504 Ethnic Minorities
continuum, these expressions of identity were discussed in
terms of historical feasibility, generational shifts, social func-
tionality, the increasing visibility of a mixed race population
aware of one another, and individual differences (Root,
1990).
Whereas the work on mixed race identity remained largely
obscure, by the 1990 census, it was clear that the demo-
graphic change that many of us had been observing and pre-
dicting was well underway. Interracial relationships had
significantly increased since the Supreme Court repeal of the
last antimiscegenation laws in 1967 (Root, 2001). In 1990,
more than six million people checked “other” as a race cate-
gory and many persons wrote in multiple races. Grassroots
organizations had been talking with census policymakers
since the late 1980s about the increasing need to reexamine
racial accounting by the census.
It was clear by 1990 that the political charge attached to
race and the conventional meanings attached to mixed race
identity proclamations were going to continue. Hypodescent
rules would be used to reinforce race as a caste system. The
passing narrative would be used to explain a person’s motives
who declared more than a single racial identity.
While on a visiting professorship at the University of
Hawaii, I pondered the likelihood that mixed race identities
would be misunderstood and subsequently pathologized or
misattributed. It was clear that contemporary theory needed
to be developed and dissertation data needed to be accessible
to the next generation of researchers since it was inevitable
that mixed race people would become the subject of study.
This research could either be used to move along a dialogue
on race or to serve as a political tool to keep persons of mixed
heritage largely invisible. It would depend on who did the
research. I edited a book, Racially Mixed People in America,
published in 1992 that made available many of the disserta-
tions of the 1980s. It laid the foundation for the contemporary
research on people of mixed heritage cross-disciplinarily.
This book would be used by the Bureau of the Census as part
of consultation and deliberation for the changes to racial
classification in the 2000 Census.
Hand in hand with the slow proliferation of research about
mixed race persons, the grassroots multiracial family groups
were swelling in numbers across the country. Using the the-
ory of social movements, and the data from interviews and
social interaction, I developed the Bill of Rights for Racially
Mixed Peoplein 1992 (Root, 1996a). It was couched in
simple language and has since become the property of many
organizations and individuals to depathologize their identity
declarations in this country. Twelve affirmative statements
are organized into three sections representing resistance,
revolution, and change. It further normalizes subverting
implicit rules to “stick with your own kind”; these rules do
not always work very well for racially mixed people. Seeking
refuge in a home community does not guarantee a warm
reception.
In 1996, I published a second edited volume that reflected
the increased politicization around mixed race identities, The
Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier
(Root, 1996b). This volume included new research, analysis
of policy based on current racial classification systems,
documented grassroots mobilization as part of the place of
refuge and voice for many adult persons of mixed heritage
and interracial families, and posed many questions as the
nation struggled to recognize a growing segment of the pop-
ulation that was not adhering to conventional racial rules. My
penchant for theory development from data and participant
observation resulted in Ecological Framework for Identity
Development(Root, 1999).
The U.S. Bureau of the Census released its 2000 popula-
tion figures on race in March of 2001. Approximately 2.4%
of the nation opted to declare more than one race. This trans-
lated into 6.8 million people. Examining state by state data,
persons declaring mixed heritages are not evenly distributed
within the United States. In Hawaii, 21.4% of the population
identified themselves by more than one race. Among other
states exceeding the national average were Alaska (5.4%),
Arizona (2.9%), California (4.7%), Colorado (2.8%), Nevada
(3.8%), New Jersey (2.5%), New Mexico (3.6%), New York
(3.1%), Oklahoma (4.5%), Oregon (3.1%), Rhode Island
(2.7%), Texas (2.5%), and Washington (3.6%).
Perhaps more telling are recent birth rate figures, with
some counties in the mainland United States contending 15%
or more of babies born in 1999 and 2000 to be of mixed
heritage. It still remains to be seen if there are differences in
the proportions of people of different racial combinations
declaring more than one race.
These declarations on the census are demographic trends
rather than actual reflections of how people live their lives.
For some people, being able to declare more than one race
is politically and personally important. For other people, it is
symbolic, with no real personal significance attached (Root,
1998).
As a nation, we need to contend with a newer dialogue on
race—one that acknowledges race mixing and mixed race in
contemporary context. In her novel, Caucasia,Senna (1998)
offers a generational framework through the voice of an
African American professor who studies race. He talks to his
estranged biracial daughter describing mulattos as the ca-
naries in the coal mine, the “gauge of how poisonous Ameri-
can race relations were. The fate of the mulatto in history and
in literature, he said, will manifest the symptoms that will