Race and social distance: intermarriage with non-Latino Whites

Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

Race and social distance: intermarriage with non-Latino Whites Zhenchao Qian∗ Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, 300 Bricker Hall, 190 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

Abstract Using 1990 census data, I examine variations in interracial marriage with non-Latino Whites among native- and foreign-born African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans. I further classify Latinos by race and national origin and Asian Americans by national origin. For each minority group, the native-born are much more likely to marry non-Latino Whites than the foreign-born. Interracial marriage with non-Latino Whites differ significantly by minority group: Latino Whites are most likely to marry non-Latino Whites, followed by Asian Americans, Latino non-Whites, and then African Americans. This suggests that race relations are no longer simply White and non-White. Skin tone of non-Whites plays a significant role in variations in intermarriage. Fair skinned minorities are more likely to marry Whites than darker skinned minorities. Skin tone, however, does not explain why persons of one Asian or Latino group have higher levels of intermarriage than those of another Asian or Latino group. To understand Latino and Asian American diversity, we need to take into account cultural differences in countries of origin as well as their divergent experiences in American society. © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Intermarriage; Social distance; Skin tone; Race and ethnicity; Assimilation; Latin Americanization of race relations

In the United States, racial inequality is strong within many social institutions, including schools, labor market, and housing (Blank, 2001). The inequality is embedded in daily lives shaping our perceptions of and actions towards people of different racial groups. As a result, racial groups establish different amounts of social distance from one another (Bogardus, 1968). Greater social distance indicates poor race relations and infrequent racial contact. A shortened social distance, on the other hand, promotes a feeling of common identity, closeness, and ∗

Tel.: +1-614-688-8612; fax: +1-614-292-6687. E-mail address: [email protected] (Z. Qian).

1090-9524/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.racsoc.2003.12.003

34

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

shared experience (Alba & Nee, 1997). When social distance between two racial groups is close, group boundaries become easy to cross and members of different groups accept each other as social equals. Racial contact becomes frequent, followed by interracial romance and marriage. Although social distance is hard to quantify, intermarriage is often seen as a good measure of social distance between two groups. High levels of intermarriage indicate social acceptance of intimate and profound relations between members of different groups (Blau, Beeker, & Fitzpatrick, 1984). Social distance can change over time. In the great waves of the “Atlantic migration” of the 19th and early 20th centuries, social distance between European immigrants and the native population was very large. European immigrants were initially placed at the bottom of the social hierarchies, and disadvantaged in educational attainment, labor-market outcomes and language. But soon they lost their distinctive characteristics as they reached equity in educational and labor-market opportunities, eventually intermarrying with the majority of the population (Alba, 1995; Gordon, 1964). For European immigrants, intermarriage hastened the process of Americanization and full assimilation (Pagnini & Morgan, 1990). For example, Irish Americans were at the bottom of the racial and ethnic hierarchy around the turn of the twentieth century. They faced serious discrimination, but moved up over time in socioeconomic status and became “White,” the majority population (Ignatiev, 1995; Roediger, 1996). In a span of about 100 years, the Irish American population increased to 40 million from 4.5 million because of intermarriage and strong Irish identity among mixed-heritage offspring (Hout & Goldstein, 1994). Experiences of European immigrants and their descendants in the United States indicate a gradual decline in social distance with the native-born White population. They assimilate into American society by “de-emphasis of their distinctive cultural characteristics and avoidance of the strange elements of their social structures” (Lieberson, 1980, p. 34). Meanwhile, racial minorities with the histories in the United States at least as long as European immigrants have not been able or willing to de-emphasize their cultural roots. They lag behind Whites in socioeconomic status, face prejudice and discrimination in American society, and demonstrate great social distance from Whites (Omi & Winant, 1994). In recent years, especially after civil rights movement in the 1960s, racial minorities have made some headway in socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic achievements, however, differ among racial minorities. Asian Americans on average have greater educational attainment and income than African Americans and Latinos (Waters & Eschbach, 1995). Tremendous diversity in achievement is also evident within each pan-ethnic group. Southeast Asians have low educational attainment and income compared to other ethnic Asians; Cubans have the highest socioeconomic status among all Latinos (Farley, 1996). Gaps in socioeconomic status are likely to remain large because of the continuing influx of immigrants from Asia and Latin America. Strong differences in socioeconomic status suggest that social distance among various racial groups can vary and racial minorities may integrate differently in American society. For a long time, race relations in the United States have been Black and White. This paradigm of race relations is challenged by the dramatic growth and increasing visibility of Latinos and Asians (Omi, 2001). In light of the diversity among racial minorities and the rapid darkening of the U.S. population, Bonilla-Silva (2004) proposes that the United States is developing a tri-racial system with “Whites” at the top, an intermediary group of “honorary Whites” in the

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

35

middle (racial minorities with higher income and educational attainment), and the “collective Black” at the bottom (racial minorities with low income and educational attainment). The system would resemble the racial stratification system in Latin America where race is seen as a continuum from White to Black or from White to Amerindian (from White, light skinned, to darker skinned) (Graham, 1990). In such a system, each racial group would try to find its own rung in racial hierarchies and develop its own attitudes and identities in relation to other racial groups (Bonilla-Silva, 2004). In this paper, I test Bonilla-Silva’s proposition by examining intermarriage patterns of minorities with non-Latino Whites. Before presenting the analysis, I review classical assimilation theory and Bonilla-Silva’s tri-racial system, and derive hypotheses from these theories.

