According to the 1990 census the American Indian (including Alaskan natives) population totaled almost 1,960,000 persons, and we recall that the Pacific Islander population included about 365,000 persons of which 211,014 persons were of Hawaiian race. Thus, the Hawaiian population is only about one-tenth the size of the American Indian population, and we expect that combining them will barely change the characteristics of the latter. Neverthe- less, in some few aspects, the American Indian population does differ from a combined American Indian/Hawaiian population. (Table 2)
Age. - Although Hawaiians have proportionally less persons under age 5 years (9.8 percent) than American Indians (10.3), the American Indian population has a slightly higher proportion of persons age 65 years and over, 5.8 percent, compared to 4.8 percent for Hawaiians.
Thus, adding Hawaiians to the much larger American Indian population does not alter the proportional broad-age-group distribution of the original American Indian population. (Table 2)
Sex comparison. The Hawaiian population in 1990 had almost equal number of males and females, with the sex ratio indicating 100.6 males per every 100.0 females. But the American Indian population had more females than males - generating a sex ratio of 97.5 males per 100.0 females.
Since there are so many more American Indians than Hawaiians in the U.S., combining Hawaiians and American Indians to form a composite American Indian/Hawaiian population will not affect appreciably the original sex ratio of the American Indian popula- tion. (Table 2)
Type of family. - In 1990, there were about 43,590 Hawaiian families in the nation compared to about 10 times that many American Indian families. But there were some differences between these two population groups regarding family types: for instance, the proportion of Hawaiian married-couple families was higher at 71.2-percent than that of American Indian families, 64.2-percent. Furthermore, the proportion of American Indian families with a female householder and no spouse present was 27.3-percent compared to 21.3-percent of Hawaiian families; and the percent of American Indian families with male householder without a spouse was, at 8.5-percent, also higher than for Hawaiian families: 7.5-percent.
But regardless of these proportional differences in family types between Hawaiians and American Indians, the vast size of the latter population relative to the former will not cause a the combined American Indian/Hawaiian population to have a different family-type distribution from that of the original American Indian population. (Table 2)
Nativity. The Hawaiian and American Indian populations in 1990 show only small proportions of foreign-born persons among their populations: Only 2,591 Hawaiians (1.3- percent) reported being foreign born, as did 46,919 of American Indians, 2.3-percent.
Since the Hawaiian foreign born represent only about one- twentieth the number of the American Indian foreign born, adding them to the latter to generate the American Indian/Hawaiian foreign born does not change either the proportion or the character of the reported foreign born contingent of the original American Indian population. (Table 2)
Language ability. Almost one-fourth of all American Indian persons 5-years old and over, about 433,000 persons, speak a language other than English in the home compared to about 18,601, or 10-percent, of Hawaiians. But only a small proportion of American Indians (0.4 percent) report speaking an Asian or Pacific Islander language in the home contrasted to almost 8 percent of Hawaiians. For both these subgroups who speak an Asian or Pacific Islander language, 44-percent of American Indian persons report not speaking English "very well" compared to 27 percent of Hawaiians. Also, 25-percent of the American Indians who report speaking an Asian or Pacific Islander language at home live in linguistically isolated households compared to 8.1 percent of Hawaiians.
Since only 10-percent of Hawaiians 5 years old and over reported speaking a language other than English at home compared to almost one-fourth of American Indian and Alaska Native persons, the proportional differences of persons who speak a language other than English at home are not significant between a combined American Indian/Hawaiian population (22.5-percent) and the American Indian population (23.8-percent). Table 2.
Educational attainment. - The 1990 census showed that the educational attainment level of the Hawaiian population age 25 years and over was generally higher than for the American Indian population: About 80-percent of Hawaiians had attained at least a High school diploma compared to 66-percent of American Indian persons; furthermore, 11.9-percent of Hawaiians had achieved a Bachelor's or higher degree compared to 9.3- percent of American Indians. These same relationships were evident by sex: both males and females 25 years old and over in the Hawaiian population had reached higher educational attainment levels than their counterparts in the American Indian population.
The impact of these differences in educational attainment persist when we merge Hawaiians and American Indians to form the American Indian/Hawaiian population, and we note that the educational attainment level categories of this augmented population continues to differ significantly from those of the American Indian population taken alone. (Table 2)
Labor force status. A substantially higher proportion of Hawaiians age 16 years and over were in the civilian labor force than were American Indians of the same age group. Furthermore, the unemployment rate in 1990 of Hawaiian persons, at 6.3 percent, was much lower than that of American Indians, 14.4 percent. These differences in labor force characteristics between Hawaiians and American Indians were also evident by sex: Hawaiian males, as well as Hawaiian females, both had higher proportions in the civilian labor force and lower unemployment rates than their counterparts in the American Indian population.
