What Has Become of the Cajuns of Yore?

What Has Become of the Cajuns of Yore?Author(s): Jacques HenrySource: Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association, Vol. 46, No. 4(Autumn, 2005), pp. 465-481Published by: Louisiana Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4234140 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 18:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Louisiana Historical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLouisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:15:59 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lha

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4234140?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE CAJUNS OF YORE?

ByJACQUES HENRY*

Data on Cajuns from the 2000 population census contain valu- able new information regarding Louisiana's most visible ethnic group. The release of data by the Bureau of the Census and the subsequent media reports generated some national interest and local controversy. One report showed that Louisiana had the highest percentage of native-born residents (78.4 percent) in the nation and that the Cajun town of Vacherie (St. James Parish) was the nation's most stable community, with native residents constituting 98.4 percent of the municipal population. News reports publicized this morsel of trivia and offered limited analyses focusing on a weak economy, little in-migration, and a rich cultural tradition, especially Cajun folkways.- Another census report showed that in 2000 only 44,960 residents claimed Cajun ancestry, a dramatic drop from the 431,651 who declared them- selves Cajun in 1990. News of the alleged disappearance of 90 percent of the Cajun population over a decade piqued local scholars who challenged the census takers' methodology and common sense.2

A detailed analysis of the relative immobility of Louisiana na- tives remains to be done, but this essay is concerned mostly with

*The author is associate professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the Univer- sity of Louisiana at Lafayette. He wishes to thank Angela Brittingham of the Bureau of the Census for her insights and cooperation.

1Blaine Harden, "Born on the Bayou and Barely Feeling Any Urge to Roam," New York Times, September 20, 2002; "Love that Louisiana Way of Life," Houston Chronicle, August 30, 2001.

2Rick Bragg, "Reported to be vanishing, Cajuns give a sharp 'non,"' New York Times, August 16, 2001.

465



466 LOUISIANA HISTORY

the puzzling recent decline of Cajuns. If Cajuns tend to be home- bound, what happened to the 400,000 who have statistically van- ished?

Before we consider the possible answers, a word on methodology is in order, because the recording, tabulating, and reporting of ancestry by the Bureau of the Census have varied over the years. While the Bureau has historically gathered much data on residents' identity with questions about race, birthplace, Hispanic background, and language, only in 1980 did it start to systemati- cally collect information on ancestry. Data were derived from answers to an open-ended question representing self- classification by people according to the ethic origin or heritage with which they most closely identify. All responses were coded and classified by such categories as American, German, Thai, Pa- cific Islander, etc. Census analysts have had to grapple with nu- merous challenges including the processing of multiple responses (such as Italian-Polish and Greek-American), mentions of religion (reported as "other" due to the constitutional prohibition to collect information on religion), and claims of "American" ancestry which were not tabulated until 2000. In addition, in order to improve the quality of ancestry data, the Census Bureau has modified its methodology in capturing, codifying, and reporting data. In addition, while the comparability of data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses remains high, some changes prevent a direct comparison and thus limit the range of the analysis.

Two factors are germane to this study. In 1980, ancestries significant to French Louisiana were reported as "French" for single ancestry and "French and other" for multiple ancestries. The latter included among others "French Canadian" and "Ca- jun/Acadian." In 1990, both "French Canadian" and "Cajun/Acad- ian" were reported independently but the breakdown of first and second ancestries was reported only for "French" and "French Canadian." Since the latter contained "Acadian/Cajun," it was not possible to extract first and second ancestries for both origins. In 2000, first and second ancestries were reported independently for "French," "French Canadian," and "Acadian/Cajun." These variations are reflected in the data presented in Table 2.

Then, in order to gauge the prevalence of French-related ancestry claims both in Louisiana and within the general American population, the total number of ancestry claims is needed. Over the years the Census Bureau has used different tabulations to distinguish persons and responses (in cases where one person



WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE CAJUNS OF YORE? 467

claims two or more ancestries) and different labels to report ancestry claims (specified, reported, single, first, second, total). In order to standardize the presentation of data in this article, the ratio of specific ancestry claims is calculated on the basis "total ancestries reported." It consists of the sum of "single ancestry group" and "multiple ancestry group" times two for 1980 (to account for two ancestries reported, the most frequent case of multiple ancestries) and, for 1990 and 2000, of the sum of "specified ancestries" ("first ancestry" plus "second ancestry").

