Abstract
This study examines African Americans’, Black Caribbeans’, and non-Hispanic Whites’ perceptions of closeness to other racial and ethnic groups. The study uses data from a national probability sample, the National Survey of American Life (N = 6,082), and provides the first investigation of this topic among Black Caribbeans. Study findings reveal both similarities and significant differences between African Americans and Black Caribbeans in their levels of closeness to other groups. African Americans and Black Caribbeans were similar in their levels of closeness to Whites, American Indians, and Asian Americans. African Americans felt significantly closer to Black people in the United States than did Black Caribbeans. Conversely, Black Caribbeans felt significantly closer than African Americans to Black people from the Caribbean, Spanish-speaking people, and Black people in Africa. Non-Hispanic Whites felt significantly closer to Asian Americans than did either African Americans or Black Caribbeans. These and other findings are discussed in detail and reaffirm the continued importance of race in American life and intergroup relations.
Increasing rates of interracial marriage and immigration from regions such as Asia and Latin America have rendered archaic the accepted color line in the United States. Lee and Bean (2007) suggest that “if the problem of the 20th century was the color line, the question of the 21st century could be one of the multiple color lines” (p. 563). Implicit in this statement are questions about how color lines are related to group ties. Hollinger (2011) asserts that the issue is “one of solidarity. With precisely who [sic] does one try to affiliate?” (pp. 180-181). This study mirrors this emphasis by using data from a national probability sample of African Americans, Black Caribbeans, and non-Hispanic Whites to examine feelings of closeness to seven groups: (a) Black people in this country, (b) White people in this country, (c) Spanish-speaking groups in this country, (d) American Indians, (e) Asian Americans in this country, (f) Black people from the Caribbean, and (g) Black people in Africa.
Closeness Across Color Lines
Early work on racial attitudes implied that in-group attachment and preference over out-groups was universal (Sumner, 1906). Later work, inspired by social identity theory (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), suggested that a simple “we-they” distinction is enough to activate disparate reactions to others based on in-group and out-group membership. In-group members are more likely to be positively valued than out-group members, to arouse a more positive trust, and to bring out cooperative behavior (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002).
To gain an estimate of how similar respondents viewed themselves and different racial-ethnic groups, we examined their responses to a measure of perceived closeness. Perceived closeness has been found to reflect individuals’ psychological attachment or identification with a particular social group (e.g., Conover, 1984; Gurin, 1985; Gurin, Miller, & Gurin, 1980). Generalized feelings of closeness have been especially useful for assessing interracial attitudes (see Jackman & Crane, 1986; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005a). Other works indicate that the relationship between contact and interracial closeness is generally weaker among Black Americans than among White Americans (see Ellison & Powers, 1994; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005b).
Closeness is thus far a concept used almost exclusively to examine Black attitudes (e.g., Gurin, Hatchett, & Jackson, 1989; Herring, Jankowski, & Brown, 1999; Kinder & Winter, 2001). Craemer (2008) suggests that in highlighting closeness as a measure of Black group proximity, researchers may have implicitly encouraged the idea that each racial group identity is psychologically distinct and perceived as such by members of other groups (C. Wong & Cho, 2005). This supposition may obscure a more complex link between in-group closeness and out-group attitudes, for in-group bias may be also positively associated with feelings toward those of other racial backgrounds (Dovidio, Saguy, & Shnabel, 2009; Kaufmann, 2003; Sanchez, 2008;). Even if “the idea that an individual’s self-concept is derived, to some extent and in some sense, from the social relationships and social groups he or she participates in” (Brewer, 2001, p. 117) holds true, positive connections are still possible across racial boundaries.
Racial Boundaries
As relatively recent arrivals, often seen as a model minority, Black Caribbeans are unique among the three groups highlighted in this article. Immigrants to the United States often confront a perception of race that contrasts with their own. Thus, their move involves an adjustment process during which race and the implication of racial group membership may achieve new meaning. For many, this will contradict past experiences, leading to internal conflicts, a situation perhaps no truer than for migrants from Black homelands. While race remains important in their lives, a common assertion is that historical trends have tended to weaken the bonds they have with African Americans. Earlier immigration came during an era when race linked them and native Blacks in common cause to overthrow “the stifling, degrading limits of segregation. . . . More recently, the wave of Black immigration post-1965 has led to another way of seeing and articulating what difference country of birth makes” (Cooper, 2011, p. 25). This has resulted in an ethnic and a racial component to Black communities and a tension between the two groups that may serve to undermine solidarity (e.g., Jackson & Cothran, 2003; Nunnally, 2010; Rogers, 2006; Waters, 2001).
