Multiracial Families

Abstract

This article considers the history and the contemporary context of multiracial families in the United States. It begins by summarizing the history of interracial unions under colonialism and slavery. It then covers the laws and court cases that prevented and ultimately allowed interracial marriage. Like any other families, multiracial families are formed by adoption as well as by marriage and childbearing, and a historical discussion of interracial adoption is presented. Demographic statistics on interracial families, marriages, and adoptions are included. The article also covers contemporary challenges surrounding interracial adoption, marriage, and childbearing.

Keywords Adoption; Civil Rights Movement; Lynching; Marginalization; Mestizo; Passing; Race

Race & Ethnicity > Multiracial Families

Overview

Multiracial families have been a part of American society since Europeans began to colonize North America. At first, multiracial families were formed by American Indian women who bore children to white male colonists. Unlike in many colonies in South America, such interracial unions and the children who resulted were not looked upon favorably, and eventually more white women came to the colonies to marry male settlers. Later on, when the transatlantic trade in African slaves began to supply the colonies with substantial numbers of black people, white male colonists began impregnating enslaved black women. There was no penalty for raping a slave at any point during slavery, and even after slavery was abolished white men were unlikely to be punished for raping black women. In fact, since the children of women who were enslaved were born into slavery, impregnating a black slave, whether by rape or consensual sex, could produce a valuable financial gain for a white male slave owner. Because both before and after slavery few white families acknowledged their relation to the biracial children resulting from these unions, the children became members of black families. Throughout the postslavery period and up until the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, black men were threatened with lynching if whites so much as suspected that they had been romantically or sexually involved with white women. However, some white women did bear black men's children, often placing these children with black families for adoption unless the child was light skinned enough to pass as white.

Multiracial families were formed by American Indians as well. Many American Indians in the South intermarried with blacks during the period of slavery. In some cases, the blacks were free; in others, they had run away from white slave owners or had themselves been the slaves of American Indians. The racial status of families formed in this way depended on which parent was black and which was American Indian. In many American Indian tribes, tribal identity and personal property passed through the mother's lineage, so the offspring of American Indian fathers and black mothers often had dubious tribal status and were subsequently dropped from the tribal roles (Miles, 2005).

Though interracial childbearing was not at all uncommon throughout the early history of the United States, multiracial families were considered improper by the general American public. There were a number of reasons for this opposition to interracial marriage and childbearing. Some people believed that mixing the races was immoral, drawing on religious ideas about the divine separation of the races (McKee Evans, 1980). Others believed that racial mixing would dilute the genetic strength of the different races. Regardless, the opposition to interracial unions led to the adoption of laws against miscegenation across the United States (Sealing, 2000). In 1929, thirty US states had some legal prohibition against miscegenation, while four other states had previously repealed such laws. Some of these states allowed individuals with less than one-half black ancestry to marry whites; others required less than one-eighth black ancestry or forbade anyone with any trace of black ancestry to marry a white person. Eighteen of these states also forbade marriages between whites and Asians or Native Americans (Plecker, 1929). Even where interracial marriages were not explicitly forbidden, legal structures made them less likely. For instance, the 1922 Cable Act, a federal law, stripped women of their citizenship if they married individuals who were not eligible for citizenship, as Asian immigrants then were not (the Cable Act was repealed in 1936). While some states abolished their antimiscegenation laws during the civil rights movement, such laws were declared unconstitutional only in 1967 with the United States Supreme Court decision on Loving v. Virginia.

This court decision paved the way for an increase in interracial marriages, but the continuing legacies of discrimination and segregation meant that white Americans and black Americans remained unlikely to wed one another. It was another factor that played the largest role in the expansion of interracial marriages in the mid-century United States: war brides. War brides were women who married United States soldiers stationed in their countries. Marriages between servicemen and women from the countries in which they were stationed were not necessarily interracial—thousands of British, French, and Australian women became war brides. However, women from the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, and American servicemen who served in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War became the first sizable and visible population of interracially married individuals in the United States. In fact, a special law was passed in 1945 to facilitate immigration by these women. By 1980, there were approximately 45,000 women of Asian descent living in the United States who had come to the country as war brides (Saenz, Hwang, & Aguirre, 1994).

