This graph shows the population of the U.S. by race and ethnic group from 2000 to 2023. In 2023, there were around 21.39 million people of Asian origin living in the United States. A ranking of the most spoken languages across the world can be accessed here. U.S. populationCurrently, the white population makes up the vast majority of the United States’ population, accounting for some 252.07 million people in 2023. This ethnicity group contributes to the highest share of the population in every region, but is especially noticeable in the Midwestern region. The Black or African American resident population totaled 45.76 million people in the same year. The overall population in the United States is expected to increase annually from 2022, with the 320.92 million people in 2015 expected to rise to 341.69 million people by 2027. Thus, population densities have also increased, totaling 36.3 inhabitants per square kilometer as of 2021. Despite being one of the most populous countries in the world, following China and India, the United States is not even among the top 150 most densely populated countries due to its large land mass. Monaco is the most densely populated country in the world and has a population density of 24,621.5 inhabitants per square kilometer as of 2021. As population numbers in the U.S. continues to grow, the Hispanic population has also seen a similar trend from 35.7 million inhabitants in the country in 2000 to some 62.65 million inhabitants in 2021. This growing population group is a significant source of population growth in the country due to both high immigration and birth rates. The United States is one of the most racially diverse countries in the world.

How racially diverse are residents in Massachusetts? This topic shows the demographic breakdown of residents by race/ethnicity and the increases in the Non-white population since 2010.

In the fiscal year of 2019, 21.39 percent of active-duty enlisted women were of Hispanic origin. The total number of active duty military personnel in 2019 amounted to 1.3 million people.

Ethnicities in the United States The United States is known around the world for the diversity of its population. The Census recognizes six different racial and ethnic categories: White American, Native American and Alaska Native, Asian American, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. People of Hispanic or Latino origin are classified as a racially diverse ethnicity.

The largest part of the population, about 61.3 percent, is composed of White Americans. The largest minority in the country are Hispanics with a share of 17.8 percent of the population, followed by Black or African Americans with 13.3 percent. Life in the U.S. and ethnicity However, life in the United States seems to be rather different depending on the race or ethnicity that you belong to. For instance: In 2019, native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders had the highest birth rate of 58 per 1,000 women, while the birth rae of white alone, non Hispanic women was 49 children per 1,000 women.

The Black population living in the United States has the highest poverty rate with of all Census races and ethnicities in the United States. About 19.5 percent of the Black population was living with an income lower than the 2020 poverty threshold. The Asian population has the smallest poverty rate in the United States, with about 8.1 percent living in poverty.

The median annual family income in the United States in 2020 earned by Black families was about 57,476 U.S. dollars, while the average family income earned by the Asian population was about 109,448 U.S. dollars. This is more than 25,000 U.S. dollars higher than the U.S. average family income, which was 84,008 U.S. dollars.

According to the 2021 Census, London was the most ethnically diverse region in England and Wales – 63.2% of residents identified with an ethnic minority group.

In the UK, for the first time, the number of doctors of ethnic minorities surpassed the number of white doctors in 2023. The largest increase was seen among Asian or Asian British ethnicity group. This was due, in part, to the large influx of international medical graduates since 2018, when the cap limit of ****** doctors per year from outside the UK or EU/EEA was removed.

Note. Demographic data were not collected in Study 3.Participant Demographics.

Among the 81 largest metropolitan areas (by population) in the United States, Knoxville, Tennessee was ranked first with **** percent of residents reporting as white, non-Hispanic in 2023.