1. Assimilation theory and the tri-racial system Park (1950) formulated assimilation theory to explain adaptation process of European immigrants into American society. He refers to assimilation as the social processes that bring ethnic minorities into the mainstream of American economic, political, and family life. It is “a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments and attitudes of other persons and groups and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life” (Park & Burgess, 1969, p. 735). Gordon (1964) further develops assimilation theory. He emphasizes the different stages of assimilation, including acculturation—the aligning of cultural patterns with the majority group. The most essential stage is structural assimilation—the minority group’s entry into primary group relationships with the majority group. This could include the minority group’s improvement in educational attainment, integration in the workplace, and neighborhood sharing with the majority population. According to Gordon, marital assimilation—intermarriage— would follow structural assimilation and represent the final stage of assimilation. Thus, assimilation is not necessarily a process achieved in a short period of time. It can take years of living in the United States or, in many cases, several generations (Gordon, 1964; Hirschman, 1983). This perspective suggests the following hypotheses: (1) Minority groups with more individuals with high socioeconomic status should have higher rates of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites than minority groups with fewer number of individuals with high socioeconomic status. (2) Within each minority group, the native-born should have higher rates of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites than the foreign-born. However, the theory derived from experiences of European immigrants implies a linear progression of adaptation to the majority population. This may not be applicable to racial minorities (Omi & Winant, 1994). One important distinction between Europeans and racial minorities is race. Being White, European immigrants and their descendants could easily blend in with the majority population and leave behind the immigrant culture and embrace American ways (Portes & Zhou, 1993). Being non-White, Blacks, Chinese Americans, Mexican Americans, and some other racial minorities faced far more institutional discrimination and structural barriers than European immigrants, despite their long histories in the United States (Lieberson,

36

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

1980). For a long time, racial minorities were considered incapable of being assimilated and legally banned from marrying across racial boundaries (Omi & Winant, 1994). Only after civil rights movements in the 1960s did we start to see some decline in racial barriers; miscegenation laws forbidding people of different races from marrying were abolished nationwide in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional. The racial dimension in the United States has been dichotomous, hinging on either White or Black. One drop of Black blood made one an African American. This rule solidified the barrier between Black and White so no one who might possibly be identified as Black also became identified as White (Spickard, 1992). In recent years, race has become more dynamic due to increasing shares of Latinos, Asian Americans, and mixed-race populations. The changing dynamics of race, in the view of Bonilla-Silva (2004), is likely to make U.S. racial relations more Latin Americanized. The Latin Americanization of race relations is a response to the rapid darkening of America, but is also prompted by a kinder and gentler “new racism”—color-blind racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2004). In his view, one way to create this color-blind racism is to whiten the population by (1) creating an intermediate racial group to buffer racial conflict, (2) allowing some newcomers into the White racial stratum, and (3) incorporating most immigrants into the collective Black stratum. Thus, he proposes three racial categories: Whites, honorary Whites, and collective Blacks. According to Bonilla-Silva (2004), the White group includes “traditional” Whites, new “White” immigrants, and, in the near future, assimilated Latinos; Honorary Whites include light-skinned Latinos, Japanese Americans, Korean Americans, Asian Indians, Chinese Americans, etc. Collective Blacks include Blacks, dark-skinned Latinos, Southeast Asians, and maybe Filipinos. Compared to assimilation perspective pointing to the importance of structural assimilation, this perspective emphasizes the impact of skin tone in race relations. Race is measured as a continuous scale, based on shades of skin tone. Thus, Blacks are at the one end of the scale while non-Latino Whites are at the other end. Honorary Whites are closer to non-Latino Whites in social distance than Blacks. This perspective offers the following hypotheses: (3) Minority groups with lighter skin tone should have higher rates of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites than those with darker skin tone. (4) The foreign-born minority groups should have similar levels of intermarriage with nonLatino Whites compared to Blacks. (5) The closer the skin tone between two minority groups, the greater the likelihood of intermarriage. Before testing these hypotheses, I briefly describe minority groups included in the study. Beginning with slavery, African Americans have faced a long history of social injustice and racial oppression in the United States (Berry & Blassingame, 1982). Blacks are more likely than other racial and ethnic minorities to experience and perceive racial prejudice and discrimination, which heightens Black racial identity and creates greater social distance from Whites. Indeed, of all racial minorities, African Americans are least likely to marry Whites and most likely to marry among themselves (Qian, 1997; Qian & Lichter, 2001). Although Asian Americans are considered one group in government statistics, they include several ethnic groups with diverse socioeconomic status, immigration history, and motivation