Some scholarship complicates this dichotomy (Foner, 2001; Stafford, 1987). Black Caribbeans bring to this country divergent experiences with race when compared to native-born African Americans. Vickerman (1999, 2001) describes men who must relearn the meaning and practical cost of African ancestry within the United States while acquiring a newly racialized identity. Their homeland is a place where Blacks are enmeshed in every part of the social hierarchy, and social class dominates. In their new home, they are concentrated at the bottom because of their race. These pressures lead to a seemingly contradictory stance of ethnic separatism versus racial solidarity. But the reality is that these identities shift with time and context. Thus “Blackness” here is complicated, with most reporting being Black and West Indian rather than either-or (Bryce-Laporte, 1993; Butterfield, 2004).
The literature on racial color lines offers further insight on the nature of the relationships we examine here. One view is that race relations remain important in American life, such that there is an interminority process whereby all minorities are part of and identify with a minority experience. The idea of a collective minority identity reflects a current trend in research stressing shifting racial borders and a widening divide between Whites and racial minorities. Reflecting the role of minority status, minorities as a group experience race as a crucial roadblock to life chances and prospects (Bonilla-Silva & Embrick, 2005; Lee & Bean, 2007). As a result, some construct race as an experience going beyond what happens to a single racial minority group, a process linking all people of color via parallel racial experiences (Hollinger, 2005). Thus, some Asian Americans identify with other minorities by adopting Black material culture, advocating for other minority organizations, or sharing a common sense of alienation as non-Whites (Khandelwal, 2002; Maira, 2000; Singh, 1996). A panethnic identity for some Latinos is linked to positive bonds with Blacks (McClain et al, 2006; Meier, McClain, Polinard, & Winkle, 2004), who in turn often feel close to other groups of color (Thornton & Mizuno, 1995). For this group, interminority processes that are based on a lived experience of race in the United States (e.g., discrimination) produce generational shifts in rapport with native Blacks.
In contrast, some argue that race boundaries are changing, becoming more complex, with minority groups increasingly assimilating into the broader spheres of American life. Thus some racial minorities are detached because they see other minorities as an undesired class and/or due to concern about potential loss of their own distinct identities. This process results in a Black/non-Black divide because many immigrant groups entering the United States in time lose their ethnic identities and assimilate into the wider society (Roediger, 1991; Spickard, 1989). For some, this is a “Whitening” process (Gallagher, 2004; Lee & Bean, 2007) coupled with antipathy toward and distancing from the eternally stigmatized Black group (Murguia & Forman, 2003; Yancey, 2003). For example, having achieved economic parity with Whites, some Asian Americans see themselves as above Blacks (Dhingra, 2003; O’Brien, 2008). South Asians may dissociate from Blacks to avoid having their own dark skin linked to Blackness and to escape reducing their own status (George, 1997). In turn, some West Indians distance themselves from the stigma associated with Blackness in the United States (Kasinitz, 1992; Woldemikae, 1989). Similarly, certain West Indians and Hispanics identify more with Whites than with native Blacks (McClain et al., 2006).
Sometimes these feelings are reciprocal. Among Blacks there is a shifting hierarchy of closeness to other groups (Meier et al., 2004; Thornton, 2011; Thornton & Taylor, 1988a, 1988b). National Survey of Black American data point to African Americans feeling closest to other ethnic Blacks (i.e., Africans and West Indians), followed by American Indians, Hispanics, and least of all, Asian Americans (Thornton & Mizuno, 1995). When Whites are included in the list, Blacks feel closest to them, followed by West Indians and Latinos (Thornton & Mizuno, 1999). A 2001 Gallup Poll found that Blacks felt most connected to other Blacks, then equally to Whites and Hispanics, followed by Asian Americans (Ludwig, 2003) 1 .