It may be useful to first eliminate improbable scenarios about the vanishing of Cajuns. There is no evidence that Cajuns left Louisiana en masse and moved to other places. No state in the Union has seen a steep increase in claims of Cajun ancestry. In fact, as we will see in greater detail, Cajuns ostensibly have declined nationwide from 668,271 to 85,414. True to their roots, they did not go anywhere else, at least within the United States. The possibility that Cajuns physically disappeared over the past decade is just as unlikely. Louisiana death rates, although slightly higher than the United States average, show no erratic change during the 1990s. Then, Louisiana experienced modest population growth (5.9 percent) adding 249,000 individuals between 1990 and 2000 to reach 4,468,976. Furthermore, the southern region of the state where Cajuns are concentrated, experienced most of the population growth.

Three factors appear to be at play in the drastic decline in Ca- jun ancestry claims: a general decline and shifts in ancestry claims, a methodological issue (the "example effect"), and the continued erosion of the social and cultural uniqueness of Cajuns. Fewer claims of ancestry were made in 2000 than in 1990 both nationwide and in Louisiana. Table 1 indicates that despite a population increase, the overall number of claims decreased by 3 percent nationwide and 12 percent in Louisiana. This substantial decline is interesting because it follows decades that had wit- nessed heightened popular interest in ancestry. Comparable census data on ancestry are not available for the 1960s and 1970s, but there is little doubt that American society became increasingly interested in its ancestral "roots" during the decades of the Civil Rights Movement and white ethnic movements. Compari- son of data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 census schedules shows that 1990 represents a peak in total ancestry claims. The ratio of reports of ancestry to the total population grew from 114 percent to 119.2 percent then dropped to 102 percent for the




American population. (There are more claims than people because some report two or more ancestries). The trend was stronger in Louisiana with a drop of 12 percent in the number of claims (compared to a drop of 3 percent for the American population) between 1990 and 2000. For the first time, there were fewer ancestry claims than people in Louisiana (Table 1).

The American population in 2000 not only limited claims of ancestry, it also tended to disproportionately shun its Western European roots. Indeed, the major ancestry groups which happen to be European experienced the most significant decline nationwide: Germans by 26 percent, English by 24.9 percent, Irish by 21.3 percent. Only claims of Italian origin grew by 7 percent. The trend was even more pronounced in Louisiana where declines ranged between 30 percent and 40 percent for Irish, German, and English ancestry. Unsurprisingly, claims of French ancestry also declined by 18.4 percent nationwide and even more (32 percent) in Louisiana. Even if French ancestry alone is considered, exclu- sive of French Canadian and Cajun, the movement is much smaller (minus .9 percent), but its direction is consistent with the general trend.

The second striking trend to emerge is the increase in claims of American ancestry. Nationwide, there were 58 percent more claims made in 2000 than in 1990. Furthermore, this figure is a minimum since it contains only claims of first ancestry because the Census Bureau does not tabulate secondary claims of Ameri- can ancestry (such as Italian American, for instance). A similar evolution took place in Louisiana: claims of American ancestry grew by almost 60 percent making it the second biggest ancestry group in the state with 450,000 reports, less than 100,000 fewer than French, which ranked first. This seems to have impacted another American origin claim. Claims of French Canadian origin grew by 8.4 percent nationwide and 54.5 percent in Louisiana (see Table 2). This evolution signals a dramatic shift in the identification of Louisiana residents. Whereas European origins had long and by far been the basis of identity claims in American society, 2000 census data show that, now, American origins have become common.

It is quite possible that Cajuns in 2000 emulated the movement by other Louisianians and Americans toward a closer identification with a common national identity. This is not unexpected given some of the structural factors which contribute to transform the makeup of the American population. Particularly important




are the greater distance between contemporary Americans and their European heritage, strong immigration (close to a million immigrants per year between 1990 and 2000), and a shift in the provenance of immigrants who now hail largely from Latin Amer- ica (51 percent of immigrants) and Asia (25 percent). Long domi- nated by the descendants of white European settlers, the Ameri- can population is increasingly diversified. The Bureau of the Census projects that non-Hispanic whites will represent only 52.8 percent of the United States population in 2050.3 Finally, it is worth noting that this development preceded the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent conflicts in Afghani- stan and Iraq. A greater estrangement from European roots and a potent nationalistic sentiment are likely to reinforce this trend.