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

37

for immigration. The Chinese were among the first of Asian Americans to enter the United States but their immigrant population is still growing at rapid pace. Given that socioeconomic status is sharply divided along the nativity line, Chinese are most diverse in socioeconomic status among Asian ethnic groups (Farley, 1996). Later-generation Chinese Americans are fully integrated in American society, but immigrant Chinese are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Thus, the native-born are expected to have a greater level of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites than the foreign-born. As the only group among Asian Americans with the majority of its population native-born and later generation, Japanese Americans are considered to have so successfully assimilated that they are in danger of losing their ethnic culture (Tinker, 1973). With each subsequent generation in America, the Japanese increase their contact with Whites through school, work, and the community, and tend to have a high level of intermarriage with Whites (Kikumura & Kitano, 1973; Kitano, Yeung, Chai, & Hatanaka, 1984; Tinker, 1982). Japanese immigrants are relatively few in number but have much greater socioeconomic status than other Asian immigrants. This suggests a higher level of intermarriage with Whites compared to other minority immigrants. Korean Americans are new to the United States. They maintain a high level of ethnic attachment because many Korean Americans work and live in ethnic neighborhoods, go to Korean ethnic churches, and concentrate in small businesses (Min, 1995). Given their recent arrival, nativity distance among Koreans tends to be small. We should expect that Korean Americans have few opportunities to meet people of other racial groups. Southeast Asians are among the newest Asian Americans. Many Southeast Asians came as refugees and are the least educated of all the Asian ethnic groups. Many do not speak English, primarily work in low-paid jobs, live in their own neighborhoods, and have limited opportunities to interact with mainstream society (Rumbaut, 1995; Zhou & Bankston, 1998). The Philippines and India are the two major Asian countries that were not influenced by Confucianism. The Philippines is a Catholic country with its history as a Spanish, and then an American, colony. Many came to the United States as a result of the Americanization of Filipino culture through U.S. colonization (Agbayani-Siewert & Bevilla, 1995). Filipino immigrants, closer to Americans in language, customs, and values than other Asians, tend to adapt easily to mainstream society. They live in predominantly White neighborhoods and have professional jobs despite their brief history in the United States. They are likely to have a higher percentage of interracial marriages than other Asian immigrants. India, under British rule for about 100 years, once adopted English as the official language and still uses English in schools because of its linguistic diversity (Sheth, 1995). Asian Indian immigration to the United States is a recent phenomenon: The Asian Indian population increased dramatically from 10,000 in 1965 to over 0.8 million in 1990 (Bacon, 1996). Asian Indian immigrants, mostly fluent in English, are the wealthiest and most highly educated of all recent immigrants (Bacon, 1996; Farley, 1996). However, despite their high socioeconomic status and ethnic diversity, Asian Indian Americans hold strongly to their traditional cultural values as a sizable number seek mates through advertisements in Indian newspapers or in Indian ethnic newspapers in the United States (Sheth, 1995). Similar to Asian Americans, Latinos are also diverse in their countries of origin. Many native-born Mexicans are later-generation Americans while their immigrant counterparts lag

38

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

behind in educational attainment, income, and occupational skills (Bean & Tienda, 1987; Ortiz, 1996; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996). The long history of Mexican Americans in the United States also implies that U.S.-born Mexicans, when compared with other Latino national-origin groups, are most likely to be intermarried with non-Latino Whites, while their foreign-born counterparts tend to be far behind. Puerto Rico became a colony of the United States in 1898 and Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens 19 years later. This unique status makes it possible for Puerto Ricans in the mainland to keep close relationships with the island and its culture. They may not have strong desires to assimilate because many do not plan to settle permanently in America (Padilla, 1987). As a result, they tend to possess a stronger attachment to the island than other Latinos have to their countries of origin and likely choose partners within their own national origin group. Although the Cubans who arrived in the United States in the 1960s had much higher educational attainment and fared better in socioeconomic status than other Latinos (Bean & Tienda, 1987; Portes & Bach, 1985), their children born in the United States, most of whom are White, may not necessarily be better assimilated in terms of intermarriage. The majority of Cuban Americans live in predominantly Cuban neighborhoods where ethnic economy is strong (Portes & Zhou, 1992). Living in ethnic neighborhoods and working in ethnic economies limit Cuban Americans’ opportunities to establish social contact with mainstream society as well as with other Latinos. Most Central Americans came to the United States in the last 20 years. Although divergent in terms of national origin, culture, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status, they immigrated for two reasons: a search for economic opportunities and flight from war and political turmoil (Menjivar, 2000; Repak, 1995). Most recent immigrants are at the lower end of the occupational ladder (Lopez, Popkin, & Telles, 1996; Wallace, 1989). Native-born Central Americans are typically the children of the earliest-wave immigrants with high socioeconomic status (Menjivar, 2000), who are likely to be fully assimilated and have a high level of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites. In summary, each ethnic group is unique in socioeconomic achievement, immigration settlement, and experiences. In addition, skin tone also differs across these groups. Both socioeconomic status and skin tone affect intermarriage patterns. I examine detailed racial, ethnic, or national-origin differences in minorities’ intermarriage with non-Latino Whites. By comparing these differences, I test the hypotheses derived above to examine the relative importance of minorities’ socioeconomic status and skin tone.

