Guessing game 2010 census

If you haven't lived under a rock for the last few decades you know that Latinos are now the largest minority group in America by a significant lead. In a little more than two decades the white Europeans will also be a minority, not because they are shrinking, but because they are not growing.

One way to look at the data is to divide the country into four groups, (a) the states that gained electoral college votes, (b) the states that lost electoral college votes, (c) California, and (d) all other states.

Then by three racial/ethnic lines (a) White, Non-Latino, (b) Latino, (c)"other" which is Black, Asian, More than one race, Native American, etc.

States	Pop Gain	Total 2010	White Non-Latino Change	"Other" Change	Latino Change
Lost Elect Votes	2.71%	95 239 434	-1 816 868	1 827 048	2 506 908
Gained Elect Votes	19.52%	76 840 881	2 608 190	3 659 310	6 284 539
California	9.99%	37 253 956	-860,537	1 195 682	3 047 163
Other States + D.C.	9.80%	99 411 267	2 333 993	3 205 038	3 333 166
USA	9.71%	308 745 538	2 264 778	9 887 078	15 171 776

The states that lost electoral votes collectively had their "white non-latino" losses balanced out by "other" gains.
The states that gained electoral votes grew in all racial ethnic categories.
The state of California lost many "white non-latinos" but made up in gains in all minority groups
The states left over collectively had small gains in all categories so that their population growth was similar to the nation's average

Here are the clues: From 2000 to 2010
A) California lost "white non-latinos" by the largest absolute number in the country
B) Mississippi, Kansas, Rhode Island, Connecticut lost "white non-latinos"
C) Missouri was the only state to gain "white non-latinos" and still lose an electoral vote

Using these three clues, (internet research allowed) can you identify the 15 states that lost "white non-latino" population?

Bonus question: "White non-latinos" are now a minority in District of Colombia, Hawaii, California, Texas, and what state?

Explanation: You can lose "white non-latinos" by emigration to other countries, other states, or simply by more deaths than births.

No doubt CA is the King Of The Hill as far as contemporary apportionment goes. I would, though, be interested in the same analysis subbing in Texas for CA and vice versa. I don't think a CA analysis without consideration for TX is really meaningful. It will take, oh, 2 or 3 more censuses at the current rate and political climate, but I see TX > CA in electoral votes in my lifetime.

Yes, that means that I predict, in the next 2-3 censuses, that TX will make up 17 seats on CA.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Yes, that means that I predict, in the next 2-3 censuses, that TX will make up 17 seats on CA.

Texas picked up 911K people more than California, which is very similar to the the 860K "white non-latino" people that CA lost in the last decade. Texas also picked up 4 seats, while CA stayed the same.

But California has 12 million more people than Texas. If Texas continued to gain 4 million people per census, it would take 3 census's to catch California only if they gained no people for the next 30 years.

I'm afraid that I think that your prediction is a little unrealistic within 40-50 years. Even a massive earthquake on the San Andreas fault will probably not frighten enough people away.

The collective 2.26 million change in the "white non-latino" population is a pretty small percentage for an entire decade for a total of 197 million people. I think this is probably the last census where this change number will be positive for the nation (although it will still be positive for many states). The primary reason is that the "more than one race group" should continue to grow. I suspect that it would be a lot smaller, but the census bureau encourages Arabs to put themselves into this category rather than "other" or "Asian".

I hope someone will try the quiz. I actually gave some pretty strong clues. Let me add one more clue:
D) The District of Colombia added a whopping 50K "white non-latinos" after losing 7K last census. I suspect that Obama has attracted a lot of white civil servants for his administration that want to live in the city, and are non-plussed by living in a city that is 60% African American. In 1990's most white politicians moved to the suburbs.

I know white non-latinos lost one because of me. I invoked the "other" option in 2010, which didn't exist before, and wrote in "human" for my race. My reason is that I don't think it is anybody's business what my race is.

>>In a little more than two decades the white Europeans will also be a minority>>

Thank god. We will finally be able to blame all the problems of the world on some other race. Lets see how they like it.

Quote: EvenBob

>>In a little more than two decades the white Europeans will also be a minority>>

Thank god. We will finally be able to blame all the problems of the world on some other race. Lets see how they like it.

The global picture is one issue. When Malthus was making his predictions of global overpopulation two centuries ago with his predictions of mass disease, war and starvation he never could have imagined that a group of people would voluntarily use birth control to eliminate themselves.