That African Americans may feel less close to Blacks outside the United States may be a relatively recent change. Under the pan-African movement, late-19th- to mid-20th-century intellectuals and leaders in Black American communities envisioned linking the experiences of all those who had a history with the transatlantic slave trade and/or racial oppression (Ackay, 1999; Esedebe, 1982; Magubane, 1987; Meriwether, 2002; Skinner, 1992; Tillery, 2011). This effort championed pride in Black history and culture, ties to Africa, and the liberation of people of African ancestry and commonly linked with other people of color who had a colonial legacy. With the arrival among Black leadership of post–civil rights activism and a focus on race on the domestic home front, “the Black American Pan-Africanist perspective turned increasingly inward, focusing less integratively on issues affecting Blacks in the Caribbean and the African context of the Black diaspora” (Nunnally, 2010, p. 338; see also Nesbitt, 2004; Tillery, 2011; Von Eschen, 1997).
For Whites, research suggests that they feel closest to other Whites, then Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian Americans (Ludwig, 2003). Other studies describe Blacks and Whites as feeling equally close to one another (McClain et al., 2006; Tropp, 2007) or report that Blacks feel closer to their own when compared to how Whites feel about their own (C. Wong & Cho, 2005).
The literature on racial boundaries suggests that race remains an important arbiter of life or, alternatively, that race has become less consequential, albeit with Blacks and Whites taking opposite sides on the question. In either case, both models envision African Americans being the anchor to one side of the boundary and some variation of groups on the other, which always includes Whites. The focus of this work has tended to examine how distant others have felt toward Black populations, seeing them as the ultimate “other.” The work on closeness notes that African American perspectives provide a much more delineated view of the racial landscape. In this case, Blacks often feel close to their racial compatriots but also show much less enmity toward Whites than the racial boundaries literature would suggest.
Together, these works point to two sets of expectations (Bonilla-Silva & Embrick, 2005). The first model of racial boundaries, the non-White/White model, predicts that Black respondents would feel close to other people of color but not to Whites. In this panethnic view, we would predict that African Americans and Black Caribbeans feel especially close to each other and Africans, followed by Hispanics, American Indians, Asian Americans, and then Whites, to whom they would feel most distant (e.g., Thornton & Mizuno, 1995; Oliver, 2011). In turn, Whites should not feel close to any of the target groups, since here, non-White status is a strict arbiter. In a relative sense, Whites should perhaps feel closest to Asian Americans. Alternatively, in the non-Black/Black model, we would expect that African Americans and Black Caribbeans would feel close to people of African ancestry but would generally distance themselves from those not of their racial heritage. We would predict that Whites would feel less close particularly to Black groups and closer to the other groups. The difference here is that in the non-White/White model, both African Americans and Black Caribbeans are expected to feel closer to all other groups than they do to Whites, whereas in the non-Black/Black model, we would expect that they feel close only to their own kind. In both models, Whites should feel least close to all people of the African diaspora and not especially close to any group, except perhaps Asian Americans.
Work on Blacks’ racial attitudes highlights in-group closeness as a measure of the strength of in-group attachments. Typically missing is an examination of how in-group ties are linked to out-group perceptions, except to suggest that strong in-group ties lead to negative out-group perceptions. The present research addresses this gap by examining African Americans’, Black Caribbeans’, and non-Hispanic Whites’ feelings of closeness to several ethnic and racial groups, using a measure that allows us to compare closeness to several groups (Jackson et al., 2004; Lau, 1989; C. Wong & Cho, 2005). This analysis uses data from the National Survey of American Life: Coping With Stress in the 21st Century (NSAL), a nationally representative sample of these three racial-ethnic groups. The NSAL includes the first national sample of Black Caribbeans, and as such, this is the first survey-based inquiry of the correlates of closeness to other groups among the Black Caribbean population. In addition, to our knowledge, this is the first examination of the link between closeness and intergroup attitudes among non-Hispanic Whites.
Method
Sample
The NSAL was collected by the Program for Research on Black Americans at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The fieldwork for the study was completed by the Institute for Social Research’s Survey Research Center in cooperation with the Program for Research on Black Americans. The NSAL sample has a national multistage probability design that consists of 64 primary sampling units. Fifty-six of these primary areas overlap substantially with existing Survey Research Center’s national sample primary areas. The remaining eight primary areas were chosen from the South in order for the sample to represent African Americans in the proportion in which they are distributed nationally.
