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.
Maryland will become minority majority soon enough
Thats due to the Major Influx of Central American-El Salvadorian, Caribbean, and African(West and Northeast-Eithiopian) Immigrants moving to the Baltimore-Washington Corridor......
Thats due to the Major Influx of Central American-El Salvadorian, Caribbean, and African(West and Northeast-Eithiopian) Immigrants moving to the Baltimore-Washington Corridor......
I know, just look at Charles, Montgomery and P.G. counties
Florida is not majority-minority. However, the rest three are right.
California,Hawaii,New Mexico, and Texas are the majority-minority states. These are the patterns I notice. The states with majority-minority populations, 3/4 of them have large Hispanic population(CA,NM,TX). One of them(HI) has the largest percentage of Asians in the USA. All of these states have African-American populations below the USA average with the smallest percentage in New Mexico at 3%. Texas has the largest African-American population of the 4 majority-minority states, at 11.9%. Texas also have the largest total number of African-Americans of all of these states. 2,949,094.
I did notice something else. Many states with White populations slightly below the national average, but still making up a majority: The largest minority is African-American. Arizona is the standout anomaly.
My stance: I see the stats, and I see some patterns. I do have some questions on why these patterns have worked out the way they have. It is partly out of curiosity. With that said, I don't worry about it much. Why should I?
Last edited by green_mariner; 06-18-2010 at 02:15 PM..
Reason: Added some more information
My stance: I see the stats, and I see some patterns. I do have some questions on why these patterns have worked out the way they have. It is partly out of curiosity. With that said, I don't worry about it much. Why should I?
I don't know if you caught my post on the 2nd page of this thread, but here goes:
States below 50% White Alone, Non-Hispanic
Texas: 47.8% of the population
California: 42.6% of the population
New Mexico: 41.9% of the population
Hawaii: 24.8% of the population
States below the US national average for white, but not majority non-White Alaska: 65.8% of the population
South Carolina: 65.2% of the population
Illinois: 64.9% of the population
Louisiana: 62.3% of the population
New Jersey: 62.0% of the population
Florida: 60.7% of the population
New York: 60.1% of the population
Georgia: 58.9% of the population
Mississippi: 58.9% of the population
Arizona: 58.8% of the population
Maryland: 58.0% of the population
Nevada: 58.0% of the population
47.8% White Non-Hispanic
35.9% Hispanic
11.3% Black
3.3% Asian
1.9% Two or More Races
Hawaii and New Mexico seem to have a lot in common as majority-minority states such as:
1) Having no real majority, but a plurality of one group (Asians for HI, Hispanics for NM)
2) Both have around the same percentage of their indigenous populations (8.4% Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for HI, 8.7% Native American for NM)
3) Both have small black populations (2.2% for HI, 2.0% for NM)
4) Both were NEVER majority White Non-Hispanic (Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals By Race, 1790 to 1990, and By Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, For The United States, Regions, Divisions, and States) *NOTE: Hispanics used to be counted as White with Hispanic surnames until the mid 20th century.
On the same token, California and Texas have only one thing in common; having around the same percentage of Hispanics (36.1% for CA, 35.9% for TX) and used to be majority White Non-Hispanic states, but differ in that;
1) Asians in CA are higher in percentage than Blacks in TX (12.1% vs. 11.3%)
2) There are less White Non-Hispanics in terms of % in CA than in TX (42.6% vs. 47.8%)
3) There are nearly twice as many Blacks in percentage of the population in CA than there are Asians in TX (6.0% vs 3.3% in TX)
4)There are also nearly twice as many multiracial people in CA than in TX in terms of percentage (3.4% vs 1.9%)
For CA vs. TX (for those that USED to be majority White but now majority minority), against the national average:
California has
35.4% less Whites than the national average
239% more Hispanics than the national average
281% more Asians than the national average
50.5% less Blacks than the national average
155% more people of two or more races than the national average
Texas has
27.5% less Whites than the national average
238% more Hispanics than the national average
6.7% less Blacks than the national average
23.3% less Asians than the national average
13.7% less people of two or more people than the national average
NM and HI never were majority White Non-Hispanic. Texas and California were, but due to their proximity to the Mexican border (and for California, being right on the Pacific Coast), became non-White rather quickly due to the reclassification of Hispanics as "Non-Whites" on the US census and post-1965 immigration. However, these populations have always existed, just not in the numbers they do today. Arizona is the only border state to still be a majority White Non-Hispanic state, but that will probably change within the next 10 years.
Nevada is an interesting case, because it reflects much of California's population patterns since its pretty much an extension of California. Again, within the next 5-10 years that will change as more and more non-White Californians (especially Hispanics and Asians) will move to NV for cheaper housing costs.
The rest of the states, especially in the Northeast, are pretty much a reflection of US national demographics. When Hispanics became the largest US minority, some of those states in the NE (especially NY, NJ) and Midwest (IL) had bigger Hispanic populations than African American ones.
All of this should be mooted relatively soon. Which is why the other statistic "Two or more Races" shall be interesting to watch. Suffice to say, White Non-Hispanics seem to marry with Asians and Hispanics at MUCH HIGHER rates than they do to African Americans. I'm curious to see how this will bode in the future.