But on a more immediate level of American politics, school districts, and industry location this is the first time in recent history that a state (not a city) went down in population. Michigan lost 237K people from it's "white-non-latino" category, and the latino growth of 112K, and "other" growth of 69K was not enough to even replace them. Michigan lost one electoral vote.

New Jersey was more typical. The "white non-latino" population dropped by 342K but the latino population went up by 438K and the "other" groups increased by 282K. While this was enough to mean that there was net population growth in the state, it still lost an electoral vote because it's population growth was well below the national average.

By next census there will probably be a majority of states with negative growth in the "white non-latino" sector instead of only 15 states in the 2010 census. Michigan should have company as a state that loses overall population.

While some state boundaries have not been particularly logical for over a hundred years, I think there will be some more pressure to change them. As upstate New York. New York state lost 457K "white non-latino" citizens and consequently lost an electoral vote. Probably it makes more sense to take upstate New York (the vast majority of the area of the state) and combine it with Vermont, and let the suburban counties combined with NYC be a state. It would give them more representation in the senate. Of course, such a plan would send Republicans into a tail-spin.

Quote: pacomartin

D) The District of Colombia added a whopping 50K "white non-latinos" after losing 7K last census. I suspect that Obama has attracted a lot of white civil servants for his administration that want to live in the city, and are non-plussed by living in a city that is 60% African American. In 1990's most white politicians moved to the suburbs.

Just one note that in the last decade or so D.C. has had quite a resurgence. A lot of poorer housing has been redone much like NYC. Not sure if either administrations staff had an influence. D.C. now also has a good food and nitelife scene. Early 90's it was sketchy as hell.

Quote: pacomartin

While some state boundaries have not been particularly logical for over a hundred years, I think there will be some more pressure to change them. As upstate New York. New York state lost 457K "white non-latino" citizens and consequently lost an electoral vote. Probably it makes more sense to take upstate New York (the vast majority of the area of the state) and combine it with Vermont, and let the suburban counties combined with NYC be a state. It would give them more representation in the senate. Of course, such a plan would send Republicans into a tail-spin.

I always wanted to go further than this when I lived upstate. My plan would be a major upheval but go like this:

1. Split NY at the Tappan Zee Bridge.
2. Split PA near the Philadelphia Suburbs.
3. Take downstate NY and "eastern" PA and merge them in with NJ.
4. Merge upstate NY and eastern PA into their own new state.

Now, this would lower the USA to 49 states, but so be it. What you would get would be a metropolis-state where NJ-NYC/LI-eastPA were. But these areas have more in common than Philadelphia-Pittsburgh and NYC-Buffalo. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh-Buffalo is a more natural fit. The upstate/WPA "state" would be more midwestern in feel what with a few big cities (Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Syracuse) and the rest open-country.

Quote: AZDuffman

I always wanted to go further than this when I lived upstate.

Well, your 11 whitest states in the Union control 22 seats in the Senate, but only have a population of 17 million which is less than New York State. I suspect the last thing Democrats want to do is to create a megamonster urban state.

Idaho
South Dakota
Wyoming
Kentucky
Montana
Iowa
North Dakota
New Hampshire
West Virginia
Vermont
Maine

No takers on my trivia question?
"White non-latinos" are now a minority in District of Colombia, Hawaii, California, Texas, and what state?

Quote: pacomartin

No takers on my trivia question?
"White non-latinos" are now a minority in District of Colombia, Hawaii, California, Texas, and what state?

Georgia

Quote: pacomartin

"White non-latinos" are now a minority in District of Colombia, Hawaii, California, Texas, and what state?

Nevada

Quote: pacomartin

"White non-latinos" are now a minority in District of Colombia, Hawaii, California, Texas, and what state?

New Mexico?

Quote: pacomartin

Michigan lost 237K people from it's "white-non-latino" category,

The important thing is, were those whites who left replaced with people making a comparable amount of money? Or was every 50K job that was lost replaced by 3 17K jobs and a person on welfare? If thats the case (and it was), MI is headed towards 3rd world country status. Thats what makes a 3rd world country, a huge mass of under earning people. Who cares who is the majority and who's the minority, the important thing is that the majority be the major wage earners. Look at the typical 'ghetto' situation in my city, and in most other cities. Its not that those people don't work, they vast majority of them have jobs. But they're low paying jobs, McD type jobs. So all they can afford is run down housing and 12 year old cars. When the entire country goes in that direction, you get your major cities all looking like Havana. No new infra structure, no tax base, no wealth, just a gradual decay and decline. Oh boy..