2. Data The data for this study come from the state Public Use Microdata 5% samples (PUMS) of the 1990 Census. Non-Latino Whites include only the native-born because intermarriage with foreign-born Whites does not necessarily indicate integration of minorities into American society. For my purposes, minorities include non-Latino Blacks, Asian Americans, and Latinos. Asian Americans are classified into Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Koreans, Asian Indians (including Bangladeshi, Pakistani, and Sri Lankan), and Southeast Asians (including Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, and Laotian). Latinos are classified into Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Central Americans (including persons whose national origins are Costa

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

39

Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and El Salvador). These minority groups are further classified by nativity status (native-born vs. foreign-born). The chief advantage of the PUMS is its large sample of minority and immigrant groups, which allows us to examine detailed racial and ethnic patterns of intermarriage. A disadvantage is that the sample is restricted to intact marriages. Any study of currently married couples is subject to potential selection biases, in part because such a sample “selects” recently married and racially endogamous couples. High rates of marital disruption among racially exogamous marriages mean that a disproportionate share of mixed marriages are lost to the sample (Jacobs & Furstenberg, 1986; Kitano et al., 1984). One common approach to minimizing potential selection biases is to restrict the sample to younger couples, of which most remain in intact first marriages (Blackwell & Lichter, 2000; Qian, 1997). I adopt this strategy here by restricting the sample to married couples ages 20–34. I intend to include only marriages contracted in the United States, given the focus on marriage market conditions and their effect on each individual’s marriage decision. However, I cannot distinguish between the 1990 Census marriages contracted within the United States and those contracted overseas. To reduce the number of marriages contracted overseas, I exclude Asian immigrants who entered the United States between 1985 and 1990, within 5 years prior to the Census. For Black and Latino immigrants, I include those who came to the United States before age 20. Although these selections cannot guarantee that all immigrants in the sample married in the United States, the likelihood nevertheless has increased significantly. In the 1990 Census, Latinos respond to two questions: national origin and race. The race distributions differ by national origin and nativity. Table 1 presents how Latinos for each national origin and nativity group describe their race. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans have similar percentages identifying as White (51% among the native-born and 41% among the foreign-born). Cubans are overwhelmingly White (over 80% for both nativity groups). Central Americans show strong nativity differences: 64% Whites among the native-born and 41% Whites among the foreign-born.

Table 1 Racial distribution by Latino national origin National origin

White

Black

Asian/ Pacific

American Indian

Other

Total

Mexican Native-born Foreign-born

51.2 41.0

0.5 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.8 0.2

47.2 58.2

31,516 17,600

Puerto Rican Native-born Foreign-born

51.4 41.7

3.8 2.5

0.7 0.3

0.2 0.0

43.9 55.4

4,351 2,006

Cuban Native-born Foreign-born

83.9 82.0

2.9 0.8

0.3 0.3

0.1 0.0

12.8 16.9

932 2,238

Central American Native-born Foreign-born

62.6 40.6

7.4 2.9

1.0 0.6

0.0 0.3

29.0 55.7

297 1,991

40

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

Although some Latinos—Puerto Ricans, in particular—are perceived to be Black, few identified as Black in the census. For Puerto Ricans, only 3.8% of the native-born and 2.5% of the foreign-born are Black. Many Latinos identified as “other.” Rodriguez (2000) argues that the choice of “other” reflects a view among Latinos that race is a cultural, social, and political concept. Thus, Latinos of any race can choose “other” as their race. However, the racial compositions in Table 1 suggest that those identified as “other” are likely darker skinned Latinos. This is in agreement with Denton and Massey’s (1989) assessment of the 1980 census that individuals who did not see themselves as “White” picked “other.” As a result, I further make distinctions between those classified as White and those classified as Black or other. I exclude very small number of Latinos identified as Asian or American Indian. The focus of the paper is to examine intermarriage with non-Latino Whites for each minority group. Marriages among minority groups are not included. Qian and Lichter (2001), Qian, Blair, and Ruf (2001), and Qian and Cobas (Forthcoming) have provided detailed analyses of intermarriage patterns among different racial and ethnic groups. Percentages of intermarriage for each group are commonly used statistic describing the extent of intermarriage, but are affected by the marginal distributions of men and women of each group. In other words, a small group tends to have a higher percentage of intermarriage while a large group tends to have a lower percentage of intermarriage (Blau, 1977). A simple example illustrates the point. In a population of 25% Black and 75% White, Black–White marriages will, by definition, involve a higher percentage of the Black than the White population. Indeed, if all Blacks out-married, the out-marriage rate would be 100%. For Whites, the out-marriage rate would be 33%. This does not necessarily mean that Blacks have fewer barriers to racial intermarriage, but that the structural opportunities of Whites to marry Blacks are lower than the marriage market opportunities of Blacks to marry Whites. If we compare percentages of intermarriage across minority groups, observed differences do not tell us social distance or race relations, unless group sizes are held constant. We can achieve this by using log-linear models. With log-linear models, we can study associations between husbands and wives of different traits while marginal distributions of all groups are taken into account. The groups included in the analysis are non-Latino Whites, Blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos, Southeast Asians, Asian Indians, Mexican Whites, Mexican non-Whites, Puerto Rican Whites, Puerto Rican non-Whites, Cuban Whites, Cuban non-Whites, Central American Whites, and Central American non-Whites. Each minority group is further classified by nativity status. For each minority group, log-linear models are fitted to count data contained in a 3 × 3 contingency table, i.e., number of marriages by husbands’ and wives’ group classification (Whites, native-born minority group, and foreign-born minority group). Log-linear models are used to estimate endogomy (marriage among Whites, marriage among the native-born minority group, and marriage among the foreign-born minority group). Let Fij denote the expected number of marriages between men in group i and women in group j. The model for a 3 × 3 contingency table for each minority group is as follows: log Fij = β0 + βiHG + βjWG + pδRij ,

(1)

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

41

where βiHG (βjWG ) denotes men’s (women’s) group category (i, j: non-Latino Whites, native-born minority group, and foreign-born minority group), δRij is a set of variable diagonal parameters (endogamy), p = 1 if i = j (p = 0 otherwise).