To assess differences in psychological outcomes as well as risk and protective factors for these outcomes among several USA ethnic groups and identify correlates of these psychological outcomes among adults with diabetes in the second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study. The core USA DAWN2 sample was supplemented by independent samples of specific ethnic minority groups, yielding a total of 447 White non-Hispanics, 241 African Americans, 194 Hispanics, and 173 Chinese Americans (n = 1055). Multivariate analysis examined ethnic differences in psychological outcomes and risk/protective factors (disease, demographic and socioeconomic factors, health status and healthcare access/utilization, subjective burden of diabetes and social support/burden). Separate analyses were performed on each group to determine whether risk/protective factors differed across ethnic groups. Psychological outcomes include well-being, quality of life, impact of diabetes on life domains, diabetes distress, and diabetes empowerment. NCT01507116. Ethnic minorities tended to have better psychological outcomes than White non-Hispanics, although their diabetes distress was higher. Levels of most risk and protective factors differed significantly across ethnic groups; adjustment for these factors reduced ethnic group differences in psychological outcomes. Health status and modifiable diabetes-specific risk/protective factors (healthcare access/utilization, subjective diabetes burden, social support/burden) had strong associations with psychological outcomes, especially diabetes distress and empowerment. Numerous interactions between ethnicity and other correlates of psychological outcomes suggest that ethnic groups are differentially sensitive to various risk/protective factors. Potential limitations are the sample sizes and representativeness. Ethnic groups differ in their psychological outcomes. The risk/protective factors for psychological outcomes differ across ethnic groups and different ethnic groups are more/less sensitive to their influence. These findings can aid the development of strategies to overcome the most prominent and influential psychosocial barriers to optimal diabetes care within each ethnic group.

No description was included in this Dataset collected from the OSF

The last year of data collection for the Minority Relations Poll was 2016. See Gallup Poll Social Series (GPSS) collection description for other details.

In 2011, 87.2 percent of the total population of the United Kingdom were white British. A positive net migration in recent years combined with the resultant international relationships following the wide-reaching former British Empire has contributed to an increasingly diverse population.

Varied ethnic backgrounds

Black British citizens, with African and/or African-Caribbean ancestry, are the largest ethnic minority population, at three percent of the total population. Indian Britons are one of the largest overseas communities of the Indian diaspora and make up 2.3 percent of the total UK population. Pakistani British citizens, who make up almost two percent of the UK population, have one of the highest levels of home ownership in Britain.

Racism in the United Kingdom

Though it has decreased in comparison to the previous century, the UK has seen an increase in racial prejudice during the first decade and a half of this century. Racism and discrimination continues to be part of daily life for Britain’s ethnic minorities, especially in terms of work, housing, and health issues. Moreover, the number of hate crimes motivated by race reported since 2012 has increased, and in 2017/18, there were 3,368 recorded offenses of racially or religiously aggravated assault with injury, almost a thousand more than in 2013/14.

