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.
That could be because maybe your dads side of the family aren't African. It's a lot I can say, but my family is basically the same way. Did you know " African American's" use to be recognized as Indian? There's a ton of information out here now about who Black Americans really are. A lot of it will shock you. I don't want to really discuss it here though.
I'm with you 100%. I won't discuss it here either. Because it will be long and drawn out from what my family has told me. My family is the same way. Claim only the South.
I don't understand the basis of the statistics in the OP.
I imagine this like a venn diagram where "Black Alone" is a subset of "In Combination of 1 Or More Races". For instance, there clearly aren't 4.1 million black/black mixed race people living in metro Atlanta. You can therefore subtract "Black Alone" from "In Combination of 1 Or More Races" and get "Black Mixed Race" population. "Black Mixed Race" population makes up anywhere from 4-13% of the metro's populations. Most are between 5-8%. So far so good.
But this leads to untenable outcomes when you look at growth rates.
Why would Philly's "Black Alone" population crater by 11,690, while its "Black Mixed Race" population surged by nearly 20,000, representing 15% growth in a single year?!
Why would Dallas' "Black Alone" population skyrocket by 42,000, while it's "Black Mixed Race" population plummets 10% in a year?
It makes no sense. Either I'm reading the data way wrong or the growth rates of the mixed race and alone segments are very strange and/or wrong.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Remember that all racial statistics on the Census form are self identified. There is no verification check, it is mostly but not 100% accurate. It best measures how people view themselves culturally rather than being a DNA reveal. Most African Americans have European ancestry and some White Americans of colonial America or Italian heritage have African ancestry. Most Hispanics have some African ancestry yet few identify as part Black. Also yearly Census estimates are not as accurate as the decennial census.
I don't understand the basis of the statistics in the OP.
I imagine this like a venn diagram where "Black Alone" is a subset of "In Combination of 1 Or More Races". For instance, there clearly aren't 4.1 million black/black mixed race people living in metro Atlanta. You can therefore subtract "Black Alone" from "In Combination of 1 Or More Races" and get "Black Mixed Race" population. "Black Mixed Race" population makes up anywhere from 4-13% of the metro's populations. Most are between 5-8%. So far so good.
But this leads to untenable outcomes when you look at growth rates.
Why would Philly's "Black Alone" population crater by 11,690, while its "Black Mixed Race" population surged by nearly 20,000, representing 15% growth in a single year?!
Why would Dallas' "Black Alone" population skyrocket by 42,000, while it's "Black Mixed Race" population plummets 10% in a year?
It makes no sense. Either I'm reading the data way wrong or the growth rates of the mixed race and alone segments are very strange and/or wrong.
This!
I'd just come to the conclusion that Black in Combination is the "total." I'd suggest to just look at the Black in Combination growth.
That could be because maybe your dads side of the family aren't African. It's a lot I can say, but my family is basically the same way. Did you know " African American's" use to be recognized as Indian? There's a ton of information out here now about who Black Americans really are. A lot of it will shock you. I don't want to really discuss it here though.
You could also say the opposite, as the Melungeons in Appalachia were thought to be a mixture of Black, Native American and White, while identifying as Native American. However, there was a recent journal that showed that it is largely a group that is of a Black/White mix. Melungeons: DNA study seeks origin of Ancient Appalachian people | Daily Mail Online
Then, you have the Ramapos that are on the NY/NJ border that claim to be a similar tri-racial isolate, but here is a video of people of that group: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKvS6EJvQos
I'm with you 100%. I won't discuss it here either. Because it will be long and drawn out from what my family has told me. My family is the same way. Claim only the South.
For me, "ancestral homeland" is simply a matter of where my ancestors came from. They did not come from the South. They were brought to the South from Africa. Bajans, Jamaicans and Haitians were similarly brought to the Caribbean from Africa. Africa is where my ancestors came from whether I want to claim it or not.
The only people I would consider to have an ancestral homeland here are the Arapaho, Iroquois, Apache, Sioux, Shawnee, etc.
If anything, racists make it very clear where our ancestral homeland is.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 09-21-2016 at 02:17 PM..
For me, "ancestral homeland" is simply a matter of where my ancestors came from. They did not come from the South. They were brought to the South from Africa. Bajans, Jamaicans and Haitians were similarly brought to the Caribbean from Africa. Africa is where my ancestors came from whether I want to claim it or not.
The only people I would consider to have an ancestral homeland here are the Arapaho, Iroquois, Apache, Sioux, Shawnee, etc.
If anything, racists make it very clear where our ancestral homeland is.
Yeah according to the words and elders of my family, they say different. They have told us their ancestral land is here in America. That's all I'm going to say about that.
I was reading this article about TV getting a healthy dose of Southern Blackness in Queen Sugar and Atlanta, and this paragraph made me think of this thread:
Quote:
If Atlanta reveals what a lot of us don’t think the South is, Ava DuVernay’s Queen Sugar is far more familiar terrain. But even as sophisticated as some of us have become in other parts of the country, Queen Sugar reminds us that there is still some good, i.e., a sense of family and community, in the rural South. Current Columbia professor Farah Jasmine Griffin wrote of the “symbolic, almost mythical sense of the South as home” in her 1995 book, “Who Set You Flowin’?”: The African-American Migration Narrative, and that’s what Queen Sugar, whose camera languishes on the beauty of the South, seizes upon.
Yeah according to the words and elders of my family, they say different. They have told us their ancestral land is here in America. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Because all they know is America. You obviously had ancestors that had to come from Africa in order for them to be slaves in the South in the first place. Nobody came off the boat with names like Williams, Washington, Brown and Jenkins.
In the immortal words of D'Angelo...
“Africa is my descent, and here, I’m far from home; I dwell within a land that’s meant for many men not my tone.”
Before you negroes get too ignant...just know that every states situation is different. And everybodys story is gonna be different. People have a "general" concept of enslavement and "Black" peoples in this country. Everybodys story is not the same.
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.
