U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-04-2012, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
2,685 posts, read 6,360,114 times
Reputation: 2356

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
150 years ago many of the western states did not exist yet, however many whites moved westward and settled these states. You didn't really think about the question, I hope you think about it this time around.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/b...c2010br-02.pdf

Well, the region that has the heaviest concentration of White Americans is the Midwest, followed by the Northeast (or combined together, the 'North'), which combined has 90,104,727 of the 196,817,552 (or 46% of White Americans), despite the combined North having 39% of the total US population. However, barely anyone thinks of White Americans as being "concentrated" in that part of the country because obviously White Americans have settled everywhere.

In the larger scheme of things, 150 years is not really that much time given that for much of that period, the North didn't have very many jobs available to Black people to begin with. Remember that until 1914, there was a massive migration of European immigrants to the United States that filled the job niche that Southern Blacks frankly weren't even allowed to fill. Massive labor recruitment of Blacks from the South only started after that migration stream was stopped due to WW1. So really, you're talking about an 100 year span of free movement.

Remember that during the late 19th and early 20th century, if you were Black anywhere in the US, you were going to have a hard time moving and finding a job. It's not like now where you can move and find something relatively quickly. No, your ethnicity and race were a lot more determinative of your employment options than they are nowadays. Until 1914, frankly many of those places didn't really want to hire Blacks.

And you're talking about millions of millions of people, each of whom have particular circumstances of why they wanted to stay or why they left to what they felt were greener pastures. It comes down to lack of a need to or lack of a means to leave.

Off-topic from this: I notice that people from out of state tend to overestimate how many Black people live in California until they actually come here. I do get the impression a lot of it is popular media driven (Hollywood did make a lot of movies about South Central LA, the Black Panther movement started in Oakland, West Coast gangster rap became a big thing in the late 1980s-early 1990s), but Black Americans never really surpassed the 7% mark of California's population. In fact, they really were only the 3rd largest demographic here for around 30 years (roughly 1960-1985), but are now a distant 4th.

In many of the Northern states, Blacks are no longer the largest minority either as the growth of Hispanics pushed Black Americans behind them in states like Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, but "Hispanics" themselves are not a unified cultural group like Black Americans are. Same thing can be said about Florida nowadays, and Texas has been this way for nearly all of it's history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2012, 04:51 PM
 
Location: West Tennessee
2,082 posts, read 2,899,717 times
Reputation: 1337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsboy View Post
Why do so many Puerto Ricans live in NYC? Why do so many Latinos live in Texas and Cakifornia? Why do so many Cubans live in Miami? The reasons are ALL THE SAME as to why so many African-Americans live in the south!

Ask the question as many times and as many ways as you want, but blacks were brought to the South through slavery and it is where they still live to this day! WHAT OTHER ANSWER ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?! Like most Southerners, they probably don't like cold weather either!

BTW: Your question about "why so many blacks live in the South" might have better been stated "Why are so many blacks moving BACK to the South?" That's a true demographic phenomenon of historic proportions and something very worthy of discussion.
I think he meant to ask why some blacks didn't leave the south and some did, judging by his responses. Sharecropping & a lack of means to move had a lot to do with it. Good post though straight to the point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 04:53 PM
 
22,769 posts, read 26,219,013 times
Reputation: 14558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsboy View Post
Why do so many Puerto Ricans live in NYC? Why do so many Latinos live in Texas and Cakifornia? Why do so many Cubans live in Miami? The reasons are ALL THE SAME as to why so many African-Americans live in the south!
latinos are in texas and california because those groups settled there as free spaniards, many years ago.

blacks were brought to the coastal plain of the south , against their will, and seem to have taken a dramatically different path than american latinos. i'm not sure how you figure they got here the same way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 04:53 PM
 
3,326 posts, read 7,751,221 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
And white people's roots are in Europe, it's their home, why didn't they just stay there? And New England was settled before the south, yet people still moved south back in the day.