3. Findings Table 2 displays the percentage of marriages with non-Latino Whites for married persons aged 20–34 of each minority group in 1990. Blacks have the lowest percentage marrying non-Latino Whites (6 and 2%, respectively, for native-born men and women). Central Americans have the highest percentage of intermarriage (79 and 87%, respectively, for native-born men and women). For Blacks, men tend to have a higher percentage of intermarriage than their female counterparts while the reverse is true for East Asian Americans. Sex differences in intermarriage are relatively small for Latinos, but Latino Whites have a much higher percentage of marriage with non-Latino Whites than Latino non-Whites. Nativity plays an important role in intermarriage for minority groups. Except for Blacks, foreign-born minorities have lower percentages of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites than their native-born counterparts. As explained above, Table 2 presents informative but inconclusive evidence for minority differences in intermarriage with non-Latino Whites because group size (shown in parentheses) differs tremendously across groups and confounds intermarriage patterns. Typically, the smaller the group size, the greater the fluctuations of the results. Drastically different group sizes make Table 2 Percentage married to non-Latino Whites by race, nativity, and sex Race, ethnicity, or national origin

Black (%) Chinese (%) Japanese (%) Korean (%) Filipino (%) Southeast Asian (%) Asian Indian (%) Mexican White (%) Mexican non-White (%) Puerto Rican White (%) Puerto Rican non-White (%) Cuban White (%) Cuban non-White (%) Central American White (%) Central American non-White (%)

Native-born

Foreign-born

Men

Women

Men

Women

6 (28,443) 40 (320) 51 (512) 79 (19) 58 (271) 50 (12) 63 (32) 32 (7,311) 27 (6,978) 54 (947) 27 (824) 59 (312) 58 (36) 79 (61) 64 (28)

2 (27,568) 53 (332) 57 (603) 83 (40) 68 (279) 33 (15) 43 (37) 35 (8,137) 21 (7,310) 53 (1,009) 21 (808) 51 (368) 60 (53) 87 (92) 67 (33)

6 (21,700) 8 (1,105) 57 (155) 12 (554) 17 (820) 7 (1,348) 20 (647) 7 (3,648) 8 (5,354) 32 (384) 19 (537) 30 (884) 42 (154) 21 (260) 18 (404)

3 (1,877) 14 (1,233) 71 (220) 43 (852) 40 (1,173) 11 (1,409) 14 (590) 7 (3,281) 5 (4,418) 35 (333) 12 (452) 27 (773) 37 (133) 35 (316) 18 (400)

Note. Because of the focus on interracial marriage with non-Latino Whites in this article, the denominators (in parentheses) are marriages to non-Latino Whites plus marriages within each group. Interracial marriages across racial minorities, interethnic marriages across Asian ethnic groups, interethnic marriages across Latino national origin groups, and interracial marriages within each Latino national origin are not included. For analyses of these marriages, see Qian and Lichter (2001), Qian et al. (2001), and Qian and Cobas (Forthcoming).

42

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

Table 3 Ratio of intermarriage with Whites for each minority group to intermarriage with Whites for native-born Blacks Ratio

Blacks Chinese Japanese Koreans Filipinos Southeast Asians Asian Indians Mexican Whites Mexican non-Whites Puerto Rican Whites Puerto Rican non-Whites Cuban Whites Cuban non-Whites Central American Whites Central American non-Whites

Native-born

Foreign-born

1.00 5.90 10.55 12.07 15.32 0.20 1.28 42.59 18.14 22.39 2.45 14.11 2.76 54.60 2.26