Quote: timberjim

Georgia

Good guess, but probably not until next census. The name of the state is a clue.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: pacomartin

"White non-latinos" are now a minority in District of Colombia, Hawaii, California, Texas, and what state?

New Mexico?

Correct answer is New Mexico at only 40%, but Nevada is pretty close at 54%.

Quote: pacomartin

Well, your 11 whitest states in the Union control 22 seats in the Senate, but only have a population of 17 million which is less than New York State. I suspect the last thing Democrats want to do is to create a megamonster urban state.

Ugh, these arguments about "small states being over-represented in the Senate" is getting old. The Senate is *supposed* to give small states an equal say.

Quote: pacomartin

Here are the clues: From 2000 to 2010
A) California lost "white non-latinos" by the largest absolute number in the country
B) Mississippi, Kansas, Rhode Island, Connecticut lost "white non-latinos"
C) Missouri was the only state to gain "white non-latinos" and still lose an electoral vote

Using these three clues, (internet research allowed) can you identify the 15 states that lost "white non-latino" population?

No one seems to want to try this trivia question, although I didn't think it was that hard

#1) California from clue (a)
#2-#5) Mississippi, Kansas, Rhode Island, Connecticut from clue (b)
#6-#14) New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, Louisiana, Iowa, Missouri

so really the trivia question was a matter of guessing a single state.




The headline U.S. Population Shift Accelerates to South, West States, 2010 Census Shows or some variation of it is very commonplace. But they make it sound like the main driver of the demographics of the country is people moving to the south and west. While that is a portion of the explanation, the main driver seems to be that the "white-non latino" portion of the population is not growing and soon to be below replacement level. Growth is primarily dictated by which states are increasing their latino population.

Quote: AZDuffman

Ugh, these arguments about "small states being over-represented in the Senate" is getting old. The Senate is *supposed* to give small states an equal say.

I don't disagree with your statement. Without this arrangement we probably wouldn't have a country. All I was saying is that if the government is ever reshaped, then it is very unlikely that we would create a bigger state or fewer states. What is more likely is that we would break up the mega states and possibly give New York City and Long Island statehood.

There is hardly a country in the world that doesn't have some kind of special status for it's premier city. While New York City is a healthy percentage of the state, it doesn't have it's own senators.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: pacomartin

Michigan lost 237K people from it's "white-non-latino" category,

The important thing is, were those whites who left replaced with people making a comparable amount of money? Or was every 50K job that was lost replaced by 3 17K jobs and a person on welfare? If thats the case (and it was), MI is headed towards 3rd world country status. Thats what makes a 3rd world country, a huge mass of under earning people. Who cares who is the majority and who's the minority, the important thing is that the majority be the major wage earners. Look at the typical 'ghetto' situation in my city, and in most other cities. Its not that those people don't work, they vast majority of them have jobs. But they're low paying jobs, McD type jobs. So all they can afford is run down housing and 12 year old cars. When the entire country goes in that direction, you get your major cities all looking like Havana. No new infra structure, no tax base, no wealth, just a gradual decay and decline. Oh boy..

South Africa is a good example of a country thats upside down as far as majority goes. Whites make up 10% of SA's population, but they earn the vast majority of the money, for whatever reason. This is an extreme example that illustrates who's in the majority and who's in the minority is meaningless, unless its put into context.

Quote: pacomartin

I don't disagree with your statement. Without this arrangement we probably wouldn't have a country. All I was saying is that if the government is ever reshaped, then it is very unlikely that we would create a bigger state or fewer states. What is more likely is that we would break up the mega states and possibly give New York City and Long Island statehood.

There is hardly a country in the world that doesn't have some kind of special status for it's premier city. While New York City is a healthy percentage of the state, it doesn't have it's own senators.

This is as old as time and the reason Maine is a state. But I do not agree NYC needs "special" status. NY will never be broken up. The only time in history a state was broken up it took a Civil War to do so. The only state that could easily break-up is Texas, which could split into 5 total states.

In Jr High there was a section in our social studies book discussing that "by the year 2000 the map of the USA coluld look different" and it had a map of 23 or so "states" none with the current names. (lower 48, I think AK/HI were left alone.)