Still, the decrease in ancestry claims and the shift toward an American-based identity do not fully account for the dramatic drop in Cajun ancestry claims. Insufficient evidence both quantitative-losses and gains don't add up-and qualitative- "Acadian" is an American-based ancestry-point to another ele- ment. The responsibility for the puzzling disappearance of Ca- juns was quickly laid at the feet of the messenger, i.e. the Bureau of the Census. Queried by journalists, local scholars and lay persons alike questioned the Bureau's intent, competence, and methodology.4 While a prominent historian dryly noted that "there are more than 42,000 Cajuns in Lafayette alone," a fifty-eight-year- old Cajun woman from Galliano reassuringly stated "We know we're here."5 Since the wording of the census question (What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin?) and the sampling proce- dure (the question appears on the "long questionnaire" sent to a stratified sample of 15 percent of the general population) have remained unchanged since 1980, the list of examples provided to help respondents came under scrutiny.

Was it then a case of the "example effect" defined as the impact that mention and placement of particular origins may have on

3Adalberto Aguirre, Jr., and Jonathan Turner, American Ethnicity (New York, 2004), 244.

4Brett Martel, "The Census and Cajun Assimilation," The Associated Press State & Local Wire, May 30, 2002; Stephanie Dorster, "Culture Shock," New Orleans Times Picayune, October 20, 2002.

5Brett Martel, "Cajun Decline in La. Just a Census Glitch?" Baton Rouge Advo- cate, August 7, 2001; New York Times, August 16, 2001.




responses to be written to the open-ended question on ancestry? The "example effect" theory rests on the assumption that "examples may serve as response categories for . . . persons who may not be sure of their ethnic origin or ancestry."6 Indeed, Cajun in- serted as an example in the 1990 census had been removed from the list of examples in 2000. Cajun and French Canadian ancestries had recorded huge increases following their insertion as examples 1990. Cajun claims grew by 1,935 percent, by far the most of any group. Only Taiwanese identification increased at a comparable rate (1,077 percent). French Canadian claims grew by a smaller yet impressive 263 percent, the third biggest jump, paralleled only by Haitian (220 percent) and Dominican (196 percent) ancestry. As predicted by the "example effect" theory, Cajun claims did indeed drop following the exclusion of the Cajun example in the 2000 census while claims of French Canadian origin-kept as an example-increased. While changes in census methodology have undoubtedly impacted the variation in Cajun claims, three factors suggest they do not bear sole responsibility.

First, census officials and scholars are familiar with "the example effect." In a 1993 communication, Michael Levin and Susan Lapham had identified it as a source of inconsistency in ancestry reporting along with the placement of examples in the list and the processing of multiple origins. In fact, variations in Cajun and French Canadian claims were singled out and prompted "questions about how respondents perceive their identity and how we structure the question."7 This discussion is part of a larger debate which examines the methods, worthiness, and significance of ancestry reporting by the United States Census.8

6Michael J. Levin and Susan J. Lapham, "Ancestry Reporting in the 1990 Cen- sus: Towards the 2000 Census," paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 3-5, 1993, 13-14.

7Ibid., 14

8Reynolds Farley, "The New Census Question about Ancestry: What Did It Tell Us?," Demography, 28 (1991): 411-29; Michael Hout and Joshua R. Goldstein, "How 4.5 Million Irish Immigrants Became 40 Million Irish Americans: Demo- graphic and Subjective Aspects of the Ethnic Composition of White America," American Sociological Review, 59 (1994): 64-82; Stanley Lieberson and Mary Wa- ters, "The Ethnic Responses of Whites: What Causes Their Instability, Simplifica- tion, and Inconsistency?," Social Forces, 72 (1993): 421-50.




Although the Census Bureau does not make public its internal deliberations, it is possible that Cajun was removed to correct the original "example effect" which, according to many specialists, caused the inflation of Cajun claims in 1990.9 The drastic decline in 2000 would then be the second and correcting manifestation of the "example effect." Following this line of reasoning, Cajuns would not have disappeared since they should not have been there to begin with in 1990. In fact, a comparison of the nationwide figures of 1980 (32,799 claims) and 2000 (85,414) both ob- tained with the same methodology shows a significant increase of Cajun claims.