While, historically, multiracial families were most often created through interracial marriage and childbearing, starting in the mid-twentieth century the number of multiracial families created by adoption across racial lines began to increase. Though a few families adopted interracially on an informal basis in earlier years, often because of unwanted interracial childbearing by a relative, large numbers of interracial adoptions did not start to take place until World War II. After the war, white families in the United States began to adopt children from Asian countries. Many of these children had been orphaned or otherwise displaced by the violence in their countries of origin; others were fathered by American servicemen and faced exclusion in racially homogeneous communities. Internationally, the majority of interracially adopted children—51 percent in 2009–11 (Kreider & Lofquist, 2014)—continue to come from Asia. In 1990, the single country sending the most children to the United States for adoption was South Korea, and in 2000 it was China. China also held the top spot between 2009 and 2014, while South Korea was fourth (Bureau of Consular Affairs, US Department of State, n.d.). While domestic interracial adoptions have been less common than international ones, this process, too, has been formalized since the 1950s. The primary motivation for the establishment of domestic interracial adoption has been a move away from orphanages as the primary site for housing abandoned or orphaned children. The 2009–11 American Community Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau found that 28 percent of all adopted children under age eighteen were adopted into households in which the adoptive parent or parents were of a different race, culture, or ethnicity than their child (Kreider & Lofquist, 2014).

Applications

A Profile of Multiracial Families

The 2000 Census documented over 54 million married couple households in the United States. Of those, 3.6 million, or 6.7% could be considered multiracial marriages. Of these, 1.1 million were marriages involving at least one person who is a member of two or more races, leaving 2.5 million marriages involving two individuals of different single racial identities. The 2010 Census showed that the number of opposite-sex interracial or interethnic married couple households increased by 28 percent between 2000 and 2010 from about 7 percent to about 10 percent (US Census Bureau, 2012). The 2010 Census also found that 18 percent of unmarried opposite-sex couples and 21 percent of unmarried same-sex couples were in interracial or interethnic. Among the racial and ethnic groups about which the Census collects data, there are very different rates of intermarriage. American Indians are the most likely to marry members of other races, while white Americans are the least likely. Intermarriage rates also vary significantly by gender in certain racial and ethnic groups.

Among whites, people of Hispanic origin, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians, men and women are almost equally likely to marry outside their race. There are 3.2 percent of white women who are married have a partner who is not white, while 3.7 percent of white men do. There are 17.7 percent of people of Hispanic origin who are married have a partner who is not Hispanic, while 15.3 percent of men of Hispanic origin have a female partner who is not Hispanic. Among Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, 45 percent of both men and women who are married have partners who are not of the same racial background. Finally, 56.8 percent of American Indian women and 54.9 percent of American Indian men have partners who are not American Indian. In contrast, among Asian Americans and African Americans, the likelihood of marrying someone of a different race varies by gender. Asian American women are much more likely to be married to non-Asian Americans than are Asian American men: 22 percent of all married Asian American women have non-Asian American husbands, while 9.4 percent of married Asian American men have non-Asian American wives. This split was also seen in a study conducted by the Pew Research Center on Census data collected in 2010, with 36 percent of Asian American women marrying someone of another race compared to 17 percent of Asian American men (Wang, 2012). The trend goes in the opposite direction for African Americans. While 3.9 percent of married black women have nonblack husbands, 9.3 percent of married black men have nonblack wives. The 2010 Pew Research Center study showed this gender pattern as well, with 24 percent of all black men marrying outside their race, compared to 9 percent of all black women (Wang, 2012).

In the year 2000, 17.1 percent of children who were adopted lived in families where they were of a different race than the head of the household, a total of over 270,000 children. An additional 6.6 percent of adopted children lived in families where either they were of Hispanic origin and the head of the household was not, or vice versa. In addition, 10.8 percent of stepchildren lived in families where the head of household was of a different race than they were, a total of over 350,000 children—a number increased by the fact that second and subsequent marriages are more likely to involve spouses of different races than are first marriages. In total, 9.8 percent of all families with children were multiracial, and 4.8 percent of such families included both members who were of Hispanic origin and members who were not (Kreider, 2003).

