To celebrate the holiday, Social Explorer is reprising last year’s Thanksgiving post.  Enjoy the data and holiday.

Counting Native Americans: Census Terminology and History (plus Cher)

by Sydney Beveridge

On Thanksgiving, Social Explorer is taking a look at the site of the first famous feast—Plymouth County, MA.  Here, as legend has it, pilgrims from England and local Wampanoag Indians first dined together in 1621.

Whether “Civilized Indians,” “Half-breeds,” “American Indians” or absent, Social Explorer can give you insight into how the census counted and categorized Native Americans over the decades.

Historical demographic data reveal that Native Americans were not counted for the first 60 years of the census.  The constitutional language that mandates the census specifically excludes “Indians not taxed” from the count.

Over time, some Native Americans were also living in areas with settlers, and the census rules articulated how to count them:

Indians not in tribal relations, whether full-bloods or half-breeds, who are found mingled with the white population, residing in white families, engaged as servants or laborers, or living in huts or wigwams on the outskirts of towns or settlements are to be regarded as a part of the ordinary population of the country for the constitutional purpose of the apportionment of Representatives among the States, and are to be embraced in the enumeration.

Starting in 1860, the census collected data on Native Americans, but it did not always report it fully or consistently.  According to census data from 1860, there were 43,562 of these so-called “Civilized Indians” (plus 459 “Half-breeds”), accounting for 0.1% of the population.  (Ten years later, 24 “Civilized Indians” appear in the Plymouth County data.)

In 1960, the Census reported “Indians” separately again and found 142 in Plymouth County and 523,591 nationwide.  Just ten years later, the “Indian” race data disappeared from common census reports once again.

While hidden in the census, Native American terminology hit the top of the billboard charts with the song “Half-breed.”

A 1973 Number One Hit

Cher sings “The Indians said I was white by law/The White Man always called me Indian Squaw.”

Meanwhile, in 1970, the Census would have reported a woman struggling with “Half-breed” identity as either “White” or “Other.”

Did the Census Bureau’s 1970 omission of “Indian” inspire Cher’s “Half-breed”?  Did Cher’s song prompt the Census Bureau to reintroduce Native American race data?

A few years after the song,  the Native American race category returned to the census under the new more detailed option of “American Indian/Eskimo/Aleut.”  With the addition of the ability to specify multiple races starting with the 2000 census, demographic information on Native American populations has become much more complete, with more detailed information on mixed-race individuals and tribe affiliations in the common census reports.  Now the “Half-breed” identity Cher sings about could be categorized as “White,” “American Indian” and “Cherokee.”

Social Explorer users can dig deeper into how Native Americans have been counted with the report tools.

On Veterans Day we honor those who served in the US armed forces.  Social Explorer took a look at the most recent American Community Survey data to see learn more about veterans in the US.

In 2010, there were 21,798,077 veterans, representing 9.3 percent of the adult civilian population.  By comparison, in 1970, 21.1 percent of the adult civilian population had served.

The American Community Survey also details veteran status by war fought.

Subscribers can explore this map to see where veterans live, and use Social Explorer’s report tools to trace the veteran population through the decades and by location.

Map of Veteran Population (2010 American Community Survey)

A highly publicized marriage followed by a swift divorce adds Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries to the long list of celebrity splits.  After recovering from the demise of this fairy tale, Social Explorer took the opportunity to look at marriage and divorce trends.

The Census Bureau tracks marital status with even more detail than reality television fans to “monitor eligibility for program services and benefits, and of changes resulting from federal policies and programs.”  According to the American Community Survey, 2,113,521 women got married in 2010 (down from 2,208,971 in 2009).

After just weeks of wedded bliss, Kardashian and Humphries ended their marriage, like the millions of other divorced Americans.  Kardashian and Humphries are part of a trend that has grown even in the past year.  They join the 27,025,729 other divorced Americans–a number rose from 10.6 percent of the over 15 population in 2009 to 10.9 percent in 2010, according to the ACS.

This particular pair also provides truly unique data points because they would appear in both the recent marriage and recent divorce data for the 2011 American Community Survey.  We won’t know for sure how many are keeping up with them until the census bureau adds a Kardashian column on the marital status table.

2010 Census and American Community Survey maps are now available on Social Explorer.  We already added the data to our reports section, giving users the most comprehensive and easy to use demographic resources all in one place.  Now you can access this wealth of data through using Social Explorer’s map tools.  Click here to explore more.

Fresh from the Census Bureau, this data set give users new levels of detailed demographic information on all census survey questions. The ACS has data on everything from education to employment to home heating fuel, and so much more. To understand the difference between the  ACS and the Census, please read Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge’s Gotham Gazette column on the two data sources.

The full version is available in the Premium edition, and population change data is available in the Free edition.  For more on subscriptions and trials to access all that Social Explorer has to offer, please click here.

In the article “Incumbent Protection Program,” The Capitol’s Jon Lentz investigates the latest on redistricting negotiations in New York State.  The Legislature and the Governor have discussed reform proposals but not yet implemented them.

In the looming showdown over redistricting, Senate Republicans have struggled to keep the upper hand.

The GOP conference has delayed an independent commission by a decade, challenged a law banning prison gerrymandering and made other moves designed to preserve their narrow majority.

But under the radar, Assembly Democrats are pushing to keep control over the process too.

The article cites Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge in the discussion of the incentives at play in resisting reform:

It’s not much of a surprise Assembly Democrats have not pushed for an independent process, several redistricting experts said. Even though they already have a sizable majority, they still have strong incentives to maintain control of the redistricting process and keep it out of the courts or, much less likely, an independent commission.

“If you go and draw it clean, you don’t have incumbency protection,” said Andrew Beveridge, a Queens College professor and redistricting expert. “Whereas if you started from scratch, which a commission would do, a lot of people would be at risk.”

The uncertainty of the process is probably what concerns Assembly Democrats the most, he added.

“That’s probably why they’re scared of it,” Beveridge said. “You wouldn’t know which one would be at risk.”

For more on redistricting from Andrew Beveridge, check out his testimony at the State Legislature and Gotham Gazette article about the issue.