What would have been interesting is if the USA was able to expand more in the 1800s. Central America would probably have at least one state, might have all become states, then Mexico would have been in an untennable situation. Many people wanted to take over all of Mexico after the Mexican War. In the late 1940s there was a sizable group of Fillipinos who had the position of, "independence? Screw that, we want STATEHOOD!"

Imagine.

Quote: AZDuffman

What would have been interesting is if the USA was able to expand more in the 1800s. Central America would probably have at least one state, might have all become states, then Mexico would have been in an untennable situation. Many people wanted to take over all of Mexico after the Mexican War.

At the time of the war Mexico had a population slightly more than twice the size of the American slave population. Had the USA stayed in Mexico after taking over Mexico City, it isn't totally clear how USA would have regarded the largely Mestizo population.

If Mexico had remained occupied territory for a decade, it is also not clear how it would have affected the outcome of the American civil war.

Year	USA	slaves	free black	black	Mexico	Year
1820	9,638,453	1,538,022	233,634	1,771,656	6,204,000	1820
1830	12,866,020	2,009,043	319,599	2,328,642	6,382,000	1830
1840	17,069,453	2,487,355	386,293	2,873,648	6,744,000	1841
1850	23,191,876	3,204,313	434,495	3,638,808	7,485,200	1850
1860	31,443,321	3,953,760	488,070	4,441,830	8,295,600	1862
1870	39,818,449	0	4,880,009	4,880,009	9,173,100	1870

In the 19th century Mexican population didn't grow like the American population.

Quote: pacomartin

At the time of the war Mexico had a population slightly more than twice the size of the American slave population. Had the USA stayed in Mexico after taking over Mexico City, it isn't totally clear how USA would have regarded the largely Mestizo population.

If Mexico had remained occupied territory for a decade, it is also not clear how it would have affected the outcome of the American civil war.

In the 19th century Mexican population didn't grow like the American population.

My thought is that the Mexican Population would have been somewhat second-class citizens but they would have absorbed into the Anglo population in a generation. One thing the 19th Century US Government understood was "right of first capture." Mexico was (and kind of still is) centered on Mexico City. Just as people poured into TX and CA there would all thru Mexico. The Navy would have put a port near where Cancun is today. By 1900 it would not be recognizable from New Mexico except that schoolchildren would wonder where "old" mexico was. (near "old jersey??")

As to the Civil War it would have made the Yankee Blockade harder but I doubt exports could have been effectively re-routed due to poor internal transporatation.

Internal migration and immigration would have taken over just as in TX I think.

Quote: AZDuffman

My thought is that the Mexican Population would have been somewhat second-class citizens but they would have absorbed into the Anglo population in a generation.

My understanding is that the Northern United States was afraid that the Southern States wanted to expand slave states into captured Mexican territory. Although importing slaves had technically been illegal since 1808, I assume that it still was done. In any case, the population of slaves was expanding by natural growth in Southern United states. Caribbean slaves tended to die off under the more brutal conditions.

Benito Juarez, a dark brown Zapotec who had been illiterate and spoke no Spanish until the age of 12. In a social move that was shocking for the day he became educated and married a white woman.

During the course of the Mexican American war he was elected governor of Oaxaca.


After the war was over he went into exile over disputes with Santa Anna and worked in a factory in New Orleans, until 1855 when Santa Anna resigned. Benito Juarez went back and became the president of Mexico and instituted the Reforma until the European powers seized control of Mexico.

Had the USA remained an occupying power all through the 1850's, it is not clear how history would have proceeded. Although the USA tends to prefer strong autocratic leaders in other countries, General Santa Anna would have been an enemy general.

During the 21 months of the Mexican American war the following men were president of Mexico:
Mariano Paredes
José Mariano Salas
Valentín Gómez Farías
Antonio López de Santa Anna
Pedro María de Anaya
Antonio López de Santa Anna
Manuel de la Peña y Peña
Pedro María de Anaya
Manuel de la Peña y Peña

Here is the final table of population change in "percentage change per year" for the last ten years. It's not an official census table, since I had to dig out the data for "white non-latinos" myself. I think it is correct.

Michigan had above 400K people (net) migrate out of the state which meant they had a population decline. West Virginia is the only state to decline by deaths higher than births, but domestic immigration keeps them growing.

Possibly 10-15 states could be static or shrinking by next census, representing a new economy.