The NSAL includes the first major probability sample of Black Caribbeans. For the purposes of this study, Black Caribbeans are defined as people who trace their ethnic heritage to a Caribbean country but who now reside in the United States, are racially classified as Black, and are English speaking (but may also speak another language). In both African American and Black Caribbean samples, respondents self-identify their race as Black. Those identifying as Black were included in the Black Caribbean sample if they (a) answered affirmatively when asked if they were of West Indian or Caribbean descent, (b) said they were from a country included on a list of Caribbean countries presented by the interviewers, or (c) indicated that their parents or grandparents were born in a Caribbean-area country.
Data collection was conducted from February 2001 to June 2003. The interviews were administered face-to-face and conducted within respondents’ homes; respondents were compensated for their time. A total of 6,082 face-to-face interviews were conducted with persons age 18 or older, including 3,570 African Americans, 891 non-Hispanic Whites, and 1,621 Blacks of Caribbean descent. The overall response rate was 72.3%. Response rates for individual subgroups were 70.7% for African Americans, 77.7% for Black Caribbeans, and 69.7% for non-Hispanic Whites. The response rate is excellent given that African Americans (especially lower-income African Americans) are more likely to reside in major urban areas, which are more difficult and expensive with respect to survey fieldwork and data collection. Final response rates for the NSAL two-phase sample designs were computed using the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) guidelines (for Response Rate 3 samples; AAPOR, 2006; see Jackson et al., 2004, for a detailed discussion of the NSAL sample). The NSAL data collection was approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board.
Measures
Dependent variables
Seven indicators of subjective closeness to in-groups and out-groups are used. Respondents were asked how close they felt in their ideas and feeling about things to (a) Black people in this country; (b) White people in this country; (c) Spanish-speaking groups in this country, such as Puerto Ricans, Cubans, or Mexican Americans; (d) American Indians; (e) Asian Americans, such as Chinese or Japanese in this country; (f) Black people from the Caribbean, such as people from Jamaica, Bermuda, or Haiti; and (f) Black people in Africa. Respondents were asked whether they felt very close, fairly close, not too close, or not close at all to these groups. Scores for these variables ranged from 4 for very close to 1 for not close at all. Generalized feelings of closeness are especially useful for assessing racial attitudes, as affective indicators of attitudes typically show stronger relationships with contact than do other kinds of indicators (see Jackman & Crane, 1986; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005b).
Control variables
Demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, income, education, and marital status) are control variables used in multivariate analyses examining the influence of race-ethnicity on intra- and intergroup attitudes toward various groups. Missing data for household income were imputed for 773 cases (12.7% of the NSAL sample); 74 cases were imputed for education. Imputations used an iterative regression-based multiple imputation approach, which included information about age, gender, region, race, employment status, marital status, home ownership, and nativity of household residents. Income is coded in dollars and, for the multivariate analysis only, has been divided by 5,000 in order to increase effect sizes and provide a better understanding of the net impact of income on the dependent variables. The distribution of the demographic variables in this analysis is presented in Table 1.
Demographic Distribution of Sample
Note: Percentages and n’s are provided for categorical variables (Gender and Age) and Means and Standard Deviations are provided for continuous variables. Percentages are weighted; frequencies are unweighted.
Analysis Strategy
First, we present bivariate analyses of racial-ethnic disparity in the measures of closeness. The percentages are weighted on the basis of the sample’s race-adjusted weight measure. The bivariate analysis uses the Rao-Scott chi-square, a complex design-corrected measure of association. Analytic tests (skewness and kurtosis) indicated that linear regression could be appropriately used with the seven dependent variables. Next, using demographic control factors, we present multivariate analyses of closeness attitudes by race-ethnicity. Two sets of regressions used race-ethnicity as a predictor represented by a set of dummy variables. In the first set, African Americans are used as the excluded category, whereas in the second set, Black Caribbean is the comparison category. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.13, which uses the Taylor expansion approximation technique for calculating the complex design-based estimates of variance. All statistical analyses accounted for the complex multistage clustered design of the NSAL sample, unequal probabilities of selection, nonresponse, and poststratification to calculate weighted, nationally representative population estimates and standard errors.