0.10 0.41 8.85 1.41 2.81 0.33 0.56 0.68 0.71 3.06 0.66 3.07 1.18 0.89 0.45

it difficult to conclude whether minority differences in intermarriage are real. As a result, we must rely on log-linear models because they can “hold constant” group size differences in marriage market opportunities. Table 3 presents the results of log-linear models described in Eq. (1). The models take into account marginal distributions of group sizes for husbands and wives and estimate variable diagonal parameters (Whites marrying Whites, in-marriage among the native-born minority group, and in-marriage among the foreign-born minority group). For ease of interpretation, I transform the parameter estimates into odds ratios of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites for each racial minority group, and then divide each set of odds ratios by the odds ratios of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites for native-born Blacks. Thus, a ratio greater than 1 indicates that a given group has a greater likelihood of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites than native-born African Americans. In contrast, a ratio lower than 1 indicates a smaller likelihood of intermarriage for a given group than for native-born African Americans. As shown in Table 3, the ratio for native-born Blacks’ marriage with non-Latino Whites is 1, the reference group. Among the native-born, with the exception of Southeast Asians, all minority groups have greater likelihood of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites than African Americans. The ratio is the greatest for Central American Whites, 55 times as likely to marry non-Latino Whites than native-born Blacks. This group mostly consists of individuals born to the earliest-wave of Central American immigrants, who have high socioeconomic status and are well integrated in American society. Native-born Mexican Whites who have the longest history in the United States among Latinos also show a strong likelihood of intermarriage; they are 43 times as likely to marry non-Latino Whites than native-born Blacks. Native-born Puerto Rican Whites rank third in likelihood of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites. Native-born Cubans are behind other Latinos in intermarriage. Although Cubans have the highest socioeconomic status among Latinos, their lower level of intermarriage is likely due to their residential patterns and strong ethnic economy (Portes, 1984). Compared to other minorities, native-born

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

43

Latino Whites are closest to non-Latino Whites in social distance, as evidenced by their strong likelihood of marriage with non-Latino Whites. Native-born Asian Americans are more likely than native-born Blacks to marry non-Latino Whites. The likelihood of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites for Asian Americans are comparable to that of native-born Cuban Whites, but lower than those of other native-born Latino Whites. Among Asian Americans, native-born Filipinos have the highest level despite their shorter history in the United States than the Chinese and Japanese. Filipinos’ likelihood of intermarriage is greater because of the Philippines’ Spanish, Catholic, and American colonial ties. Western cultural influences might make Filipinos easier to adapt in American society. However, Asian Indians have low levels of intermarriage despite India’s colonial past. Their low intermarriage may be due to strong traditional cultural values, even though they have the highest socioeconomic status among Asians (Sheth, 1995). Native-born Southeast Asians, 80% less likely than Blacks to marry non-Latino Whites, have the lowest likelihood of intermarriage. This lowest level of intermarriage is likely the result of the refugee status of most Southeast Asians and their high levels of residential segregation. Native-born Latino non-Whites are only about twice as likely to marry non-Latino Whites than are native-born Blacks. Latino non-Whites mostly identify themselves racially as “other,” and tend to be darker skinned. They are much less likely to marry non-Latino Whites than their White counterparts, but are more likely to do so than African Americans. For Latino non-Whites, skin tone seems to determine the likelihood of intermarriage. Mexican non-Whites, mostly Mestizos (descendents of Whites and Amerindians), have greater levels of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites than other Latino non-Whites who are likely to be Mulattos (descendents of Whites and Blacks). This pattern is similar to the findings that American Indians have higher levels of intermarriage than African Americans (Sandefur & Trudy, 1986). Different levels of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites between American Indians and African Americans are related to the past when interracial marriage between Whites and Blacks was strongly discouraged and subject to legal penalties while political and economic reasons promoted marriages between Whites and American Indians (Sandefur & Trudy, 1986). In summary, native-born minorities have four levels of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites. Latino Whites are the most-likely group followed by Asian Americans. Latino non-Whites are at the third level while African Americans are least likely to marry non-Latino Whites. Given that some of the Asian ethnic groups have higher socioeconomic status than Latino groups, the results do not completely support the first hypothesis about the relationships between socioeconomic status of minority groups and intermarriage with non-Latino Whites. The results nevertheless indicate the importance of skin tone on intermarriage, supporting Hypothesis 3—minority groups with lighter skin tone have higher rates of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites than those with dark skin tone. However, differences in intermarriage with non-Latino Whites within each pan-ethnic group are not exactly correlated with differences in skin tone. Nativity effect on intermarriage is strong across all minority groups. Foreign-born Blacks are least likely to marry non-Latino Whites, 90% less likely than their native-born counterparts. Foreign-born Southeast Asians, mostly refugees, also have a low likelihood. Nativity differences indicate the strong impact of generational replacement on minority groups’ intermarriage with the majority population. The results support the second hypothesis that the native-born have higher rates of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites than the foreign-born

44

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

and fit into the intermarriage patterns of European immigrants and their descendants (Pagnini & Morgan, 1990). However, we cannot tell for certain whether the descendants of immigrants will resemble the patterns of today’s native-born counterparts or remain collectively Black, as hypothesized by Bonilla-Silva (Hypothesis 4). There are at least two reasons to believe that the descendants of immigrants may have different intermarriage patterns from their native-born counterparts. Compositional differences may be one reason. For example, native-born Cubans are the descendents of first generation, wealthy Cubans, but foreign-born Cubans occupy a low socioeconomic status (Portes & Bach, 1985). Another reason is that the continuous influx of immigrants may provide an ample pool of marriageable partners for recent immigrants and their descendants, which may increase marital endogamy (Massey, 1995). Foreign-born minorities show strong diversity in intermarriage patterns. Foreign-born Japanese are close to nine times as likely to marry non-Latino Whites than native-born Blacks. This rate is the highest of all the foreign-born. Compared to other foreign-born Asians, few foreign-born Japanese stay in the United States, and those who stay are unlikely to settle for economic reasons. Foreign-born Filipinos are about three times as likely to marry non-Latino Whites than native-born Blacks. Filipinos’ uniqueness—being Catholic and having a good command of the English language—may help increase racial contact with non-Latino Whites and promote intermarriage. Among foreign-born Latinos, the Whites are more likely to marry non-Latino Whites than the non-Whites. The differences are especially evident for Puerto Rican and Cuban Whites.