Ultimately, the issue is somewhat incongruous. Louisiana officials, especially those at the Council for the Development of French in Louisiana, a state agency in charge of promoting French educational programs and Cajun culture, may have played an unwitting role in creating the disturbance. Seeking a precise accounting of the state's French population, they had re- quested the insertion of the Cajun example in 1990, and they in- tend to ask for its reinsertion in the 2010 census.10

Then, the "example effect" does not explain the whole variation. Indeed, German and Croatian were both removed from the 2000 list of examples and their numbers dropped while Norwegian was added and grew by 13.6 percent. In addition, other origins figur- ing in both the 2000 and 1990 such as Italian, Lebanese, and Ukrainian continued to gain in claims. However, the range of variation across ethnic categories (from a few percentage points to several hundreds, up to close to 2,000 percent) suggests that the "example effect" does not affect all responses equally and that other factors maybe at play such as levels of immigration, ability to assimilate, or the political environment abroad or in the United States.

One final and prominent case pointing to the limitation of the "example effect" is the increase of "American" origin despite the fact that it was not included in the list of examples in 1990 and 2000. As we have seen earlier, claims of American origin grew by 60 percent between 1990 and 2000 suggesting that some Cajuns in 1990 became American a decade later. If Cajuns mechanically reacted to the insertion then omission of a label, why would they

9Times-Picayune, October 20, 2002.

10Ibid.




behave differently toward another one? Still, in the case of Lou- isiana Cajuns, the data make it hard to consider that the "example effect" does not account for most of the variation. However, while there seems to be a pattern, it would be precarious to explain variations in ethnic identification of the American population solely on the basis of methodological issues. Thus it may be useful to turn to a third factor.

In addition to the external factors, processes internal to the Ca- jun experience may contribute to the understanding of the decline in ethnic claims. It is possible that it is part correction of a phe- nomenon of symbolic ethnicity. The concept of symbolic ethnicity, introduced by Herbert Gans,1" refers to a superficial identification which does not rest on practices of a cultural difference. The theory aims at explaining the paradox of ethnicity in the late twenti- eth-century American society: on one hand language use, resi- dential patterns, intermarriage, occupational structure, and educational attainment show a clear trend of Americanization of American ethnic groups, while on the other hand claims of ethnic difference have increased since the 1970s. When descendants of immigrants no longer speak the native language of their fore- bears, when they no longer engage in the traditional occupations, when they live and marry outside of the old neighborhood, what is left but a emotional adherence to a waning ethnic difference, a symbolic tie?

Cajun ethnicity is clearly symbolic in part. For instance there are far fewer French speakers than claims of any French origin (261,000 speakers for more than a million claims in 1990, 198,000 for 725,000 in 2000). Other cases in point are the successful inte- gration of Cajuns to the American way of life, and the fact that traditional folkways are either safeguarded in museums or heavily marketed as exotic novelties sold and displayed in myriad res- taurants, souvenirs shops, and festivals.12 However, other aspects of the Cajun experience suggest a structural basis to identity claims. First, the distribution of claims of first and second ancestry suggests that Cajuns are quite secure in their identifica-

"1Herbert Gans, "Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cul- tures in America," Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2 (1979): 1-20.

12Shane Bernard, The Cajuns: Americanization of a People (Jackson, Miss., 2003), 112-45; Jacques Henry and Carl L. Bankston III, Blue Collar Bayou: Lou- isiana Cajuns in the New Economy of Ethnicity (Westport, Conn., 2002), 185-209.



WHATHAS BECOME OF THE CAJUNS OF YORE? 473

tion: Cajun is the first ancestry listed in 91.8 percent of claims in Louisiana. Nationwide, the ratio is lower (84 percent) but still indicative of some ethnic certainty. This shows remarkable simi- larity with the 1990 data which showed that less than 1 percent of Cajuns claimed a second ancestry.13 Then, analyses of both historical trends14 and recent census data show that concentra- tion in southwest Louisiana parishes, over-representation in blue-collar industry occupations and under-representation in management and professional services, a lower socio-economic status compared to other non-Hispanic whites, as well as a lower educational attainment are strongly related to claims of Cajun ethnicity. Could the disappearance of Cajuns be explained by a significant erosion of the structural basis of the Cajun particular- ity, then symbolic in part and now almost gone? Analysis of 2000 census data supports the hypothesis of an identification falling in line with the ongoing Americanization of the way of life.15

