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.
The census bureau have release the expanded categories of ethnic groups breakdown by culture groups. Asian group have more summary as of now and future releases of White, Black, Latino will be later.
The intriguing info for me is that Indian Americans, based on alone pop, is the largest asian group in the US or slightly less than Chinese Americans in the combined category.
Salvadorians are the 3rd largest latino group.
The Black category shows that Aframs consist of 61%+ of that group and Jamaicans & Haitians comes next. Amongst African cultures it's Nigerian, Ethiopian, & Somalis. Didn't realized there was over 220K Somalis in the US now.
Alot of groups are clearly undercounted. How in the world are African Americans ("ADOS") only 60% of the national black population, that would mean there's only 25 million of them, and there's definitely not that little. Sure some cities like NYC, Miami, Boston, and even Minneapolis have heavily diverse black populations. But go to the south (Atlanta Memphis New Orleans etc) where over half of the black population is, go to most of the Midwest/westcoast major cities Chicago Detroit StLouis Cleveland, as well as the mid Atlantic cities like Philly Baltimore DC, 80-90% of the blacks there are either full African American or partial from one parent. Huge undercount probably not only with them but with other groups as well.
Puerto Ricans are growing strong in Florida, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio. And to a lesser degree in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Connecticut but not as much as previous decades. New York is hemorrhaging Puerto Ricans again, losing a huge amount this decade, according to 2020 census but even being in NYC it feels much less "Puerto Rican" than even the early 2000s and even back then it was declining. Due to hurricane Maria and the declining PR economy, would have thought the 2010-20 growth would have been much greater than what showed up. Dominicans seem to be filling in the cracks of the semi weak PR growth in northeast, especially in NY where there was super strong Dominican growth. Curious to see how this current huge migration wave of Venezuelans, Hondurans, and Haitians will impact the 2030 census.
At the end of the day it is every persons job to make sure they get counted. Everybody gets notes left on their door over and over as well as knocks at the door.
But didn’t somebody already say it’s because a lot of black people didn’t put “African American” they just left it as is?
Alot of groups are clearly undercounted. How in the world are African Americans ("ADOS") only 60% of the national black population, that would mean there's only 25 million of them, and there's definitely not that little. Sure some cities like NYC, Miami, Boston, and even Minneapolis have heavily diverse black populations. But go to the south (Atlanta Memphis New Orleans etc) where over half of the black population is, go to most of the Midwest/westcoast major cities Chicago Detroit StLouis Cleveland, as well as the mid Atlantic cities like Philly Baltimore DC, 80-90% of the blacks there are either full African American or partial from one parent. Huge undercount probably not only with them but with other groups as well.
Puerto Ricans are growing strong in Florida, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio. And to a lesser degree in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Connecticut but not as much as previous decades. New York is hemorrhaging Puerto Ricans again, losing a huge amount this decade, according to 2020 census but even being in NYC it feels much less "Puerto Rican" than even the early 2000s and even back then it was declining. Due to hurricane Maria and the declining PR economy, would have thought the 2010-20 growth would have been much greater than what showed up. Dominicans seem to be filling in the cracks of the semi weak PR growth in northeast, especially in NY where there was super strong Dominican growth. Curious to see how this current huge migration wave of Venezuelans, Hondurans, and Haitians will impact the 2030 census.
I already posted a possibility on the Black pop being around that estimates back several pages before the " Scot-Irish/British " flooded everything.
Of course the Census does not differentiate between Irish protestant and Irish catholic. Ethnicity in the modern bureaucratic understanding is largely a secular thing, even though in many places it most definitely isn't.
But let's go back to where this started - the Scotch-Irish concept. As explained this to a large degree was borne out of the sentiment among those people that they required a term describing their group as separate from just "Irish".
I don't know if a study has ever been done on the numbers, but it's obvious that a significant % of Irish protestants and their descendants did not want to put "Irish" on their Census form. This is most likely due to the fact that almost every cultural symbol of Irishness that is widely known is associated with the catholic-dominated Irish nationalism these immigrants did not subscribe to, in other words they simply did not - in their heart of hearts - see themselves as Irish given what Irish had come to mean.
This is of course not just a one way street. Was the Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, Irish? You ask some and they'll say yes, but there's certainly Irish people who feel that members of the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland do not count as 'real' Irish. They were part of the machine of "British oppression". And of course his ancestry primarily went back to English and Welsh nobles who had moved to Ireland a couple of centuries earlier.