4. Discussion and conclusion For minorities, intermarriage with the majority group is considered an important stage of assimilation in American society. Assimilation theory assumes that assimilation is inevitable for all minority groups, regardless of whether minorities are racially or ethnically defined (Omi & Winant, 1994). Although complete assimilation for European ethnic groups has been achieved in American society, how or whether racial minorities will follow the patterns predicted by assimilation perspectives remains to be answered. Culture and socioeconomic conditions in countries of origin, histories in the United States, and socioeconomic status may indicate diverse integration patterns of minorities in American society. Using 1990 census data, I have examined intermarriage patterns with non-Latino Whites for Blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos, Southeast Asians, and Asian Indians; Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central American Whites; and Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Central American non-Whites. These groups provide a good range of socioeconomic diversity and skin tone for the analyses. The results show that intermarriage with non-Latino Whites varies widely across minority groups. There is some support for the traditional assimilation perspective. Intermarriage with non-Latino Whites is more likely for later than for first generations. Census data, however, do not allow us to examine further generational differences. We cannot distinguish third or later generations from second generations, so assimilation theory cannot be fully tested. The analysis of young couples age 20–34 reveals four levels of intermarriage with non-Latino Whites: (1) Blacks and some foreign-born minority groups such as Chinese, Southeast Asians,

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

45

Asian Indians, and Latino non-Whites; (2) Native-born Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Central Americans self-identified racially as “other” or Black; (3) native-born Asian ethnic groups; and (4) native-born Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Central Americans identified as White. Skin-tone plays an important role in intermarriage with non-Latino Whites. The likelihood of intermarriage is lowest for Blacks, and goes up from darker skinned Latino non-Whites, lighter skinned Asian Americans, and to White-skinned Latino Whites. This pattern fits the “tri-racial system” outlined by Bonilla-Silva (2004), though the intermediate group appears to be more diverse. However, diversity within each pan-ethnic group suggests that skin tone is not a strong indicator. Among Asians, darker skinned Filipinos have the strongest likelihood of intermarriage with Whites. This indicates easier adaptation for Filipino Americans in American society because of their relative closeness in culture. It also suggests that non-Latino Whites or the American public may not be able or willing to differentiate one Asian ethnic group from another based on skin tone or socioeconomic status. Similarly, among White Latinos, Cubans with high socioeconomic status are least likely to marry non-Latino Whites because they tend to live in their own neighborhoods and work in an ethnic economy. These findings suggest that while skin tone is an important factor, countries of origin and experiences in American society also need to be taken into account. I have not directly tested Hypothesis 5, which posits that the closer the skin tone between two minority groups, the stronger the likelihood of intermarriages. With this hypothesis, we would expect more marriages between Blacks and members of the intermediate group. This hypothesis is not supported by previous studies. Qian and Lichter (2001) show that intermarriage between any two minority groups among African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans occurs much less often than intermarriage between one minority group and non-Latino Whites. Even within each Latino national origin group, marriage between Whites and non-Whites is infrequent (Qian & Cobas, Forthcoming; Waters, 1994). Thus, creating an intermediate group, with an assumption of linearity of race, may not capture the dynamics of race relations in the United States. Although intermarriage within each pan-ethnic group is on the rise (Qian et al., 2001; Qian & Cobas, Forthcoming), social distance among minority groups is significant. Future research needs to explore minority relations further to understand the complete picture of the racial system in American society.

Acknowledgments Zhenchao Qian gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grants HD 043035-01). I thank Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Clarence Lang, and the editor for helpful comments and editing suggestions on the earlier drafts.

References Agbayani-Siewert, P., & Bevilla, L. (1995). Filipino Americans. In P. G. Min (Ed.), Asian Americans: Contemporary trend and issues (pp. 134–168 ). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