One variable related to Acadian ancestry is that of French language use. Predictably, the number of French-speakers in Lou- isiana continues to dwindle. Table 3 shows that 198,000 Louisianians claimed to speak French at home in 2000, 63,000 fewer than in 1990, a drop of 24 percent. The decline which had seemingly slowed to a crawl during the previous decade, which registered a loss of only 2,000 speakers, has apparently returned with a vengeance. A most telling sign of the weakening of the use of French in the state lies in the small number of speakers under eighteen who represent only 8.4 percent of the French-speaking population. This proportion is itself decreasing from 10.2 percent in 1980. This development is troubling considering the thirty- year-old statewide effort to teach French in Louisiana public schools. Despite its popular and political support, the program has obviously failed to create enough speakers to replenish the state's pool of Francophones.

Spoken by 4.8 percent of the population five years old and over, French still is the most widely used foreign language in Louisi- ana. However, while its importance declines (from 6.9 percent in

13Henry and Bankston, Blue Collar Bayou, 141.

14Carl A. Brasseaux, Acadian to Cajun: Transformation of a People 1803-1877 (Jackson, Miss., 1992), 3-19.

15U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) 5% sample. http://www.census.gov (Washington, D. C., 2003).




1990), that of Spanish (105,000 or 2.5 percent of the population) and Vietnamese (23,000 or 0.6 percent of the population) increases.

The parishes with the greatest proportion of French speakers are all located in the traditionally French-speaking area: St. Martin where 27.4 percent of the population over five years of age speaks French, Evangeline (25.6 percent), Vermilion (24.9 percent), Lafourche (19.1 percent), and Acadia (19.0 percent). These are the same parishes than in 1990 but for one (Lafourche and Avoyelles have traded ranks), in a slightly different order, and with lower percentages. In 1990, the top five list read Evangeline (41.1 percent), St. Martin (38.1 percent), Vermilion (37.6 percent), Avoyelles (27.5 percent), and Acadia (27 percent).

Cajuns remain concentrated in Acadiana's twenty-two parishes (83.5 percent) but the heart of Cajun country has moved slightly westward. Parishes where Cajuns are the most heavily repre- sented are Cameron (9.8 percent of the population), Jefferson Davis (6.4 percent), Acadia (5.6 percent), Vermilion (5 percent), and Lafourche (4.8 percent). In 1990, Vermilion, Acadia, Jeffer- son Davis, Evangeline, and St. Martin were the most thoroughly Cajun parishes.

In 2000 as in 1990, Cajuns are more likely to hold jobs in con- struction, manufacturing, and transportation (33.2 percent of employed persons 16 and over) and less likely to occupy manage- rial or professional service positions (25.6 percent) than other non-Hispanic whites (respectively 25 percent and 30.6 percent). In this last category however, the gap is shrinking from 8.5 percentage points in 1990 to 5.6 percentage points.

The leveling of the difference between the socio-economic standing of Cajuns and that of other non-Hispanic whites is most obvi- ous at the income level. The median income of Cajun households ($37,400) remains lower than that of other white households, but the difference has shrunk to $1,500 in 2000 from $5,100 in 1990.

These data suggest that indeed Cajuns may have coordinated their ethnic identification with changes in their socio-economic status and the vigor of their cultural heritage. Less commonly French-speaking and less economically disadvantaged, Cajuns are generally losing their uniqueness and with it the basis to claim a difference. Cajun ethnicity, which became partly symbolic in the 1970s, now appears less and less salient.

The drastic decline in claims of Cajun ancestry is indeed largely due to the failure of Louisiana residents to report the Aca-




dian/Cajun origin as they had done in 1990. Puzzling as it seems at first, it was caused by neither an irrational methodological quirk, nor a collective memory loss, nor the Census Bureau's in- competence. In fact it appears to result from a series of correc- tions and shifts both at the national and statewide levels: a surge in claims of American identity, the correction of the 1990 example effect, and harmonization of identification with a dwindling cultural and structural uniqueness.