I don't know if you caught my post on the 2nd page of this thread, but here goes:
NM and HI never were majority White Non-Hispanic. Texas and California were, but due to their proximity to the Mexican border (and for California, being right on the Pacific Coast), became non-White rather quickly due to the reclassification of Hispanics as "Non-Whites" on the US census. However, these populations have always existed, just not in the numbers they do today. Arizona is the only border state to still be a majority White Non-Hispanic state, but that will probably change within the next 10 years.
Nevada is an interesting case, because it reflects much of California's population patterns since its pretty much an extension of California. Again, within the next 5-10 years that will change as more and more non-White Californians (especially Hispanics and Asians) will move to NV for cheaper housing costs.
The rest of the states, especially in the Northeast, are pretty much a reflection of US national demographics. When Hispanics became the largest US minority, some of those states in the NE (especially NY, NJ) and Midwest (IL) had bigger Hispanic populations than African American ones.
All of this should be mooted relatively soon. Which is why the other statistic "Two or more Races" shall be interesting to watch. Suffice to say, White Non-Hispanics seem to marry with Asians and Hispanics at MUCH HIGHER rates than they do to African Americans. I'm curious to see how this will bode in the future.
This doesn't sound right, but also this can be complex due to many Hispanics in NY and NJ are Black or are of Black African descent too. So, many could be in both categories due to the fact that Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race.
Many people in NY that identify as "Two races" also are many times people of Black African descent and are non-Hispanic in any way. Some can be in that category due to having a Black parent and a "Hispanic" parent too.
This doesn't sound right, but also this can be complex due to many Hispanics in NY and NJ are Black or are of Black African descent too. So, many could be in both categories due to the fact that Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race.
Many people in NY that identify as "Two races" also are many times people of Black African descent and are non-Hispanic in any way. Some can be in that category due to having a Black parent and a "Hispanic" parent too.
Yeah, the US census really didn't think that one through. Hispanics CAN be of any race, but the reason for the classification is probably because of how to mark "Mestizos" on the US census.
The US has a decent population of those who are mixed European/Native, but it never was as large or larger than those who were purely European. In addition, the US has had a continual flow of immigrants from Europe from the 1600s until really, the 1990s, ensuring that there would always be new European blood to add to the US gene pool. Any Native traits would simply be "bred out" of the gene pool.
Latin America does have countries that have large European descended populations that became a majority (Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay especially), but it never outnumbered the native population in Central America and Mexico, or the slave/black populations in the Caribbean. Suffice to say, the "Mestizo" is probably the hardest thing the US Census has had to classify in large numbers. As a cop out, they just have the general "Hispanic of any race" there.
http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf
(Page 34) Latin America as a whole is (includes all Spanish speaking countries, Puerto Rico, and Brazil):
36.1% White/Criollo (Local European descendants)
30.3% Mestizo (White/Native)
20.3% Mulatto (White/Black)
9.2% Indigenous
3.2% Black
0.7% Asian
0.2% Zambo (Native/African)
The largest Latin American groups sending immigrants to the United States are those with Mestizo majorities (especially Mexico and El Salvador) or Mulatto majorities (Dominican Republic).
Yeah, the US census really didn't think that one through. Hispanics CAN be of any race, but the reason for the classification is probably because of how to mark "Mestizos" on the US census.
The US has a decent population of those who are mixed European/Native, but it never was as large or larger than those who were purely European. In addition, the US has had a continual flow of immigrants from Europe from the 1600s until really, the 1990s, ensuring that there would always be new European blood to add to the US gene pool. Any Native traits would simply be "bred out" of the gene pool.
Latin America does have countries that have large European descended populations that became a majority (Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay especially), but it never outnumbered the native population in Central America and Mexico, or the slave/black populations in the Caribbean. Suffice to say, the "Mestizo" is probably the hardest thing the US Census has had to classify in large numbers. As a cop out, they just have the general "Hispanic of any race" there.
http://convergencia.uaemex.mx/rev38/38pdf/LIZCANO.pdf
(Page 34) Latin America as a whole is (includes all Spanish speaking countries, Puerto Rico, and Brazil):
36.1% White/Criollo (Local European descendants)
30.3% Mestizo (White/Native)
20.3% Mulatto (White/Black)
9.2% Indigenous
3.2% Black
0.7% Asian
0.2% Zambo (Native/African)
The largest Latin American groups sending immigrants to the United States are those with Mestizo majorities (especially Mexico and El Salvador) or Mulatto majorities (Dominican Republic).
Fascinating phenomenon really
Then, you have the dynamic that Puerto Rico provides to the mix too. Can't forget the people that come from countries like Columbia and those in Central America.
First off the word hispanic is ultra misleading now for the state of California most of the hispanics there are central american indians living there aztech mayan descendants who happen to speak Spanish. Now Texas and New Mexico are a little different. These two state have a large Spanish population that was there since to colonies. They have Spanish last names no **** there family comes from Spain(which is a white european country). it is the newer generation of Hispanics that are more native american from mexico. The 71% white population for Texas is probably more correct then people think
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.
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.