Exposure to traffic-related air pollutants (TRAPs) has been associated with numerous adverse health effects. TRAP concentrations are highest meters away from major roads, and disproportionately affect minority (i.e., non-white) populations often considered the most vulnerable to TRAP exposure. To demonstrate an improved assessment of on-road emissions and to quantify exposure inequity in this population, we develop and apply a hybrid data fusion approach that utilizes the combined strength of air quality observations and regional/local scale models to estimate air pollution exposures at census block resolution for the entire U.S. We use the regional photochemical grid model CMAQ (Community Multiscale Air Quality) to predict the spatiotemporal impacts at local/regional scales, and the local scale dispersion model, R-LINE (Research LINE source) to estimate concentrations that capture the sharp TRAP gradients from roads. We further apply the Regionalized Air quality Model Performance (RAMP) Hybrid data fusion technique to consider the model’s nonhomogeneous, nonlinear performance to not only improve exposure estimates, but also achieve significant model performance improvement. With a R2 of 0.51 for PM2.5 and 0.81 for NO2, the RAMP hybrid method improved R2 by ~0.2 for both pollutants (an increase of up to ~70% for PM2.5 and ~31% NO2). Using the RAMP Hybrid method, we estimate 264,516 [95% confidence interval [CI], 223,506–307,577] premature deaths attributable to PM2.5 from all sources, a ~1% overall decrease in CMAQ-estimated premature mortality compared to RAMP Hybrid, despite increases and decreases in some locations. For NO2, RAMP Hybrid estimates 138,550 [69,275–207,826] premature deaths, a ~19% increase (22,576 [11,288 – 33,864]) compared to CMAQ. Finally, using our RAMP hybrid method to estimate exposure inequity across the U.S., we estimate that Minorities within 100 m from major roads are exposed to up to 15% more PM2.5 and up to 35% more NO2 than their White counterparts.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The purpose of this survey was to study non-white people aged 15 and over, whose families originate from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, or the East Indies, with reference to their housing, employment and educational characteristics, their awareness and experience of racial discrimination. Comparative data were also collected for white men aged 16 and over, using the same questionnaire but with questions omitted when not applicable. Main Topics: Attitudinal/Behavioural Questions Immigration: reasons; advantages of Britain/previous country; whether definite job arranged prior to arrival. Residence: number of rooms occupied; whether house was multi-occupied; amenities (whether shared); number of addresses in past five years. Tenure: 1. If owned: whether singly or jointly; mortgage/loan details; leasehold/freehold (date of expiry). 2. If rented: rent and rates details; council/private ownership; race of landlord. Council house tenants were asked how they obtained their housing. Reasons for leaving previous residence: A. Personal experience of mortgage/loan refusal, type of organisation which refused, year of application. B. Personal experience of refusal of rented accommodation, number of refusals, details of last refusal. In both A and B, respondents were asked to give the organisation's reasons for refusal and their personal opinion of reasons, with an explanation. Details of housing and financial facilities provided by the Council, entitlement/receipt of rent rebates and/or allowances, whether respondent has made an application to the council (length of time on waiting list). Occupation: hours worked per week, position, responsibility, qualifications, nature of firm, number of employees, source of information about job, promotion prospects, job satisfaction. In addition, respondents were asked whether they had visited the employment exchange or were receiving/had received benefits since 1964. Respondents were asked to relate experiences of unfair treatment with regard to promotion or application for jobs, and whether they thought there were firms giving equal opportunities to Asians and whites. Whether respondent believed employers discriminated against them - reasons. Details of previous refusals. Trade union membership and existence of unions at workplace. Whether unemployed women had ever considered working (reasons). Working women with children were asked about child care facilities (hours, cost, satisfaction, etc.) Asian women were asked whether religion or family custom restricted their lives in terms of work, going out, company. Desired change was explored. All respondents asked whether situation in Britain had improved for Asians over past five years - reasons. Knowledge of government bodies on race relations/Race Relations Board and its functions/Community Relations Commission and its functions was tested. Whether voted at previous general election. Whether on voting list. Background Variables Age, sex, place of birth, previous countries of residence, date of arrival in Britain, age on arrival in Britain. Number of persons in household, household status. Age finished full-time education, examination and qualification details, further study, school attended by children. Employment status, income, ownership of consumer durables. Residence: type, age, external conditions. Fluency in English, language of interview. Sampling area. Religion, church/mosque/temple attendance.

Means and standard deviations of perceived presence of minority/majority groups in terms of gender and ethnicity in Study 1a and 1b (separately).

Research on the effects of racial context on public opinion often use residence-based measures of context, ignoring how the demographic composition of a context may change throughout the day. In this short article, we introduce a new zip code-level measure, racial flux, that accounts for how contexts differ between worker and resident populations. We merge our measure with survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, and show that greater racial flux --- more Black workers relative to Black residents in a zip code --- is associated with more conservative voting behaviors and racial attitudes among whites who live in the zip code. Our study suggests that whites are as politically responsive to the presence of non-resident minorities as they are resident minorities. More work is needed on measuring racial context, and on exploring the contours of how and why context affects political preferences.

According to the 2021 Census, 81.7% of the population of England and Wales was white, 9.3% Asian, 4.0% black, 2.9% mixed and 2.1% from other ethnic groups.

In Western democracies, like the USA, UK, and Germany, the number of ethnic minority representatives has been steadily increasing. How is this trend shaping electoral behavior? Past work has focused on the effects of minority representation on ethnic minorities’ political engagement, with less attention to the electoral behavior of majority-group members. We argue that increased minorities’ representation can be experienced as a threat to a historically white-dominant political context. This, in turn, politically activates white constituents. Using data from four UK general elections and a regression discontinuity design, we find that the next election’s turnout in constituencies narrowly won by an ethnic minority candidate is 4.3 percentage points larger than in constituencies narrowly won by a white candidate. Consistent with our argument, this turnout difference is driven by majority-white constituencies. Our findings have implications for intergroup relations and party politics and help explain recent political dynamics.

