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.
There is very little to respond to in your real estate comparison. Youre not comparing housing that are anywhere near similar in size. Youre basically comparing condos to single family homes and treating them as the same. In the link you posted about housing in Anacostia, only one property for sale was a single family, detached house and it was $950K. In the Houston links on 77018 all the houses available were single family detached homes and they started at $375K. Youre comparing apples to oranges and trying hard to pretend they are apples. Thats kind of been the theme of this thread.
Huh? It sounds like you guys have an agenda so I'll let you have it. The fact that we are comparing the Acres neighborhood in Houston to living in DC proper is already enough to walk away from this...
By the way, DC is a city. A real one so detached single-family homes aren't prevalent.
"You also are forgetting one substantial detail in all this. People in Houston make pennies compared to DC salaries. Who can't afford $2,000-$3,000 in DC for a house?"
My remark was in response to that.
Once again, you move the goal posts. You also left out any account for inflation or cost of living which makes those numbers worthless.
PS: If you going to compare 2020 numbers to 2010 numbers, use the 5 year estimates for both. Not the 2010 one year and the 2011 5 year to 2020 5 year.
Like I said in my last post, I'll let you guys have this. I'm not going to argue this COL thing. If you think Black people are paying $800,000 for a rowhouse EOTR in DC, keep believing it. You got it.
Well, I tried your method and still got slightly different results. I will use Detroit as an example.
- I agree that the $58945 used is consistent with the calculator.
- Using the inflation exchange rate between 2010 and 2020 ($1 = $1.19) makes 2010 equivalent $49534.
- Households above $58945 in 2020 was 50702 (using iteration)
- Households above $49534 in 2010 was 47906
- Difference is 2796, or 5.8%.
Still growth, but lower than your number. Perhaps your inflation calculator was in 2022 dollars versus 2020?
So sticking with my tweak to your method for my Rust Belt Five:
Middle/Upper Middle/Upper Class Black Household Growth between 2010-2020 by City Proper with Inflation and Cost of Living Factored In
Not coincidentally, Buffalo was the only city among the 5 to show an increase in Black resident, and total population, between 2010 and 2020.
All in all, everything is estimates, and regardless of what the numbers are, by using similar methodology it can be used in making comparisons among cities.
And this seems like a good analysis too. These both highlight the fact that there is no apples to apples way to do this though we did try.
Btw, Above and So Below can you use your method on Mansfield, Arlington and Grand Prairie. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if they as well as maybe a suburban part of Vegas, Charlotte or Atlanta might make the top 10 growth list. I think Arlington and Mansfield definitely have potential.
Based off the tons of research I've run across dealing with the Intra American slave trade I don't think there's been an extensive study on the life expectancy of enslaved Africans arriving in the 12 colonies from the Caribbean's.
Many died during the routes to the United States, far less though than the "trips" directly from Africa. But there were way too many ships coming in from the Caribbean's to the United States to suggest it had an insignificant impact on the enslaved Africans that were brought here directly from Africa to America. Also there were enslaved Africans in the Spanish Americas before Jamestown 1619 which was also enslaved Africans "stolen" from a Portuguese ship from South America.
Considering the bulk of Enslaved Africans were brought to the Caribbean's and South America way more than the United States. It wouldn't be far fetched to say that United States larger Black population is a result of:
1) The transportation of Enslaved Africans from the larger Enslaved populations in the Caribbean's and South America.
2) Over exploitation of Breeding and common sexual exploitations(rape) of enslaved Women.
3) Higher life expectancy due to more "favorable" conditions on plantations.
Still though, I don't really like the idea of saying one group of enslaved people had it worst than the other group. I guess, but that concept just doesn't compute with me considering enslaved people were enslaved. Sugar plantations produced harsher conditions compared to the plantations in Southern United States resulting in higher mortality rates but I mean you still got a higher than normal mortality rate regardless of what plantation you ended up in. I just think looking at it from the perspective of who had it worst or them vs. us is the wrong way to look at that specific topic.
To be honest, I really wasn't thinking about Indian Americans when I made that statement. And that's not to sound dismissive of them but a demographic consisting of 1.4% of the American population didn't really register in my immediate thought process of that statement.
I was saying that when slaves arrive in the Caribbean they tended to live about 7/8 years. Idk how long they survived in the US but AFAIK only about 600,000 slaves MAXcame to the US on ships. To your first point, I don't know of any evidence that this is a major contributor to the US slave population. Points 2 and 3, are extremely valid though.
There were some slaves in Spanish Florida from like 1515-1525 but they disappeared and blended into the native American tribes. I don't like the;1619' Project title for that reason but its wasn't continued enslavement over generations...unless there were slaves in New Mexico...
the entire new world is relatively more violent than the old world- barring war. Because these societies were literally based in extreme levels of violence. Caribbean blacks have a lot in common with US Blacks because we both went through Creolization but they also retained more autonomy from white oppression interpersonally than we did. But is a very different experience than for continental Africans who generally have higher rates of education, income and integration than do Caribbean blacks. Especially in NYC and Bosotn where many Caribbean folks began arriving in the late 1800s.
Based off the tons of research I've run across dealing with the Intra American slave trade I don't think there's been an extensive study on the life expectancy of enslaved Africans arriving in the 12 colonies from the Caribbean's.
Many died during the routes to the United States, far less though than the "trips" directly from Africa. But there were way too many ships coming in from the Caribbean's to the United States to suggest it had an insignificant impact on the enslaved Africans that were brought here directly from Africa to America. Also there were enslaved Africans in the Spanish Americas before Jamestown 1619 which was also enslaved Africans "stolen" from a Portuguese ship from South America.