Between 2009 and 2011, 28 percent of adopted children were adopted into homes in which one or both parents were of a different race (Kreider & Lofquist, 2014).

Viewpoints

Cross-Race Adoption

Adoption across racial lines has long been a source of controversy in the United States. The most famous statement to this effect was made by the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) in 1972:

While the NABSW eventually backed away from this statement due to the large number of black children who were growing up without families, interracial adoptions have remained controversial. Some analysts assert that adopted African American, Asian American, Hispanic origin, and American Indian children would be best served by growing up within families that can prepare them for their lives as people of color in US society. However, there are not enough homes of color available to place all children of color. The argument, therefore, becomes whether children are better off growing up in orphanages or foster care or whether they are better off being placed in racially different adoptive families (Park & Evans, 2000).

While there are some similarities between the situations of interracially adopted children and those who are multiracial but raised by single-race birth parents, at least multiracial children have access to a parent who shares some of their lived experiences. Yet scholars of adoption have provided evidence to show that interracially adopted children can and do grow up to be well-adjusted adults. Developing parenting skills and living in a diverse neighborhood can go far in limiting the identity crises that some interracially adopted children experience, and at least such children are able to benefit from a stable home (Rothman, 2006).

Controversies around Intermarriage and Interracial Childbearing

Despite the fact that interracial marriages have been legal since 1967 in the United States and the incidence of interracial marriage and cohabitation is on the rise, they remain controversial in some communities. Public opinion has become more supportive of interracial marriage: while in 1986, only 70 percent of American adults approved of interracial marriage, by 2003, 83 percent did (Wellner, 2005). However, that still left 17 percent of Americans who were willing to tell an interviewer that they are opposed to interracial marriage. In 2013, the polling agency Gallup found that 87 percent of Americans surveyed approved of interracial marriage between black and white partners, with 11 percent disapproving (Newport, 2013). The Pew Research Center noticed that in 2010 the percentage of people who approved of intermarriage by someone in their own family was 63 percent—a considerable increase from 1986, when only 33 percent thought that intermarriage was acceptable for everyone, including themselves and family members (Wang, 2012). While young people are more favorably inclined toward interracial relationships, they are probably more likely to date interracially than to consider marrying someone of another race. In 2002, Yancey reported that just over one-third of white adolescents have dated interracially, while in 2011, Poulin and Rutter reported that almost 90 percent of millenials—those born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s—approve of interracial dating and that about half of all Americans have dated someone from a different racial or ethnic group (Yancey, 2002; Poulin & Rutter, 2011).

Many of the people who oppose interracial marriage and childbearing do so simply because they continue to believe that multiracial families are bad for society and for individuals. However, there are more specific critiques of interracial marriage and childbearing. Many Americans believe that interracial marriages are less likely to last than marriages between two people with the same racial background. They argue that cultural differences and social disapproval will get in the way of marital happiness regardless of how much the partners in the marriage love one another. Though interracially married couples do have to contend with significant disapproval from the wider society as well as from their own social networks, there is no evidence that such marriages suffer from more interpersonal problems than marriages between individuals of the same race (Childs, 2005; Troy, Lewis-Smith, & Laurenceau, 2006). Rather, if interracial marriages dissolve because of social disapproval, it is likely to be because of a self-fulfilling prophecy created by the close friends and relatives of the couple in question. Individuals who are opposed to such marriages may repeatedly tell couples of their opposition, and this repetitive disapproval may lead to the cutting off of social ties or the end of the marital relationship.

