial marriages. Researchers have found that this population is actually associated with
decreasing racial segregation levels. Acculturation is difficult, but nonetheless possible; when it occurs steadily over
time, racial integration follows. Researchers at Brown University observed the following pattern when studying
racial segregation: “Immigrant minorities move out of urban ethnic enclaves into integrated areas with the majority
population as their exposure to the United States increases, their socioeconomic status rises, and linguistic
adaptation occurs.―[40] This study notes that progress is indeed made by immigrants and segregation is broken
down. Support for this study can be drawn from Census figures on the movement of minorities. The high rates of
migration broken down by race signify that many minorities have moved into more racially integrated areas.  The
2000 Census reported, “the West had net outmigration of Hispanic to other U.S. Regions.― As for Asians,
“internal migration redistributed [them] from the Northeast [West,] and Midwest to the South.― [41] Hispanics
are highly concentrated in the West, and Asian are notoriously underrepresented in the South (see Shifting Racial
Composition). These net migration figures indicate that the two racial groups with the greatest number of
immigrants have perhaps experienced acculturation, and definitely shifted away from racial segregation. Minorities
are following what the U.S. Census Bureau refers to as “classic suburbanization patterns.―[42] High migration
rates for foreign-born peoples also help establish that racial segregation has decreased. The Census notes,
“most foreign-born migrants…initially settled in one of six ‘gateway’ sates: California, New York, Texas,
Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey.― These states each have high concentrations of racial groups within
communities – racial segregation. Thus, it would make sense that after acculturation had occurred into these
communities, there would be mass migration. Accordingly, the Census states, “57.4% of the foreign-born
population reported living in a different residence, compared with 44.3% of natives― in the year 2000, confirming
acculturation and racial integration.[43] The net result of this racial integration is indiscernible due to the large number
of immigrants entering the United States from abroad. The Brown University study reports that after immigrants
achieve acculturation and move into racially integrated areas, “in the standard model, new immigrants then arrive
to take over the inner city and enclave locations.―[44] Thus, because of forces increasing and maintaining racial
segregation, successful acculturation’s ability to decrease racial segregation is undermined. The other dynamic
affecting the level of racial segregation in America is the increasing rate of interracial marriage and subsequent
growth in the multiracial population. In a study from the University of Michigan, researchers note that America is
currently undergoing an “interracial baby boom…between 1970 and 1992, the share of all marriages that were
between people of different races tripled, rising from 0.7% to 2.2%…[this] spawned a parallel rise in births of mixed-
race children…between 1970 and 1992, the percentage of mixed-race births increased from 1.0% of births…to
3.4% of such births.― [45] These statistics show a clear trend of racial mixing within the United States. Recent
studies have shown that the multiracial population that is developing is an effective means of combating racial
segregation. In a study conducted by the Fannie Mae Foundation, researchers found “among the cities and
metropolitan areas in our study, persons identifying with two or more races showed, on average, less segregation
from whites than did minority persons identifying with a single race.― Furthermore, although they constitute a
smaller minority, “analysis shows that persons of mixed race are more likely to live in integrated neighborhoods
than persons of one race only.― [46] The racial composition of communities in which multiracial people live verifies
that racial integration has occurred; concentrations of races decrease in these regions. Investigation shows that the
“average neighborhood for a white and Asian person is 65 percent white, squarely in-between the 50 percent
white neighborhoods of Asians and the 81 percent white neighborhoods of whites.―[47] These statistics indicate
that despite their minority background, mixed race people are less likely to be racially segregated; they effectively
split the racial divide. There is the concern that the presence of mixed raced persons will hurt race relations. This
notion has been explored and the conclusion is that such a concern is unfounded. A study performed at the Public
Policy Institute of California concluded, “that multiethnic neighborhoods are not the primary locus of ethnic
political divisions in California. Previous studies have argued for the so-called ‘threat hypothesis,’ which
predicts that racial tension will be highest where different groups interact the most.― The study found that
“where there were differences between whites and nonwhites, they often were in the direction of greater tolerance
and agreement between whites and nonwhites in mixed areas than in homogeneous ones.―[48] Contrary to the
concern, multiracial populations benefit the relationship between races. There is the additional fear that a multiracial
presence will bring about the melding of cultures and dissipation of cultural identity.  This statement is disproved
by findings that “among all ethnic groups, living in an ethnically mixed neighborhood boosted feelings of ethnic
and racial identification,― from the same study from Public Policy Institute of California.[49] Hence, cultural pride
and history is maintained in multiracial communities; it seems that the supposed detriment of racial mixing is
unsupported. Racial segregation is a problem in the United States; however, there is evidence that remedies exist for
this social obstruction. Acculturation, while difficult, is occurring in a natural process and cycle as shown by the
2000 Census migration figures. The emergence of a multiracial population may produce additional and important
changes, which will promote integration and perhaps, facilitate a significant decline in the segregation statistics.