Results
Table 2 presents the bivariate cross-tabulations of the differences in closeness toward in-groups and out-groups by race. Both African Americans (54.4%) and Black Caribbeans (48.6%) are more likely to indicate that they are very close to Black people in the United States than are non-Hispanic Whites (20.8%). Conversely, a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Whites (29.6%) indicate that they are very close to White people in the United States than both African Americans (14.8%) and Black Caribbeans (12.3%). There were no significant differences in the degree to which respondents felt close to Spanish-speaking people in the United States and American Indians. Non-Hispanic Whites (40.2%) were more likely to feel fairly close to Asian Americans than were both African Americans (29.0%) and Black Caribbeans (29.1%). Black Caribbeans were more likely than others to feel very close to Black people from the Caribbean and Africa.
Bivariate Cross-Tabulation of Race and Ethnic Differences in Perceived Closeness to In-Groups and Out-Groups
Note: Frequencies are unweighted. Percentages are weighted to be nationally representative of the given population and subpopulations in the United States. Rao-Scott chi-square statistics are adjusted for the sampling stratification, clustering, and weighting of the data.
An examination across the seven dependent variables indicates that African Americans were least close to Asian Americans, with 18% of them reporting that they were not close at all to Asian Americans. Similarly, 17% of Black Caribbeans reported not feeling close at all to Asian Americans. Non-Hispanic Whites, however, were least close to Black people in Africa (25% were not close at all) and Black people from the Caribbean (20% were not close at all).
Table 3 presents regression coefficients for the effects of race-ethnicity on feelings of closeness. Race-ethnicity is represented by a dummy variable with African Americans as the excluded category in regression results reported in column 1; Black Caribbeans are the excluded category in regression results reported in column 2. For each dependent variable, the regression models assess the impact of race-ethnicity while controlling for the effects of demographic factors (i.e., age, gender, marital status, education, and family income). Column 1 regression coefficients indicate that in comparison to non-Hispanic Whites, African Americans reported feeling closer to Black Americans and Black people from the Caribbean and Africa. Conversely, non-Hispanic Whites reported feeling closer to White Americans and Asian Americans.
Regression Coefficients for Race-Ethnicity Differences in Perceived Closeness to In-Groups and Out-Groups
Note: This table presents the results of 14 regression models. In 7 models, African Americans was the excluded category, and in 7 other models, Black Caribbeans was the excluded category. All regression models controlled for the effects of age, gender, marital status, education, and imputed family income. Standard errors are adjusted for the sampling stratification, clustering, and weighting of the data.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Comparisons of Black Caribbeans and non-Hispanic Whites (Table 3, column 2) indicate five of seven significant differences. Black Caribbeans reported feeling subjectively closer to Black and Spanish-speaking people in the United States and Black people from the Caribbean and Africa. Similarly, non-Hispanic Whites reported feeling subjectively closer to White people in the United States. There were no significant differences between Black Caribbeans and non-Hispanic Whites in subjective closeness to Asian Americans and American Indians.
There were four significant differences between African Americans and Black Caribbeans (Table 3, column 1 or column 2). African Americans reported feeling closer to Black people in the United States, whereas Black Caribbeans felt closer than their African American counterparts to Spanish-speaking people and Black people from the Caribbean and Africa.
Discussion
Bean and Lee (2009) questioned the nature of existing U.S. color lines and suggested that the question of color is whether “Asians and Latinos, particularly the later-generation members of these groups, more closely resemble Whites or Blacks in the United States” (p. 210). Framing the issue in this way reflects a belief that despite a multiracial-multiethnic society, the one unitary racial boundary of Black and White continues to shape intergroup relations and attitudes. In contrast, our analyses suggest that there is no singular color line that delineates Black (and/or racial minorities) or White (and/or honorary Whites) America. Instead, multiple boundaries reflect how each in-group feels toward specific out-groups. Moreover, these multidimensional color lines belie the assertion that we have arrived at a postracial era made up of a plurality of ethnic groups where color is of little import.
Our analyses indicate that the three groups studied all felt closer to their respective in-group than to the various out-groups. African Americans were closest to Blacks in the United States, Black Caribbeans were closest to Black people from the Caribbean, and non-Hispanic Whites were closest to Whites in the United States. Other than that, the only other consistent pattern for all three groups was that they felt least close to Asian Americans and American Indians.