Other Americans may not state disapproval of interracial relationships per se, but still disapprove of interracial childbearing. They believe that such children will grow up confused about their racial identities, be unable to find a place to fit in, and be subject to ridicule from other children. They argue, therefore, that it is irresponsible for parents to put their children in such uncomfortable situations. Supporters of interracial childbearing argue instead that most children experience some sort of identity confusion and go through teasing when they are young. While it is true that multiracial children may experience some additional burdens, such as dual marginalization from both of their parents' racial communities or pressure from peers and family to choose to conform to a single racial identity, multiracial adolescents are no less mentally healthy or socially adjusted than adolescents as a whole (Campbell & Eggerling-Boeck, 2006). There is an exception to this data: adolescents of mixed white and American Indian parentage are more likely to experience negative outcomes. However, opposition to interracial marriage and childbearing has always been lower for this particular pairing, even during the time of anti-miscegenation laws. black-white unions, which have historically garnered the most opposition, result in children just as well adjusted as the children of two white or two black parents.

Terms and Concepts

Adoption: The situation in which a child is permanently placed with one or more parents who did not give birth to him or her. In an adoption, a legal proceeding occurs that creates a legal parent-child relationship equal to that between birth or biological children and parents.

Civil Rights Movement: A social movement with the goal of gaining legal, social, and political equality for African Americans in the United States. The civil rights movement lasted roughly from 1955 to 1968; many marches, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience were part of this push towards desegregation and political rights.

Intermarriage: Also known as exogamy, refers to marriage between two people from different racial, ethnic, or religious groups.

Lynching: A method of executing a presumed criminal or deviant by a mob without a trial or any other process of determining justice. Lynchings are generally motivated by hatred and racial prejudice; an actual crime need not have occurred.

Marginalization: The process of being excluded from larger society. Marginalization generally occurs to groups who are outside the mainstream of society.

Mestizo: A person of mixed European and American Indian ancestry. Some people use mestizo to refer to individuals with a mixture of European, American Indian, and African ancestry.

Miscegenation: Literally, the genetic mixture of different races in childbearing. Figuratively, it means interracial marriage, cohabitation, sexual relations, and childbearing.

Passing: The practice of pretending to be and being accepted as a member of a racial group other than one's own.

Race: A system of stratification based on real or imagined physical differences between groups that are believed to be essential and permanent.

Bibliography

Afful, S. E., Wohlford, C., & Stoelting, S. M. (2015). Beyond 'difference': Examining the process and flexibility of racial identity in interracial marriages. Journal of Social Issues, 71(4), 659–674. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=111480561&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Bureau of Consular Affairs, US Department of State (n.d.). Intercountry adoption: Statistics. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from http://adoption.state.gov/about%5Fus/statistics.php

Campbell, M. E., & Eggerling-Boeck, J. (2006). "What about the children?" The psychological and social well-being of multiracial adolescents. Sociological Quarterly, 47, 147–173. Retrieved August 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19438871&site=ehost-live

Childs, E. C. (2005). Navigating interracial borders: Black-White couples and their social worlds. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Csizmadia, A. (2011). Teaching and learning guide for: The role of racial identification, social acceptance/rejection, social cognition, and racial socialization in multiracial youth's positive development. Sociology Compass, 5, 1082–1087. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67611932

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. (2002). International adoption facts. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from: http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/international.html

Kreider, R. M. (2003). Adopted children and stepchildren: 2000. (No. CENSR-6RV). Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.

Kreider, R. M., & Lofquist, D. A. (2014, April). Adopted children and stepchildren: 2010. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau. Retrieved January 6, 2015, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-572.pdf

Langrehr, K. J. (2014). Transracially adoptive parents' color-blind attitudes and views toward socialization: Cross-racial friendships as a moderator. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 601–610. Retrieved January 6, 2015 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=99031198&site=ehost-live&scope=site

McCubbin, H. I., McCubbin, L. D., Samuels, G., Zhang, W., & Sievers, J. (2013). Multiethnic children, youth, and families: Emerging challenges to the behavioral sciences and public policy. Family Relations, 62, 1–4. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85029689

McKee Evans, W. (1980). From the land of Canaan to the land of Guinea: The strange odyssey of the sons of Ham. American Historical Review, 85, 15–43.

Miles, Tiya. (2005). Ties that bind: The story of an Afro-Cherokee family in slavery and freedom. Berkeley: University of California Press.