Of the very few socio-economic differences we have detected so far between the combined American Indian\Hawaiian population and the American Indian population, we must add another important one: the unemployment rate. Such a large gap exists between the Hawaiian and the American Indian populations in their levels of unemployment, that the combined American Indian/Hawaiian popula- tion actually begets a lower unemployment rate (13.5-percent) than that of the American Indian population (14.4-percent). Furthermore, this same discrepancy in unemployment levels also occurs between the males as well as between the females of these populations. (Table 2)
Table H. Unemployment Rates by Sex of the American Indian/Hawaiian, The American Indian, and the Hawaiian Populations: 1990
|Combined American Indian and Hawaiian
|Persons 16 yrs. and over in the civilian labor force
Occupation. - Marked differences were evident in the occupation distribution of Hawaiians and American Indians. For example, 20.2-percent of employed Hawaiians were working in managerial and professional occupations, compared to 18.3-percent of American Indians, and 32.1-percent of Hawaiians where working in technical sales and administrative support jobs compared to 26.8 percent of employed American Indian persons. By contrast, proportionally more employed American Indians than Hawaiians were working in jobs concerning farming, forestry, and fishing; precision production, and repair; and in jobs requiring work as: operators, fabricators, and laborers. Both population groups, however, had the same proportion of persons, 18.5 percent, working in service occupations. (Table 2)
In 1990, the employed Hawaiian population age 16 years and over was only one-eighth the size of the employed American Indian population, and even though some noticeable differences existed between these populations in the proportions employed in certain types of jobs, the occupational distribution of the combined American Indian/Hawaiian population is not significantly different from that of the American Indian population taken singly. (Table 2)
Workers in family. - The distribution of the number of workers-in-the-family varied markedly between Hawaiian families and American Indian families. Specifically, Hawaiian families with no workers, 9.5 percent, was noticeably lower than for American Indian families, 14.5 percent. Similarly, about one-fourth of Hawaiian families had only one worker in the family compared to one-third of American Indian families. But the proportions of families with two workers or with three or more workers in the family were consistently larger for Hawaiian families than for American Indian families; for example, 46-percent of Hawaiian families had two workers in the family compared to 41-percent of American Indian families, and 20-percent of Hawaiian families had three or more workers in the family compared with 12-percent of American Indian families.
The above-noted differences between Hawaiians and American Indians in number of workers-per-family persist (except for the proportions of two-worker families) when we compare the composite American Indian/Hawaiian with the American Indian population. (Table 2)
Income in 1989. - In 1989, the median household income, the median family income, and the per capita income of the Hawaiian population was substantially higher than for the American Indian population. The Hawaiian median household income, for instance, was $34,830 compared to $20,025 for American Indian households; similarly, Hawaiian median family income was $37,269 compared to $21,750 for American Indian families, and the Hawaiian population per capita income was $11,447 compared to $8,328 for American Indian persons.
The 1989 income disparity between Hawaiians and American Indians was sufficiently large to display income differences between a combined American Indian/Hawaiian population and the original American Indian population. For example, the median household income of a combined American Indian/Hawaiian population was, at $21,283, higher than for the American Indian population; similarly, median family income of the American Indian/Hawaiian population was $23,069, once again higher than that of American Indian families; and finally, the per capita income of the combined American Indian/Hawaiian population ($8,593) was slightly higher than that for American Indian persons. (Tables H; 2)
Table I. Income Measures for the American Indian/Hawaiian, the American Indian, and the Hawaiian Populations: 1990
|INCOME in 1989
|Combined American Indian and Hawaiian
|Median household income..(dollars)
|Median family income..(dollars)
|Per Capita income..(dollars)
Income Below the Poverty Level. - Although about 5,400 Hawaiian families were below the poverty level in 1989, almost 5-times as many (about 125,400) American Indian families were then living in poverty. In particular, the 12.7-percent of all Hawaiian families below the poverty level was much lower than that of American Indian families: 27.0-percent, and this family poverty-level disparity was also replicated at the person-level. For instance, although about 28,600 Hawaiian persons (14.3- percent) were in poverty in 1989, over 600,000 American Indian persons (30.9-percent) were below the poverty level.
Similarly to the income analysis noted above, the poverty level differentials between Hawaiians and American Indians are so large that differences do occur when we compare poverty-levels between the combined American Indian/Hawaiian population and the American Indian population. For example, 27-percent of American Indian families were below the poverty level in 1989 compared to 25.8-percent of American Indian/Hawaiian families. And the same circumstance occurred for persons, where 31-percent of American Indian persons were in poverty compared to 29-percent of persons in the combined American Indian/Hawaiian population. (Table 2)
We have seen above that many noticeable socio-economic differences exist between the individual Hawaiian and the American Indian populations, but when both populations are combined and compared to the initial American Indian population, most of these differences vanish. However, one particularly significant exception, among others, occurs when we compare the income levels of the combined American Indian/Hawaiian and the American Indian populations. Our analysis shows quite clearly that the income differentials between Hawaiians and American Indians are so great that even when the much smaller Hawaiian population is combined with the American Indian population, the resulting American Indian/Hawaiian population differs noticeably from the original American Indian population at the household, family, and personal income levels.
3/ Although at first it may seem improbable that some American Indian persons are truly foreign born, this need not be an implausible occurrence. For example, in recent years an increasing number of native (i.e. indigenous) Indians born in Canada, Mexico, or Central and South America have immigrated to the United States and they and their tribal affiliations were reported in the American Indian and Alaska Native category of the decennial census Race question.