Conclusions: The Census and studies in racial demographics provides great insight into the current and future
workings of this country.  The United States is home to an impressive diversity of races in every region, and,
through immigration, the extent of this diversity is dramatically rising. Moreover, there are indications that
government is finally starting to recognize this diversity through precise racial identification on the Census. Despite
this diversity, racial segregation still persists in our society today. Racial groups are concentrated both regionally
(e.g. Asians in the West) and within metropolitan areas. Because of factors such as continuing immigration,
discrimination and difficulties with acculturation it seems as though there has been little progress in breaking down
these racial barriers. A small dent has been made in the level of racial segregation by successful cycles of
acculturation. Migration by those who have undergone acculturation has lessened some social segregation, but
“movers from abroad helped offset net domestic migration loss in many areas―[50] It seems that as long as
high rates of immigration continue in America, racial segregation will maintain its hold on society. The most significant
alteration in the state of the nation seems to be the growth of the multiracial population, as demonstrated by the
recognition of the mixed races in the 2000 Census. Mixed races are emerging as a valuable tool for combating
racial segregation. Thus, the multiracial population growth, which is predicted to proliferate in the coming years,
bodes well for racial integration in the United States. Perhaps once this population increases America really will
become a paradigm of diversity – where people of all races live not just in the same country, but also within the
same communities. Bibliography Barnes, Jessica S. & Bennett, Claudette E. “The Asian Population: 2000―
February 2002. U.S. Census Bureau Bishaw, Alemayehu &
Iceland, John. “Poverty: 1999― May 2003. U.S. Census Bureau Cain, Bruce et al. “Ethnic Context, Race Relations, and
California Politics― July 2000. Public Policy Institute of California― FFIEC, “Disposition of Conventional Home Purchase Loan
Applications― August 2000. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Frey, William H. & Myers, Dowell. “Neighborhood Segregation in
Single-Race and Multirace America: A Census 2000 Study of Cities and Metropolitan Area― July 2002. Fannie
Mae Foundation Fronczek, Peter & Johnson, Patricia.
 “Occupations: 2000― August 2003. U.S. Census Bureau
25.pdf Grieco, Elizabeth M. “The White Population: 2000― August 2001. U.S. Census Bureau Grieco, Elizabeth M. & Cassidy, Rachel C.  “Overview of
Race and Hispanic Origin― March 2001. U.S. Census Bureau
1.pdf Jesse McKinnon Guzman, Betsy. “The Hispanic Population: 2000― May 2001. U.S. Census Bureau Harris, David R. & Sim, Jeremiah Joseph. “An Empirical
Look at the Social Construction of Race: The Case of Mixed-Race Adolescents― September 2000. University of
Michigan Iceland, John et al. “Racial and Ethnic
Residential Segregation in the Unites States: 1980-2000― August 2002. U.S. Census Bureau Jones, Nicholas A. & Smith, Amy. “The Two
or More Races Population: 2000― November 2001. U.S. Census Bureau Kronenberg, Jerry. “Loan Discrimination Seen― January
23rd, 2004. Boston Herald
Langberg, Mark & Farley, Reynolds. “Residential Segregation and Acculturation: An Examination of Patterns in
California in 1980― June 1988.  University of California Malone, Nolan et al. “The Foreign-Born
Population: 2000― December 2003. U.S. Census Bureau
McKinnon, Jesse. “The Black Population: 2000― August 2001. U.S. Census Bureau Perry, Marc J. & Schachter, Jason P. “Migration of Natives
and the Foreign Born: 1995 to 2000― August 2003. U.S. Census Bureau Rosenfeld, Michael J. “Effects of Segregation and
Isolation― Spring 2003. Stanford University Schachter, Jason P. “Migration by Race
and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2000― October 2003. U.S. Census Bureau Shin, Hyon B. & Bruno, Rosalind. “Language Use and
English-Speaking Ability: 2000― October 2003. U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau. “History― May 2003. U.S. Census
Bureau White, Michael J. et al. “The Impact of Immigration on
Residential Segregation Revisited― August 2002. Brown University
n_revisited.pdf Wilson, Franklin D. & Hammer, Roger B. “Ethnic Residential Segregation & Its Consequences―
August 1998. University of Wisconsin-Madison [1] U.S. Census
Bureau “History― [2] Grieco, Elizabeth M. and Cassidy, Rachel C. “Overview of Race and Hispanic
Origin― [3] NB: “The federal government considers race and Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct
concepts.” (Grieco, Elizabeth M. and Cassidy, Rachel C. “Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin”[4]
Grieco, Elizabeth M. and Cassidy, Rachel C. “Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin― [5] For the sake of
simplicity and brevity, this paper will not address the smaller segments of the demographics – neither American
Indian and Alaska Native nor Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Island, which comprise 0.9% and 0.1% of the
population, respectively. [6] Grieco, Elizabeth M. “The White Population: 2000― [7] Grieco, Elizabeth M.