46

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

Alba, R. D. (1995). Assimilation’s quiet tide. The Public Interest, 119, 1–18. Alba, R., & Nee, V. (1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31, 826–874. Bacon, J. (1996). Life lines: Community, family, and assimilation among Asian Indian immigrants. New York: Oxford University Press. Bean, F. D., & Tienda, M. (1987). The Hispanic population of the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Berry, M. F., & Blassingame, J. W. (1982). Long memory: The Black experience in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Blackwell, D. L., & Lichter, D. T. (2000). Mate selection among married and cohabiting couples: Journal of Family Issues, 21, 275–302. Blank, R. M. (2001). An overview of trends in social and economic well-being, by race. In N. J. Sumelser, W. J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences (Vol. I, pp. 21–39). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press. Blau, P. M., Beeker, C., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (1984). Intersecting social affiliations and intermarriage. Social Forces, 62, 585–606. Bogardus, E. (1968). Comparing racial distance in Ethiopia, South Africa, and the United States. Sociology and Social Research, 50, 149–156. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2004). We are all Americans: The Latin Americanization of race relations in the U.S. Race and Society, 5, 3–16. Denton, N. A., & Massey, D. S. (1989). Racial identity among Caribbean Hispanics: The effect of double minority status on residential segregation. American Sociological Review, 54, 790–808. Farley, R. (1996). The new American reality: Who we are, how we got here, where we are going. New York: Russell Sage Publications. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press. Graham, R. (1990). Introduction. In R. Graham (Ed.), The idea of race in Latin America, 1870–1940 (pp. 1–5). Austin: University of Texas Press. Hirschman, C. (1983). America’s melting pot reconsidered. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 397–423. Hout, M., & Goldstein, J. R. (1994). How 4.5 million Irish immigrants became 40 million Irish Americans: Demographic and subjective aspects of the ethnic composition of White Americans. American Sociological Review, 59, 64–82. Ignatiev, N. (1995). How the Irish became White. New York: Routledge. Jacobs, J. A., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1986). Changing places: Conjugal careers and women’s marital mobility. Social Forces, 64, 714–732. Kikumura, A., & Kitano, H. H. L. (1973). Interracial marriage: A picture of the Japanese Americans. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 67–81. Kitano, H. H. L., Yeung, W.-T., Chai, L., & Hatanaka, H. (1984). Asian-American interracial marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 179–190. Lieberson, S. (1980). A piece of the pie: Blacks and White immigrants since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lopez, D. E., Popkin, E., & Telles, E. (1996). Central Americans: At the bottom, struggling to get ahead. In R. Waldinger & M. Bozorgmehr (Eds.), Ethnic Los Angeles (pp. 279–304). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Massey, D. S. (1995). The new immigration and ethnicity in the United States. Population and Development Review, 21, 631–652. Menjivar, C. (2000). Fragmented ties: Salvadoran immigrant networks in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. Min, P. G. (1995). Korean Americans. In P. G. Min (Ed.), Asian Americans: Contemporary trends and issues (pp. 199–231). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Omi, M. A. (2001). The changing meaning of race. In N. J. Smelser, W. J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences (Vol. I, pp. 243–263). Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Z. Qian / Race & Society 5 (2002) 33–47

47

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge. Ortiz, V. (1996). The Mexican-origin population: Permanent working class of emerging middle class? In R. Waldinger & M. Bozorgmehr (Eds.), Ethnic Los Angeles (pp. 247–277). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Padilla, F. M. (1987). Puerto Rican Chicago. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Pagnini, D. L., & Morgan, S. P. (1990). Intermarriage and social distance among U.S. immigrants at the turn of the century. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 405–432. Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1969). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Reprint, 1921) Park, R. E. (1950). Race and culture. Glencoe: The Free Press. Portes, A. (1984). The rise of ethnicity: Determinants of ethnic perceptions among Cuban exiles in Miami. American Sociological Review, 49, 387–397. Portes, A., & Bach, R. (1985). Latin journey: Cuban and Mexican immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1992). Gaining the upper hand: Economic mobility among immigrant and domestic minorities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15, 491–522. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 530, 74–96. Qian, Z. (1997). Breaking the racial barriers: Variations in interracial marriage between 1980 and 1990. Demography, 34, 478–500. Qian, Z., Blair, S. L., & Ruf, S. (2001). Asian American interracial and interethnic marriages: Differences by education and nativity. International Migration Review, 35, 557–586. Qian, Z., & Cobas, J. A. (Forthcoming). Latinos’ mate selection: Variations by national origin, race, and nativity. Social Science Research. Qian, Z., & Lichter, D. T. (2001). Measuring marital assimilation: Intermarriage among natives and immigrants. Social Science Research, 30, 289–312. Repak, T. A. (1995). Waiting on Washington: Central American workers in the nation’s capital. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rodriguez, C. E. (2000). Changing race: Latinos, the census, and the history of ethnicity in the United States. New York: New York University Press. Roediger, D. R. (1996). The wages of whiteness: Race and the making of American working class. New York, Verso Books. Rumbaut, R. G. (1995). Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian Americans. In P. G. Min (Ed.), Asian Americans: Contemporary trends and issues (pp. 232–270). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Sandefur, G. D., & Trudy, M. (1986). American Indian intermarriage. Social Science Research, 15, 347–371. Sheth, M. (1995). Asian Indian Americans. In P. G. Min (Ed.), Asian Americans: Contemporary trends and issues (pp. 134–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Spickard, P. R. (1992). The illogic of American racial categories. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 12–23). Newbury Park: Sage Publication. Tinker, J. N. (1973). Intermarriage and ethnic boundaries: The Japanese American case. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 49–66. Tinker, J. N. (1982). Intermarriage and assimilation in a plural society: Japanese-Americans in the United States. Marriage and Family Review, 5, 61–74. Wallace, S. P. (1989). The new urban Latinos: Central Americans in a Mexican immigrant environment. Urban Affairs Quartely, 25, 239–264. Waters, M. C. (1994). Ethnic and racial identities of second-generation Black immigrants in New York City. International Migration Review, 28, 795–820. Waters, M. C., & Eschbach, K. (1995). Immigration and ethnic and racial inequality in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 419–446. Zhou, M., & Bankston, C. L., III. (1998). Growing up American: How Vietnamese children adapt to life in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.