In general though there has been in my mind much more willingness to accept the Irish label among the Anglo-Irish nobility who were primarily Church of Ireland and who could embrace the idea that there's no contradiction between Irish identity and loyalty to the English crown than among the 'commoners' primarily of Scottish descent and Presbyterian in religion and mostly settled in Ulster. You can see this distinction today even where devoted Presbyterians in the countryside are much more likely to be Paisleyites than middle-class and above Church of Ireland people, who're much more likely to be liberal unionists or even 'shared sovereignty' types seeking common ground with moderate nationalists.
That is true but in the 17th and even 18th century the distinction with the term Scots Irish is something that really only exists for that era. It didn't carry over into the 19th century which is why we don't hear about them in Australia and New Zealand and the US after independence. Why? Well because by then their generations were now very much part of the fabric of Ireland and second, the fact that the UK was created to include Ireland as a home nation within the Empire meaning, Irish symbolism became held with pride in both Catholic and Protestant regiments and institutions. One has to remember that most of Ireland in the mid 17th century was back in Control by the Irish Catholic population under the Catholic confederates who largely drove Protestant settlers from the land in revenge, it wasn't until after Cromwell came and conquered Ireland that it was under the control by the Protestant rulers. This meant these new Scottish settlers certainly would have remembered Ireland in their lifetime or their parents lifetime as largely under Catholic confederate control and attempted to distinguish themselves from it. Another perfect example of this is if one looks at 19th century immigration from Ireland to the US, Australia and New Zealand. Irish protestants referred themselves as Irish just as Catholics did. The Irish Catholic population enjoyed much more privileges in this era as they were some of the first governors and rulers of both New Zealand and Australia. Once Ireland's image of being a Catholic and rebellious land changed to a Loyal home nation within the UK there was certainly more pride among it's Protestant population
By this era it was more classed based so if one was poor this was of been the biggest hindrence in being to establish oneself. Of course this is common even for the English and Scottish Poor. There was still a large sectarian element that largely divided communities in these nations. Catholics and Protestants largely didn't associate themselves to much with each other however this changed slowly overtime
As for Anglo Irish. This again was entirely class based in this era. I do remember watching a documentary where a very wealthy Anglo Irish family in Australia was interviewed and they were very much proud of their Irishness and the Irish contribution to Australia In the highest aspects of society. Irish Catholics in particular never viewed such people as fully Irish you could say because they were the same people that had oppressed them for a number of years. Also because they were part of an aristocratic system that when brought to Ireland was simply an English system now decorated in Irish symbolism to portray it as distinctively Irish which the people just seen right through. They rejected it. I feel that now this is the past most Irish people are open to the idea and accept that the Anglo Irish were also Irish. Just of a different class.
British heritage groups are lower because fewer of them came over. The population of the US in 1776 was merely 2.6 million. By 1850 it was almost 24 million but few of these new migrants were actually British. British migration to the US was significantly lower for obvious reasons after 1776. The most obvious is two American wars with the UK over a few decades which created anti-British sentiment in the US which lasted way into 19th century. Second The UK was now focused on colonizing two new nations, New Zealand and Australia and cities were setup all over these nations in the 19th century so clearly why go to a hostile Republic like the US when there are exciting new colonies to go to that share a similar culture to your own and values.
Fewer than the Irish and Germans in the 19th century, yes, but they made up for it in the 20th century.
The total number of immigrants between 1820-1850 was just over 2 million, so I think we can safely say that the reason America had a population of 25 million in 1850 was down to the "mere" 2.6 million Americans.
Also, anti-British sentiment(by some) or not - "From 1820 to 1860, the United States and Great Britain were the two most closely interconnected countries in the world in terms of culture and economic growth."
At the end of the day it is every persons job to make sure they get counted. Everybody gets notes left on their door over and over as well as knocks at the door.
But didn’t somebody already say it’s because a lot of black people didn’t put “African American” they just left it as is?
I said exactly this. Over 25% of black people (depends on state but I ran Texas's numbers) are just "black" which explains the entire difference. It's not an undercount. I would expect most of those people to identify as some sort of Black/African American group or lineage in their personal life.
I said exactly this. Over 25% of black people (depends on state but I ran Texas's numbers) are just "black" which explains the entire difference. It's not an undercount. I would expect most of those people to identify as some sort of Black/African American group or lineage in their personal life.
If you look at google ngram, the term “African American” didn’t become a thing until after 1985 or so, and didn’t overtake negro until 1997 or so. So I’m pretty sure there’s probably a large number of Boomers that don’t identify with this newer term.
If you look at google ngram, the term “African American” didn’t become a thing until after 1985 or so, and didn’t overtake negro until 1997 or so. So I’m pretty sure there’s probably a large number of Boomers that don’t identify with this newer term.
Also I wanted to add the term black in google ngram but since it would have many other meanings/usages it would just be noise, but then I figured the plural term would almost always be used in regards to race so I took the plural term for all and it pretty much matches up with what the article says.
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.