D.C. had a whopping 50K white people move into the district either because of radically improved housing, or a combination of attitudes with the new presidential administration. Utah and Idaho are the states with the largest growth in European white population.

Texas had the largest all growth in absolute numbers, while California was second.

People who voluntarily put themselves in a non-standard racial category (such as "other") are more likely to live in the West.

State	Pop per year	European White people
Michigan	-0.06%	-0.15%
Rhode Island	0.04%	-0.33%
Louisiana	0.14%	-0.11%
Ohio	0.16%	-0.09%
New York	0.21%	-0.20%
West Virginia	0.24%	0.05%
Vermont	0.27%	0.04%
Massachussets	0.31%	-0.21%
Illinois	0.33%	-0.15%
Pennsylvania	0.34%	-0.11%
Iowa	0.40%	-0.02%
Maine	0.41%	0.10%
Mississippi	0.42%	-0.02%
New Jersey	0.44%	-0.32%
North Dakota	0.46%	0.07%
Connecticut	0.48%	-0.18%
D.C.	0.51%	1.38%
Wisconsin	0.59%	0.06%
Kansas	0.60%	-0.01%
New Hampshire	0.63%	0.17%
Indiana	0.64%	0.06%
Nebraska	0.65%	0.02%
Missouri	0.68%	0.17%
Kentucky	0.71%	0.19%
Alabama	0.72%	0.12%
Minnesota	0.76%	0.08%
South Dakota	0.76%	0.18%
Oklahoma	0.84%	0.04%
Maryland	0.87%	-0.20%
Arkansas	0.87%	0.17%
Montana	0.93%	0.36%
California	0.96%	-0.28%
Tenn	1.10%	0.32%
Oregon	1.14%	0.25%
Hawaii	1.16%	0.55%
Virginia	1.23%	0.22%
New Mexico	1.25%	0.12%
Alaska	1.26%	0.36%
Washington	1.33%	0.24%
Wyoming	1.33%	0.49%
Delaware	1.37%	0.16%
South Carolina	1.43%	0.55%
Colorado	1.58%	0.47%
Florida	1.64%	0.20%
Georgia	1.70%	0.27%
North Carolina	1.71%	0.49%
Texas	1.89%	0.21%
Idaho	1.94%	0.72%
Utah	2.16%	0.77%
Arizona	2.22%	0.61%
Nevada	3.06%	0.58%

Quote: pacomartin

People who voluntarily put themselves in a non-standard racial category (such as "other") are more likely to live in the West.

Why is that? As I've said, I owned a bar in Santa Barbara in the late 70's, early 80's. I saw a huge amount of blatant racism, from whites, from blacks and Latinos. The Mexican's hated the blacks, 2nd and 3rd generation Mexicans hated the illegals, the blacks hated everybody. These were mostly street people, who lived with each other on a daily basis and didn't have to put up any pretenses. We had older black and Mexican business owners too, and they were very nice to each other. But get them alone and after a few drinks, their prejudice would come out. I don't understand why people in the West check 'other' more than anywhere else, the people I knew were really proud of who they were.

Quote: EvenBob

Why is that? As I've said, I owned a bar in Santa Barbara in the late 70's, early 80's. I don't understand why people in the West check 'other' more than anywhere else, the people I knew were really proud of who they were.

There are enough categories in the census that people should be able to pick one. Arabs and Iranians are recommended to check white.

Louisiana where traditional racial descriptions are readily accepted :
1% "two or more races"
1% "one race -other"

New York has
1.8% "two or more races"
8.3% "one race -other"

California has
3.5% "two or more races"
15.5% "one race -other"


Checking "one race-other" is a social statement more than anything. People don't want to be pigeon-holed even though they are just a statistic. Some people believe society should be "post racial". Others think the government should stop worrying about race. Some others believe that racial data is used for a "new prejudice" as the government tries to correct historical injustice.

The biological haplogroups of Californians cannot possibly be that much more complex than that of New Yorkers. It is essentially a social statement about how people feel about race. More Californians simply feel that it is not the business of government.

Quote: pacomartin

People don't want to be pigeon-holed even though they are just a statistic. .

Not the people I knew.

Quote: EvenBob

Not the people I knew.

I meant the people who choose "one race-other".

The electoral college changes since 2010 applied retroactively to the 2008 election show Obama would have lost 8 and gained 2 for a net change of -6 electoral votes. Relatively small change that would have had no impact on the election.

