Public Health Then and Now History Counts: A Comparative Analysis of Racial/Color Categorization in US and Brazilian Censuses ABSTRACT Melissa Nobles, PhD Categories of race (ethnicity, color, State officials, international organizations, sessing the contemporary production and uses or both) have appeared and continue to ap- and the general public today consider census- of racial data and, in particular, the recent de- pear in the demographic censuses of nu- taking an indispensable component of modern cision by the US Office of Management and merous countries, including the United governance. Most national census bureaus em- Budget (OMB) to allow Americans to check States and Brazil. Until recently, such cat- ploy similar statistical methods and adminis- more than one racial category. egorization had largely escaped critical trative procedures, and international guidelines scrutiny, being viewed and treated as a tech- have advanced this uniformity. Since 1946, for nical procedure requiring little conceptual example, the United Nations has sponsored 4 American Censuses: Race is clarity or historical explanation. Recent world population programs whose express pur- Fundamental political developments and methodologi- pose was to improve and standardize national cal changes, in US censuses especially, censuses.1 The race question and racial categories have engendered a critical reexamination An unavoidable consequence of this ap- have appeared in every US decennial census, of both the comparative and the historical parent uniformity and universality has been from the Republic’s first in 1790 to the 2000 dimensions of categorization. the obfuscation of the very particular dimen- census. Although the term “color” actually ap- The author presents a comparative sions of census-taking within and between peared on 19th-century census schedules, it analysis of the histories of racial/color countries. That is, while census bureaus may was synonymous with “race” in meaning. The categorization in American and Brazilian use the same statistical methods to produce nu- history of racial categorization can be divided censuses and shows that racial (and merical data, they often do not employ the same into 4 periods (see Table 1). color) categories have appeared in these categories (e.g., race, language, ethnicity) to The first period is 1790 through 1840, censuses because of shifting ideas about generate these data. Moreover, even if the same when categorization was shaped by represen- race and the enduring power of these categories are used, they usually do not bear tational apportionment, slavery, and racial ideas as organizers of political, eco- the same meanings. Indeed, the basic incon- ideas. The second period is 1850 through 1920, nomic, and social life in both countries. sistency of official categories and their mean- when categorization was used expressly to ad- These categories have not appeared sim- ings can even be observed within the census vance the racial theories of scientists. The third ply as demographic markers. The author history of one country. In American censuses, period is 1930 through 1960, when census def- demonstrates that censuses are instru- for example, census and other state officials initions of racial categories were identical to ments at a state’s disposal and are not have changed racial categories and their defi- those of Southern race laws. The fourth period simply detached registers of population nitions several times since the first census in is 1970 to the present, during which categori- and performance. (Am J Public Health. 1790 and on nearly every census since 1890. zation has been shaped most profoundly by 2000;90:1738–1745) In short, the political impulses behind cen- civil rights legislation, the implementation of sus categories vary across national settings and OMB Statistical Directive No. 15, and the lob- within national settings across time. Whether bying efforts of organized groups. Before the the terms used are “race,” “ethnicity,” “color,” introduction of self-identification on the 1960 or some combination of these depends largely census, enumerators determined the person’s on historical circumstance. What these terms race by observation on the basis of the defini- mean, to whom they apply, and how they are tions provided in official instructions. employed in public policies are most intelligi- ble in terms of specific national experiences. In this article I provide a succinct history and analysis of racial and color categorization The author is with the Department of Political Sci- in American and Brazilian demographic cen- ence, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- suses.2 This history clearly illustrates the fun- bridge, Mass. damental political and historical contingency of Requests for reprints should be sent to Melissa such categorization. It also shows that the pro- Nobles, PhD, Department of Political Science, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts duction of racial/ethnic data has served shift- Ave, E53-453, Cambridge, MA 02139 (e-mail: ing political and social purposes. Knowledge [email protected]). of this history is absolutely essential to as- This article was accepted June 30, 2000. 