If you really do not understand the question by now, then I can't help you see it. I've asked it several different ways, and over a dozen other posts on this thread have addressed exactly what I asked. Yet you're still confused, if you can't see what is obvious to others, I can't help you.
You've gotten plenty of good answers. It's really not that confusing. The vast majority of black people have roots in the south as far as this country is concerned. Most stayed there, others spread out to other parts of the country. The same can be said for any segment of the population, and in any region.
As to why most stayed in the south, it's anybody's guess. I imagine there are several reasons for it, but at the end of the day, it's their home and has been for generations.
You say Europeans moved. New Englanders moved. Okay, they did, but most Europeans stayed in Europe, otherwise Europe would be empty today. Most New England people stayed put. Why didn't more move away? Why didn't more stay? Those are the same kind of questions in my opinion. For the most part, the majority of people don't stray too far from where they grew up.
The world's population is so great that it may seem like a majority of people of a certain ethnicity, nationality, or large cultural group moved en mass to somewhere else when you notice many of them in a place where they didn't used to exist, but I'm not sure that's ever really happened. If so, it's very rare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 06:27 PM
 
29,944 posts, read 27,375,616 times
Reputation: 18517
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
And white people's roots are in Europe, it's their home, why didn't they just stay there? And New England was settled before the south, yet people still moved south back in the day.
And the last time I checked, most Europeans actually stayed in Europe and most New Englanders didn't move South. And the Europeans that HAVE migrated to the U.S. tend to have their own clusters as well; they didn't move uniformly across the rest of the country. Most ancestral groups are clustered in different parts of the country; for Blacks, that just happens to be in the South:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Savannah GA
13,420 posts, read 16,966,698 times
Reputation: 9513
It seems Scandavians have a much higher presence in the upper Midwest .. Can someone shed some light on this disparity of racial location to me?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 07:16 PM
 
Location: West Tennessee
2,082 posts, read 2,899,717 times
Reputation: 1337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsboy View Post
It seems Scandavians have a much higher presence in the upper Midwest .. Can someone shed some light on this disparity of racial location to me?

lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 07:55 PM
 
56,618 posts, read 80,930,134 times
Reputation: 12508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
Sojourner Truth did not learn to speak English until she was a teenager and sold from her original home. She was born a slave to a Dutch family in upstate New York and spoke Dutch first. I know black people with Dutch last names, too.

In NJ, they made the law that any slave born after July 4, 1804, would be freed upon reaching 25 for a male and 21 for a female. Slaves born before July 4 of that year would remain slaves. In 1846, slavery was "abolished" in NJ, but not really. The terminology was just changed. Existing slaves became "apprentices", even though they might be elderly at that point. The state law also allowed for slaveowners to turn their slaves over to the state, who made the slaves wards--which meant that they would pay someone else to feed/shelter the former slave, and that someone was usually the former owner who had "freed" them, which meant that the owner then received a payment from the state to feed and shelter that same person they had always had to feed and shelter (and get work out of).

There were still slaves on the census in NJ in 1860. Slavery did not really end until the 13th Amendment was ratified.
Very true and NY was very similar, but a lot of people don't about this aspect of history. MA, CT and RI also had slavery.

Here's a group of people of African descent that had a strong Dutch influence: The Ramapough Mountain Indians of Stag Hill : The New Yorker

Ramapough Mountain Indians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, there are examples of Black labor being replaced in the North by European immigrants before WWI. An example of this is given in an article by Sylvea Hollis done in 2007 called, "The Black Man Has Almost Disappeared from Our Country: African American Workers in Cooperstown NY, 1860-1900".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Macon, GA
1,908 posts, read 4,035,077 times
Reputation: 1771
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
Yes, the rural black population in the south is much different from the rural population in the north where it's almost exclusively whites.

Your other points are a bit off though. Illinois has a much lower percentage of blacks overall than the deep south states. The only reason they have more in actual population is because it's a MUCH larger state than any of the southern states, nearly 13 million people compared with Louisiana at 4, Mississippi at 3, and Alabama at 4.

Ohio is also a densely populated state with many urban areas and cities, same case as Illinois. So I don't really understand that point.

But your last paragraph brings up an excellent point. The southern rural population is more diverse between blacks and whites than it is up north where they are almost exclusive to the urban areas.
I don't understand where I'm off or where we disagree? You said what I said. The OP asked why southern states have a higher African American population. He then showed how high the percentages were in states like Louisiana and South Carolina, and how low they were in states like Illinois and Ohio. I was just making sure he/she didn't confuse higher % of African Americans with higher African American population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
The only reason they have more in actual population is because it's a MUCH larger state than any of the southern states, nearly 13 million people compared with Louisiana at 4, Mississippi at 3, and Alabama at 4.
That's the point I was making to the OP. While a state like Illinois is only 15% black and Louisiana is 32% black, he/she shouldn't mistake that for meaning Louisiana has more total blacks than Illinois in raw numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Columbus,Georgia
2,663 posts, read 3,978,725 times
Reputation: 600

The History of Slavery In America (part 1 of 3) - YouTube

The History of Slavery In America (part 2 or 3) - YouTube

The History of Slavery In America (part 3 of 3) - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top