“The White Population: 2000― [8] McKinnon, Jesse. “The Black Population: 2000― [9] Iceland, John et
al. “Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the Unites States: 1980-2000― [10] McKinnon, Jesse.Â
“The Black Population: 2000― [11] Guzman, Betsy. “The Hispanic Population: 2000― [12]“Nearly
half (48 percent) of Hispanics reported only White, while approximately 42 percent reported only some other race,
when responding to the question on race.” (Grieco, Elizabeth M. and Cassidy, Rachel C. “Overview of Race
and Hispanic Origin―) [13] Guzman, Betsy. “The Hispanic Population: 2000― [14] Furthermore, of the total
Hispanic population 1.9% was Salvadorans, 1.1% was Guatemalans, 0.6% was Hondurans, 1.3% was Columbians,
0.7% was Ecuadorians, and 0.7% was Peruvians. [15] Guzman, Betsy. “The Hispanic Population: 2000―
[16] Guzman, Betsy. “The Hispanic Population: 2000― [17] Barnes, Jessica S. and Bennett, Claudette E.
“The Asian Population: 2000― [18] Barnes, Jessica S. and Bennett, Claudette E. “The Asian Population:
2000― [19] Iceland, John et al. “Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the Unites States: 1980-2000―
[20] Barnes, Jessica S. and Bennett, Claudette E. “The Asian Population: 2000― [21] Grieco, Elizabeth M. and
Cassidy, Rachel C. “Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin― [22] Jones, Nicholas A. and Smith, Amy.Â
“The Two or More Races Population: 2000― [23] Jones, Nicholas A. and Smith, Amy. “The Two or More
Races Population: 2000― [24] Iceland, John et al. “Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the Unites
States: 1980-2000― [25] Iceland, John et al. “Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the Unites States:
1980-2000― [26] Wilson, Franklin D. & Hammer, Roger B. “Ethnic Residential Segregation & Its
Consequences― [27] Kronenberg, Jerry. “Loan Discrimination Seen― [28] FFIEC, “Disposition of
Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications― [29] Fronczek, Peter & Johnson, Patricia. “Occupations:
2000― [30] Bishaw, Alemayehu & Iceland, John. “Poverty: 1999― [31] Langberg, Mark & Farley, Reynolds.
“Residential Segregation and Acculturation― [32] Langberg, Mark & Farley, Reynolds. “Residential
Segregation and Acculturation― [33] Rosenfeld, Michael J. “Effects of Segregation and Isolation― [34]
Langberg, Mark & Farley, Reynolds. “Residential Segregation and Acculturation― [35] Langberg, Mark &
Farley, Reynolds. “Residential Segregation and Acculturation― [36] Malone, Nolan et al. “The Foreign-Born
Population: 2000― [37] Langberg, Mark & Farley, Reynolds. “Residential Segregation and Acculturation―
[38] Shin, Hyon B. & Bruno, Rosalind. “Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000― [39] White, Michael
J. et al. “The Impact of Immigration on Residential Segregation Revisited― [40] White, Michael J. et al.
“The Impact of Immigration on Residential Segregation Revisited― [41] Schachter, Jason P. “Migration by
Race and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2000― [42] Schachter, Jason P. “Migration by Race and Hispanic Origin:
1995 to 2000 [43] Perry, Marc J. & Schachter, Jason P. “Migration of Natives and the Foreign Born: 1995 to
2000― [44]― White, Michael J. et al. “The Impact of Immigration on Residential Segregation Revisited―
[45] Harris, David R. & Sim, Jeremiah Joseph. “An Empirical Look at the Social Construction of Race: The Case
of Mixed-Race Adolescents― [46] Frey, William H. & Myers, Dowell. “Neighborhood Segregation in Single-
Race and Multirace America: A Census 2000 Study of Cities and Metropolitan Area― [47]Frey, William H. & Myers,
Dowell. “Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America: A Census 2000 Study of Cities and
Metropolitan Area― [48] Cain, Bruce et al. “Ethnic Context, Race Relations, and California Politics― [49]
Cain, Bruce et al. “Ethnic Context, Race Relations, and California Politics― [50] Schachter, Jason P.
“Migration by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2000―
Headline: The Possibility of Mass-Scale

To top