The states that lost "non-Latino white" population actually hurts the Democrats since it takes away electoral votes from states that traditionally go Democrat.

State	"non-Latino white"
Rhode Island	-0.33%
New Jersey	-0.32%
California	-0.28%
Massachussets	-0.21%
Maryland	-0.20%
New York	-0.20%
Connecticut	-0.18%
Illinois	-0.15%
Michigan	-0.15%
Pennsylvania	-0.11%
Louisiana	-0.11% Rep
Ohio	-0.09%
Iowa	-0.02%
Mississippi	-0.02% Rep
Kansas	-0.01% Rep

I took another look at the data for change in population, dividing the country up strictly regional groups (rather than by electoral vote shift).

Dividing the states of the USA into four standard groups, latinos were the dominant increase in every single one of the four groups. In two of them, "white non-latinos" werevdecreasing.

Dividng the states of the USA into nine standard geographic groups, Latinos were the dominant increase in 7 out of 9. In the remaining two the "other" category was the highest increase ("other" consists of African American, Asian, two or more races, "other" for racial category, etc).

Region	Sub-Region	States	White non-Latino ,000	Other ,000	Latino ,000
East		9	-1,319	1,304	1,738
Midwest		12	-289	1,287	1,537
South		17	2,636	4,644	6,448
West		13	1,095	2,397	5,256
East	Northeast	6	-292	390	425
East	Mid Atlantic	3	-1,027	915	1,313
Midwest	EN Central	5	-548	749	1,066
Midwest	WN Central	7	259	538	471
South	S Atlantic	9	1,634	2,854	2,930
South	ES Central	4	505	513	391
South	WS Central	4	497	1,277	3,128
West	Pacific	5	-424	1,696	3,583
West	Mountain	8	1,519	701	1,673
USA	plus D.C.	51	2,123	9,632	14,979

.....

Quote: EvenBob

Why is that? As I've said, I owned a bar in Santa Barbara in the late 70's, early 80's. I saw a huge amount of blatant racism, from whites, from blacks and Latinos. The Mexican's hated the blacks, 2nd and 3rd generation Mexicans hated the illegals, the blacks hated everybody. These were mostly street people, who lived with each other on a daily basis and didn't have to put up any pretenses. We had older black and Mexican business owners too, and they were very nice to each other. But get them alone and after a few drinks, their prejudice would come out. I don't understand why people in the West check 'other' more than anywhere else, the people I knew were really proud of who they were.

My thinking is that even today if you live in the west you are less likely to like "the governmnet back east" telling you what to do. Growing numbers of people are startimng to resent the "race" box because if race should not matter why do we keep asking about it? The west gets more of these people by either birth or migration. When I moved west most people I met had also moved from back east (for some reason the people who had relocated gravitated towards each other even before they knew each other were transplants) and all who moved did so because they wanted adventure or better economic opportunities. Such people have less time for government types getting into their business. This is all just IMHO of course.

Quote: AZDuffman

My thinking is that even today if you live in the west you are less likely to like "the government back east" telling you what to do. Growing numbers of people are starting to resent the "race" box because if race should not matter why do we keep asking about it?

Exactly! While there may be just as many people who would describe themselves using one of the standard racial categories in New York as California, there are more people in California who object to the government asking the question. So you end up with almost 6 million in the "other" category.

I also think that there are people who used to classify themselves as "white" that believe that their community is better of when it comes to government largesse if there are more minorities. While the census uses a "self describing" criteria for race, they could check anything. However, that makes people uncomfortable as well, so they simply check "other race".

CALIFORNIA 2009
White 22,258,042

Black or African American 2,249,404

American Indian and Alaska Native 283,031
Cherokee tribal grouping 25,997
Chippewa tribal grouping 3,524
Navajo tribal grouping 8,976
Sioux tribal grouping 5,280

Asian 4,473,292
Asian Indian 464,761
Chinese 1,162,242
Filipino 1,126,245
Japanese 288,720
Korean 410,566
Vietnamese 535,233
Other Asian 485,525

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 132,535
Native Hawaiian 24,791
Guamanian or Chamorro 24,457
Samoan 33,610
Other Pacific Islander 49,677

Some other race 5,639,234

Two or more races 1,272,989
White and Black or African American 150,904
White and American Indian and Alaska Native 215,069
White and Asian 309,316
Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native 34,111