Considering the bulk of Enslaved Africans were brought to the Caribbean's and South America way more than the United States. It wouldn't be far fetched to say that United States larger Black population is a result of:
1) The transportation of Enslaved Africans from the larger Enslaved populations in the Caribbean's and South America.
2) Over exploitation of Breeding and common sexual exploitations(rape) of enslaved Women.
3) Higher life expectancy due to more "favorable" conditions on plantations.
Still though, I don't really like the idea of saying one group of enslaved people had it worst than the other group. I guess, but that concept just doesn't compute with me considering enslaved people were enslaved. Sugar plantations produced harsher conditions compared to the plantations in Southern United States resulting in higher mortality rates but I mean you still got a higher than normal mortality rate regardless of what plantation you ended up in. I just think looking at it from the perspective of who had it worst or them vs. us is the wrong way to look at that specific topic.
The first point i would like to state that the importation of enslaved africans from the caribbean & brazil wasn't larger than the african importation over the total span of activity. There's definitely specific decades when caribbean import match or exceeded african around the mid/late 1600s iirc. Hence the carolinas gullah geechie dialect of the carolina/georgia islands.
The other points have merits and geographic distribution of enslaved populace ( plantations, farms, islands, swamps,towns, cities).
The first point i would like to state that the importation of enslaved africans from the caribbean & brazil wasn't larger than the african importation over the total span of activity. There's definitely specific decades when caribbean import match or exceeded african around the mid/late 1600s iirc. Hence the carolinas gullah geechie dialect of the carolina/georgia islands.
The other points have merits and geographic distribution of enslaved populace ( plantations, farms, islands, swamps,towns, cities).
Yea there weren't really spare slaves to send to the US in general. Not after the time period, you listed, maybe into the 1700s. They scale up quickly and enormously and slaves in the Caribbean were quickly being imported (at age 20/21) worked to death (by age 27), and tossed aside.
I was saying that when slaves arrive in the Caribbean they tended to live about 7/8 years. Idk how long they survived in the US but AFAIK only about 600,000 slaves MAXcame to the US on ships. To your first point, I don't know of any evidence that this is a major contributor to the US slave population. Points 2 and 3, are extremely valid though.
There were some slaves in Spanish Florida from like 1515-1525 but they disappeared and blended into the native American tribes. I don't like the;1619' Project title for that reason but its wasn't continued enslavement over generations...unless there were slaves in New Mexico...
the entire new world is relatively more violent than the old world- barring war. Because these societies were literally based in extreme levels of violence. Caribbean blacks have a lot in common with US Blacks because we both went through Creolization but they also retained more autonomy from white oppression interpersonally than we did. But is a very different experience than for continental Africans who generally have higher rates of education, income and integration than do Caribbean blacks. Especially in NYC and Bosotn where many Caribbean folks began arriving in the late 1800s.
I think he is referring to the "seasoning" period where enslaved Africans would go to those areas and then get brought to what is now the US after a certain period of time.
To get back on topic...
I'm also wondering if there is a population limit for cities and if we adjust for cost of living, what the true percentages would be?
I was saying that when slaves arrive in the Caribbean they tended to live about 7/8 years. Idk how long they survived in the US but AFAIK only about 600,000 slaves MAXcame to the US on ships. To your first point, I don't know of any evidence that this is a major contributor to the US slave population. Points 2 and 3, are extremely valid though.
There were some slaves in Spanish Florida from like 1515-1525 but they disappeared and blended into the native American tribes. I don't like the;1619' Project title for that reason but its wasn't continued enslavement over generations...unless there were slaves in New Mexico...
the entire new world is relatively more violent than the old world- barring war. Because these societies were literally based in extreme levels of violence. Caribbean blacks have a lot in common with US Blacks because we both went through Creolization but they also retained more autonomy from white oppression interpersonally than we did. But is a very different experience than for continental Africans who generally have higher rates of education, income and integration than do Caribbean blacks. Especially in NYC and Bosotn where many Caribbean folks began arriving in the late 1800s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharif662
The first point i would like to state that the importation of enslaved africans from the caribbean & brazil wasn't larger than the african importation over the total span of activity. There's definitely specific decades when caribbean import match or exceeded african around the mid/late 1600s iirc. Hence the carolinas gullah geechie dialect of the carolina/georgia islands.
The other points have merits and geographic distribution of enslaved populace ( plantations, farms, islands, swamps,towns, cities).
I wasn't suggesting that the Intra-American slave trade had more importation of enslaved Africans than the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade to America but that the Intra-American slave trade was much more significant than people truly understand. The whole concept of the Intra-American slave trade is fairly new and understudied compared to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade but there's more information coming out about how many ships traveled from the rest of the Americas to the United States.
And the significance of the Intra-American Slave trades makes a ton of sense when you look at some of the so called "benefits" from our captors perspective.
1) Traveling from the Americas to North America Mainland is a shorter distance than traveling to West and Central Africa.
2) The Bulk of the enslaved Africans from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were in that part of the "New World" not the mainland.
There are 27,680 entries of ship database in the Intra-American slave trade compared to 36,072 entries of ship database in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.
We can just look at that database and see that there was a LOT of movement within these colonies. And it makes perfect sense. The British for example had colonies in the Caribbean's and on the mainland so why wouldn't they distribute goods (including our enslaved Ancestors) back and forth from one colony to another?
And the only reason I brought this up was due to this underlying narrative of them/they as if we're not bond together through the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade (AA and Caribbean folk). Now due to AA's being in closer proximity to White people we have been more assimilated culturally than our Caribbean brothas and sistas for the most part. Plus when you live in predominately African(Black) Islands it's easier to retain that autonomy albeit a creolization of African and European but still less assimilated I guess.
I know it's off topic from the point of the thread but I find this kind of stuff fascinating.
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.