National Association of Black Social Workers. (1972). Position paper: Transracial adoption.

Newport, F. (2013, July 25). In U.S., 87% approve of black-white marriage, vs. 4% in 1958. Retrieved January 6, 2015, from Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

Park, S. M., & Green, C. E. (2000). Is transracial adoption in the best interests of ethnic minority children? Questions concerning legal and scientific interpretations of a child's best interests. Adoption Quarterly, 3, 5–34.

Perry, S. L. (2013). Racial composition of social settings, interracial friendship, and whites’ attitudes toward interracial marriage. Social Science Journal, 50, 13–22. Retrieved January 6, 2015 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85586508&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Plecker, W. A. (1929). Amount of Negro and other colored blood illegal in various states for marriage to Whites. Eugenics Archive, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/images/1442.html

Poulin, C., & Rutter, V. (2011, March 29). How colorblind is love? Interracial dating facts and puzzles. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from https://contemporaryfamilies.org/how-colorblind-is-love

Rothman, B. K. (2006). Weaving a family: Untangling race and adoption. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Saenz, R., Hwang, S., & Aguirre, B. E. (1994). In search of Asian war brides. Demography, 31, 549–559.

Schlabach, S. (2013). The importance of family, race, and gender for multiracial adolescent well-being. Family Relations, 62, 154–174. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85029671

Sealing, K. E. (2000). Blood will tell: Scientific racism and the legal prohibitions against miscegenation. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 5, 559–609.

Troy, A. B., Lewis-Smith, J., & Laurenceau, J. (2006). Interracial and intraracial romantic relationships: The search for differences in satisfaction, conflict, and attachment style. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 65–80.

US Census Bureau. (2003). Hispanic origin and race of coupled households: 2000 (PHC-T-19). Retrieved August 14, 2008 from: http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t19/index.html

US Census Bureau (2012). 2010 Census shows interracial and interethnic married couples grew by 28 percent over decade. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010%5Fcensus/cb12-68.html

Vandivere, S., Malm, K., & Radel, L. (2009). Adoption USA: A Chartbook Based on the 2007 National Survey of Adoptive Parents. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

Yancey, G. (2002). Who interracially dates: An examination of the characteristics of those who have interracially dated. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 179–190. Retrieved August 28, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6277523&site=ehost-live

Wang, W. (2012). The rise of intermarriage: Rates, characteristics vary by race and gender. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/

Wellner, A. S. (2005). U.S. attitudes towards interracial dating are liberalizing. Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from : http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/USAttitudesTowardInterracialDatingAreLi iberalizing.aspx

Suggested Reading

Bell, G. C., & Hastings, S. O. (2015). Exploring parental approval and disapproval for black and white interracial couples. Journal of Social Issues, 71(4), 755–771. Retrieved from EBSCO online database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=111480556&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Jacobs, J. A., & Labov, G. T. (2002). Gender differentials in intermarriage among sixteen race and ethnic groups. Sociological Forum, 17, 621–646. Retrieved August 14, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocIndex with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11302574&site=ehost-live

Nadal, K. L., Sriken, J., Davidoff, K. C., Wong, Y., & McLean, K. (2013). Microaggressions within families: Experiences of multiracial people. Family Relations, 62, 190–201. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85029684

Osuji, C. (2014). Divergence or convergence in the U.S. and Brazil: Understanding race relations through white family reactions to black-white interracial couples. Qualitative Sociology, 37, 93–115. Retrieved January 6, 2015 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=94724166&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Register, C. (1991). Are those kids yours? American families with children adopted from other countries. New York: Free Press.

Rockquemore, K. A., & Brunsma, D. K. (2002). Beyond black: Biracial identity in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tessler, R., Gamache, G., & Lui, L. (1999) .West meets East: Americans adopt Chinese children. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Trask, B. (2013). Locating multiethnic families in a globalizing world. Family Relations, 62, 17–29. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85029682

Yuh, J. (2004). Beyond the shadow of Camptown: Korean military brides in America. New York: New York University Press.