Cajuns have not simply "forgotten" to list their ancestry as it was dropped from the list of examples. Had they done so, their identity would have been solely and purely symbolic. Beyond the quantitative evidence, there is little to suggest that Cajuns turned en masse away from the ethnic roots during the 1990s, au contraire. The vigor of Louisiana's French movement has dimin- ished since the 1968-1985 period, which saw the creation of ethnic organizations, the launching of visible cultural and school programs, high-profile visits by heads of state and ministers from la francophonie, as well as a barrage of favorable media coverage. As the movement's objectives were achieved and acceptance of the state's French heritage grew unchallenged, the early and militant enthusiasm for Cajun culture and pride has somehow subsided. But it has not disappeared. The frequency of ethnic festivals, the merchandising of all things Cajun, the well- publicized and emotional worldwide gathering of Acadians in Louisiana in 1994, the celebration of bicentennial of the settle- ment of Louisiana in 1999, and the Louisiana Purchase Bicen- tennial in 2003 point to a continued and deep attachment to Aca- dian roots. In addition, French language education, a hallmark of ethnic activism, has continued to prosper with the multiplication of immersion program in the traditionally Acadian southern parishes. It grew from a handful of classes in two parishes to twenty-eight classes in nine parishes by 2003.

Interestingly enough, this puzzling evolution suggests recom- mendations and hypotheses. On the methodological front, it appears that the "example effect" is indeed a force to be reckoned with. Its impact is widespread as suggested by significant variations of many ancestries, but it is unparalleled on Cajuns' ancestry claims. A slight modification of the Census Bureau's ap- proach to the ancestry question might alleviate the problem. One option could consist of limiting the number of examples to a handful (say one per continent) and keeping the names constant. The high number of responses and the great variety shown in answers




to the open question suggest that the American public is quite aware of and attuned to the meaning of ancestry.

This brief analysis of ancestry and language data may yield some answers to long-standing issues. The question of assimilation of cultural differences has been dealt with, albeit inconclu- sively, by generations of scholars. Data from the 2000 census suggest that the age of "hyphenated Americans" may indeed be waning, as predicted by many scholars.16 It seems to be ushered out by the dual impact of declining attachment to traditional ancestries and a greater identification with American origin. If con- firmed, this evolution may finally solve the paradox of ethnicity caused by the disjunction between the undeniable structural assimilation of white ethnics and the puzzling persistence of ethnic claims. Yet, before proclaiming the end of ethnicity in American society, more analyses and more data are necessary. In the case of Louisiana's Cajuns, additional study would help determine if the attachment of Cajuns to their roots was as fickle and superficial as the recent figures suggest, or if the remapping of Louisi- ana's ethnic landscape is tied to social and economic changes whose effects have gone unnoticed.

16Richard Alba, Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America (New Haven, Conn., 1990); Gans, "Symbolic Ethnicity," 1-20; Stephen Steinberg, The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity and Class in America (New York, 1989); Mary Wa- ters, Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America (Berkeley, Calif., 1990).




Table 1. Claims of major ancestries in Louisiana

and the United States, 1980-2000.

Louisiana

2000 1990 1980 Total Population 4,468,976 4,219,973 4,205,900 Ancestry reported 4,135,701 4,706,302 4,234,861

%change -12.1% 11.1% % of pop. 92.5 % 111.5 % 100.7 %

German 315,346 507,798 445,690 % change -37.9 % 13.9 %

Irish __ 314,647 518,183 558,258 % change -39.3 % -7.2 %

English 232,816 335,620 790,835 % change -30.6 % -57.6 %

Italian 195,561 197,778 165,015 % change -1.1 % 19.9 %

French 725,168 1,069,484 934,237 % change -32.2 % 14.5 %

American 449,714 281,507 n/a % change 59.8 % l

Note: Except for American, these figures represent claims of both first or single (German) and second (Irish and German) or multiple ancestry (German and other). Hence, to be consistent with the 1980 tabulation, 1900 and 2000 figures for French incorporate claims of French, French Canadian, and Acadian/Cajun ancestry. The breakdown is presented in Table 2.




United States

2000 1990 1980 Total Population 281,421,906 248,709,873 226,545,805 Ancestry reported 287,304,883 296,379,515 257,980,198