Previous work suggests that West Indians have a special rapport with non-Hispanic Whites, who hold them in singular regard when compared to African Americans. Waters (1999) described this as “the comfort factor” (p. 172), meaning that Black Caribbeans are less angry at non-Hispanic Whites and do not feel that America “owes” them something, marked in part in not having a “chip on their shoulders” (p. 174). Non-Hispanic Whites appear to prefer Black Caribbeans to African Americans as employees, coworkers, and even neighbors, which is reinforced by Black Caribbeans’ perceptions that Whites treat them more favorably than they do other Blacks (Foner, 1985; Waters, 1994; Vickerman, 1994).
Our findings are not consistent with previous work. Instead, we found that non-Hispanic Whites do not feel particularly close to Black Caribbeans. In fact, the percentages in Table 2 indicate that non-Hispanic Whites feel closer to Black people in the United States than to Black Caribbeans. These discrepant findings are probably due to the fact that previous research (e.g., Waters, 1999) tends to be ethnographic and based in the Northeast (e.g., New York), where large concentrations of Black Caribbeans reside. Our findings, however, are based on a national sample and thus also represent the views of non-Hispanic Whites in other areas of the country who have little or no contact with Black Caribbeans.
Of the three groups examined here, Black Caribbeans fit closest to the notion of being on the opposing side of the racial divide from Whites. They feel notably closer to groups of the African diaspora than do either non-Hispanic Whites or African Americans. This pattern is consistent with work indicating that West Indians are most likely of all racial-ethnic groups to marry other African-descent groups (including Black Puerto Ricans; Batson, Qian, & Lichter, 2006; Model & Fisher, 2002). Our analysis reveals that Black Caribbeans feel equally close to their own group and to African Americans (83.9% vs. 84.2%) and at levels that dwarf their closeness with Whites. Indeed, our results are consistent with the idea that with longer residency, Black Caribbeans draw closer to African Americans and not to non-Hispanic Whites (Kasinitz, Battle, & Miyares, 2001).
Black Caribbeans felt closer to Spanish-speaking people in the United States than did their native African American and non-Hispanic White counterparts. This pattern is probably due to the fact that a portion of Black Caribbeans are from Spanish-speaking countries, such as Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. Conversely, non-Hispanic Whites’ and African Americans’ lower levels of closeness to those from Spanish-speaking countries may reflect ambivalence about this group’s fairly recent dramatic growth as well as public debate about the effect of illegal immigration (see Zarate & Shaw, 2010). Large portions of the United States blame undocumented workers for taking “American” jobs, suppressing wages, contributing to higher joblessness, and imposing a fiscal burden on taxpayers (Deaux, 2006).
Additionally, for Black Caribbeans, the connection to other Black ethnics is perhaps somewhat different than is the case for African Americans and reflects two sets of issues. First, since most Black Caribbeans are themselves immigrants with direct connections and active kinship ties to the region, “closeness to Blacks from the Caribbean” represents expressed ties to their own ethnic in-group. Second, their status as immigrants may make them more aware of transnational ties to other Black ethnic groups (i.e., Black people from Africa; Nunnally, 2010).
African Americans and Black Caribbeans demonstrate both similarities and significant differences in their closeness to other groups. African Americans and Black Caribbeans are not significantly different in their levels of closeness to Whites, American Indians, and Asian Americans. However, Black Caribbeans feel significantly closer to Spanish-speaking people, Black people from the Caribbean, and Black people in Africa. Conversely, African Americans feel significantly closer to Black people in the United States than do Black Caribbeans. Additionally, comparison of the percentages in Table 2 indicates that African Americans feel as close to Black Caribbeans (58.6%) as they do to Blacks in Africa (58.5%).
While African Americans feel relatively close to Whites and ethnic Blacks, these feelings are less pronounced than are those found among Black Caribbeans. In a relative sense, results suggest that compared to Black Caribbeans, African Americans do not feel as strong a bond with these out-groups (Jackson & Cothron, 2003). The close ties that African Americans have with Black Caribbeans and Africans point to a sense of racial solidarity. In contrast, most African Americans are not close or not close at all to Hispanics (51%), American Indians (52%), and Asian Americans (61.9%). However, these percentages are somewhat lower than what was found previously using data from the National Survey of Black Americans (1979-1980), in which about 66% of Blacks were not close or not close at all to Hispanics, 58% felt similarly toward American Indians, and 77% distanced themselves from Asian Americans (Thornton & Mizuno, 1995, 1999).