1738 American Journal of Public Health November 2000, Vol. 90, No. 11 the American Revolution competed, at the time, TABLE 1—US Census Race Categories, 1790–2000 with other ideas that claimed natural hierar- 1790—Free White Males; Free White Females; All Other Free Persons; Slaves chies and limitations. Further, the deepening 1800—Free White Males; Free White Females; All Other Free Persons, except Indians Not entrenchment of slavery in economic and po- Taxed; Slaves litical life rendered moot abstract commitments 1810—Free White Males; Free White Females; All Other Free Persons; except Indians Not to universal equality and liberty. Taxed; Slaves To be free and White and to be free and 1820—Free White Males; Free White Females; Free Colored Persons, All other persons, except Indians Not Taxed; Slaves Black were distinctly different political expe- 1830—Free White Persons; Free Colored Persons; Slaves riences. Whites were presumptively citizens. 1840—Free White Persons; Free Colored Persons; Slaves Although free Blacks were also citizens by a 1850—Black; Mulatto birthright, they did not enjoy the same rights 1860—Black; Mulatto; (Indian)b 1880—White; Black; Mulatto; Chinese; Indian and entitlements as Whites, precisely because 1890—White; Black; Mulatto; Quadroon; Octoroon; Chinese; Japanese; Indian Blacks were deemed inferior and unfit for re- 1900—White: Black; Chinese; Japanese; Indian publican life on the grounds of race.4,5 The cit- 1910—White; Black; Mulatto; Chinese; Japanese; Indian; Other (+ write in) izenship status of Native Americans was de- 1920—White; Black; Mulatto; Indian; Chinese; Japanese; Filipino; Hindu; Korean; Other termined by the particular status of tribes as (+ write in) 1930—White; Negro; Mexican; Indian; Chinese; Japanese; Filipino; Hindu; Korean; (Other spelled out in law and treaties. The federal gov- races, spell out in full) ernment considered most tribes “quasi- 1940—White; Negro; Indian; Chinese; Japanese; Filipino; Hindu; Korean; (Other races, sovereign nations,” thereby disqualifying their spell out in full) members from American citizenship.6 The cen- 1950—White; Negro; Indian; Japanese; Chinese; Filipino; (Other race—spell out) 1960—White; Negro; American Indian; Japanese; Chinese; Filipino; Hawaiian; sus schedules of 1800 through 1820 explicitly Part-Hawaiian; Aleut Eskimo, etc. reflected these arrangements in their category 1970—White; Negro or Black; American Indian; Japanese; Chinese; Filipino; Hawaiian; “all other free persons, except Indians Not Korean; Other (print race) Taxed.” 1980—White; Negro or Black; Japanese; Chinese; Filipino; Korean; Vietnamese; American The censuses from the years 1790 through Indian; Asian Indian; Hawaiian; Guamanian; Samoan; Eskimo; Aleut; Other (specify) 1990—White; Black or Negro; American Indian; Eskimo; Aleut; Chinese; Filipino; Hawaiian; 1840 asked few questions beyond those related Korean; Vietnamese; Japanese; Asian Indian; Samoan; Guamanian; Other API to population. They counted free White males (Asian or Pacific Islander); Other race and free White females, subdivided into age 2000—White; Black, African American, or Negro; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian groups; free colored persons (in some years, Indian; Chinese; Filipino; Japanese; Korean; Vietnamese; Native Hawaiian; Guamanian or Chamorro; Samoan; Other Asian (Print Race); Other Pacific Islander all other free persons, except Indians not taxed); (Print Race); Some other race (Print Race) and slaves. The earliest censuses registered race, as it was then understood. Race was con- Note. Categories are presented in the order in which they appeared on schedules. sidered a natural fact, though its political and Source. US Bureau of the Census. social significance was still being sorted out. aIn 1850 and 1860, free persons were enumerated on schedules for “free inhabitants”; slaves were enumerated on schedules designated for “slave inhabitants.” On the free- To be sure, colonial racial discourse had long inhabitants schedule, instructions to enumerators read, in part: “In all cases where the regarded Africans as different from and inferior person is white leave the space blank in the column marked ‘Color.’” to the English, whatever their common hu- b Although “Indian” was not listed on the census schedule, the instructions read: manity.6Yet