Relative concentration of the Northern California region's Hispanic and/or Black, Indigenous or person of color (HSPBIPOC) population. The variable HSPBIPOC is equivalent to all individuals who select a combination of racial and ethnic identity in response to the Census questionnaire EXCEPT those who select "not Hispanic" for the ethnic identity question, and "white race alone" for the racial identity question. This is the most encompassing possible definition of racial and ethnic identities that may be associated with historic underservice by agencies, or be more likely to express environmental justice concerns (as compared to predominantly non-Hispanic white communities). Until 2021, federal agency guidance for considering environmental justice impacts of proposed actions focused on how the actions affected "racial or ethnic minorities." "Racial minority" is an increasingly meaningless concept in the USA, and particularly so in California, where only about 3/8 of the state's population identifies as non-Hispanic and white race alone - a clear majority of Californians identify as Hispanic and/or not white. Because many federal and state map screening tools continue to rely on "minority population" as an indicator for flagging potentially vulnerable / disadvantaged/ underserved populations, our analysis includes the variable HSPBIPOC which is effectively "all minority" population according to the now outdated federal environmental justice direction. A more meaningful analysis for the potential impact of forest management actions on specific populations considers racial or ethnic populations individually: e.g., all people identifying as Hispanic regardless of race; all people identifying as American Indian, regardless of Hispanic ethnicity; etc.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as HSPBIPOC alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 1,207 block groups in the Northern California RRK region that identify as HSPBIPOC alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of HSPBIPOC individuals compared to the Northern California RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HSPBIPOC individuals are highly concentrated locally.

The 2006 Census estimated 5.1 million individuals who belonged to a visible minority. The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as 'persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour’. The visible minority population has grown steadily over the last 25 years. In 1981, when data for the four Employment Equity designated groups were first derived, the estimated 1.1 million visible minorities represented 4.7% of Canada's total population. In 1991, 2.5 million people were members of the visible minority population, 9.4% of the total population. The visible minority population further increased to 3.2 million in 1996, or 11.2% of the total population. By 2001, their numbers had reached an estimated 3.9 million or 13.4% of the total population. In 2006, the visible minorities accounted for 16.2% of Canada’s total population. This map shows the percentage of visible minorities (South Asian population) by census subdivisions.

Relative concentration of the Sierra Nevada region's Hispanic and/or Black, Indigenous or person of color (HSPBIPOC) population. The variable HSPBIPOC is equivalent to all individuals who select a combination of racial and ethnic identity in response to the Census questionnaire EXCEPT those who select "not Hispanic" for the ethnic identity question, and "white race alone" for the racial identity question. This is the most encompassing possible definition of racial and ethnic identities that may be associated with historic underservice by agencies, or be more likely to express environmental justice concerns (as compared to predominantly non-Hispanic white communities). Until 2021, federal agency guidance for considering environmental justice impacts of proposed actions focused on how the actions affected "racial or ethnic minorities." "Racial minority" is an increasingly meaningless concept in the USA, and particularly so in California, where only about 3/8 of the state's population identifies as non-Hispanic and white race alone - a clear majority of Californians identify as Hispanic and/or not white. Because many federal and state map screening tools continue to rely on "minority population" as an indicator for flagging potentially vulnerable / disadvantaged/ underserved populations, our analysis includes the variable HSPBIPOC which is effectively "all minority" population according to the now outdated federal environmental justice direction. A more meaningful analysis for the potential impact of forest management actions on specific populations considers racial or ethnic populations individually: e.g., all people identifying as Hispanic regardless of race; all people identifying as American Indian, regardless of Hispanic ethnicity; etc.

"Relative concentration" is a measure that compares the proportion of population within each Census block group data unit that identify as HSPBIPOC alone to the proportion of all people that live within the 775 block groups in the Sierra Nevada RRK region that identify as HSPBIPOC alone. Example: if 5.2% of people in a block group identify as HSPBIPOC, the block group has twice the proportion of HSPBIPOC individuals compared to the Sierra Nevada RRK region (2.6%), and more than three times the proportion compared to the entire state of California (1.6%). If the local proportion is twice the regional proportion, then HSPBIPOC individuals are highly concentrated locally.