That African Americans feel less close to Blacks in Africa or the Caribbean when compared to Black Caribbeans is not surprising. However, it is important to note that overall, 6 of 10 African Americans feel either very or fairly close to Black ethnics here and internationally. This attachment to other ethnic Blacks is probably due to a shared African heritage and the maintenance and substance of a certain “affirmation of race” (Shaw-Taylor, 2007, p. 32). Furthermore, African Americans’ awareness of significant events within Caribbean and African countries (e.g., dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, “Haitian boat people”) and prominent persons of African and Caribbean descent (e.g., Nelson Mandela, Colin Powell, Wyclef Jean, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj) reinforce a shared racial heritage often marked by discrimination. These findings indicate that African Americans’ perceived closeness to others of African heritage across national and cultural boundaries may be, in some sense, abstract but is nonetheless real.
In debates about racial boundaries, Whites’ perceptions are characterized as more isolated and distant from racial minorities and, above all others, from African Americans. Our data show that non-Hispanic Whites feel close to only one out-group, African Americans. At the other end of the closeness scale are Black Caribbeans and Africans, a clear sign that non-Hispanic Whites differentiate among people of African ancestry. Moreover, non-Hispanic Whites feel closer than do African Americans to Asian Americans. It is common that Whites consider Asian Americans a “model minority,” as “honorary Whites” (O’Brien, 2008). Yet the percentages reveal that non-Hispanic Whites are less close to Hispanics and Asian Americans than they are to Black people in the United States. This may reflect the sentiment that these groups are considered foreign. Dovidio, Gluszek, John, Ditlmann, and Lagunes (2010) found that non-Hispanic Whites see themselves as the typical American, African Americans as relatively close to them culturally, and Hispanics and Asian Americans as more distant.
These results suggest that racial boundaries are both complex and simple, depending on the group in question. They are complex for Black Caribbeans, who are as close to their own group as they are to other Black ethnics and closer than African Americans and non-Hispanic Whites in their feelings toward people who speak Spanish. For Black Caribbeans, Whites (and American Indians and Asian Americans) represent a distinctive category of people. Racial boundaries are simpler among African Americans, who while feeling less close to other Black ethnics than to their own group also feel especially close to Whites. African Americans hold no special feelings toward American Indians and Hispanics but seem especially distant to Asian Americans. Finally, non-Hispanic Whites have a special feeling of closeness toward Asian Americans (as compared to African Americans’ and Black Caribbeans’ perceptions of Asian Americans) but otherwise are the least complex in their views of the racial landscape: They are close only to African Americans. Recall that both the Black/non-Black and White/non-White models of racial boundaries would predict that Whites should feel least close to all people of the African diaspora and not especially close to any group (except perhaps Asian Americans). This study’s findings differ from these predictions and suggest that both models of racial boundaries require a more nuanced understanding of intergroup attitudes.
The present “color-blind era” reflects a long history of denying, confronting, and obfuscating the role of race in U.S. society. Race has many meanings that is reflected in a world of multiple color lines, affiliations, and group ties that change over time. Our findings indicate that measures of closeness to various racial groups access one aspect of this construct and highlight the value of exploring attitudes toward multiple racial groups. Measures of closeness offer insight about one aspect of perceived identity, hinting at a construct that can expand to include pan-national boundaries and that can contract in ways that defy racial categories in favor of culturally distinct elements of groups (Okamoto, 2003). Notably, our findings support the growing literature illustrating how America has become more, and not less, complex in regard to race. Our findings overall emphasized the intricacy of intergroup attitudes and the need for future research on how contact, personal and racial experience, and shared culture shape these processes.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments, which helped to strengthen our article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study used data collected with support from the National Institute of Mental Health (U01-MH57716) with supplemental support from the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research at the National Institutes of Health and the University of Michigan. The preparation of this manuscript was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health to Drs. Chatters and Taylor (R01-MH082807) and to Dr. Chatters (R01-MH084963) and from the National Institute on Aging to Dr. Taylor (P30-AG15281).