%change -3.1 % 14.9 % % of po. 102.1 % 119.2 % 113.9 %

German 42,885,162 57,985,595 49,224,146 %change -26.0 % 17.8 %

ish 30,528,492 38,769,200 40,165,702 % change -21.3 % -3.5 %

English 24,515,138 32,655,779 49,598,035 % change -24.9 % -34.2 %

Italian 15,723,555 14,714,939 12,183,692 % change 6.9 % 20.8 %

French 10,745,006 13,171,246 12,904,166 %change -18.4 % 2.1 %

Ae rican 20,625,093 13,052,178 n/a % change 58.0 %

Sources: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population-1980. Volume 1. Gen- eral, Social, and Economic Characteristics of the Population, United States Sum- mary (Washington, 1983), Table 76; U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Popula- tion-1980. Volume 1. General, Social, and Economic Characteristics of the Popu- lation, Part 20-Louisiana (Washington, 1983), Table 60; U. S. Bureau of the Cen- sus, Census 1990, Summary File 3, http://www.census.gov (Washington, 1992), Table P032, P033, P034; U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population-1990. Social and Economic Characteristics, Louisiana (Washington, D. C., 1993), Table 137; U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Summary File 3, http://www.census.gov (Washington, 2002), Table PCT 16, PCT 17, PCT 18.




Table 2. French and French-related ancestries in Louisiana

and the United States, 1980-2000.

Louisiana 2000 1990 1980

French (except Basque) 545,429 550,573 480,772

% of reported ancestries 13.2 % 11.7 % 11.4 %

First 425,982 411,725 Second 119,447 138,848 French and

other groups 453,465 % of reported

ancestries 10.7% French Cana-

dian 134,779 87,260 % of reported

ancestries 3.3 % 1.9 % First 126,995 Second 7,784 Acadian/

Cajun 44,960 431,651 % of reported

ancestries 1.1 % 9.2 % First 41,278 Second 3,682 Total French 725,168 1,069,484 934,237 % of reported

ancestries 17.5 % 22.7 % 22.1 %

Sources: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population-1980. Volume 1. Gen- eral, Social, and Economic Characteristics of the Population, United States Sum- mary (Washington, 1983), Table 76; U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Popula- tion-1980. Volume 1. General, Social, and Economic Characteristics of the Popu- lation, Part 20-Louisiana (Washington, 1983), Table 60; U. S. Bureau of the Cen- sus, Census 1990, Summary File 3, http://www.census.gov (Washington, 1992), Table P032, P033, P034.




United States 2000 1990 1980

French (except Basque) 8,309,908 10,337,400 3,068,907

% of reported ancestries 2.9 % 3.5 % 1.2 %

First 4,872,360 6,204,184 Second 3,437,548 4,133,216 French and

other groups 9,835,259 % of reported ancestries 3.8 %

French Cana- dian 2,349,684 2,166,222

% of reported ancestries 0.8 % 0.7 %

First 1,860,070 Second 489,614 Acadian/Caun 85,414 667,624 32,799 % of reported ancestries 0.03 % 0.23 % 0.01 %

First 71,681 Second 13,733 Total French 10,745,006 13,171,246 12,904,166 % of reported ancestries 3.7 % 4.4 % 5.0 %

Sources (continued): U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population-1990. Social and Economic Characteristics, Louisiana (Washington, 1993), Table 137; U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Summary File 3, http://www.census.gov (Washington, 2002), Table PCT 16, PCT 17, PCT 18.




Table 3. French and other languages spoken in Louisiana,

1980-2000.

Language Spo- ken at Home 2000 1990 1980

No. % No. % No. %

Population 5 years and over 4,153,367 100 % 3,886,353 100 % 3,845,505 100%

Speak only English 3,771,003 90.8 % 3,494,359 89.9 % 3,461,457 90%

Speak a language other than English 382,364 9.2 % 391,994 10.1 % 384,048 10%

French (incl. Patois, Cajun, Creole) 198,784 4.8 % 261,678 6.7 % 263,490 6.9 %

French Creole 4,470 0.1 % 6,750 0.2 % n/a

Spanish or Spanish Cre- ole 105,189 2.5 % 72,173 1.9 % 50,837 1.3 %

Vietnamese 23,326 0.6 % 14,352 0.4 % 8,980 0.2 % French-

speakers, age 5-17 16,663 8.4 % n/a 26,893 10.2 %

French- speakers, over 18 182,121 91.6 % n/a 236,597 89.8 %

Sources: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population-1980. Volume 1. Gen- eral, Social, and Economic Characteristics of the Population, Part 20-Louisiana (Washington, 1983), Table 172; U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 Sum- mary File 3, http://www.census.gov (Washington, 1992), Table P028; U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Summary File 3, http://www.census.gov (Washington, 2002), Table P19.



Documents

What Has Become of the Cajuns of Yore?