To celebrate the nation's 250th birthday, the New York Times has created an impressive interactive map depicting the self-reported ethnicity of U.S. citizens as they recorded such in 2019-2024 U.S. Census. Responses rhat included a race but not a specific origin group are not included.
In the interactive map, you can zoom in to drill down to specific subregions, apparently defined by census data rather than county borders:
Along the same lines, I always recommend the book American Nations, by Colin Woodard, which looks at North America in terms of when each area of it was settled (by non-indigenous people) and by which specific groups/countries of origin and how that impacts each area/nation's culture and beliefs today. It's not perfect (it's by necessity a bit surface) but it gives insights into why we in the US will probably never actually be UNITED states.
ReplyDeleteTangential, but those color choices are terrible. In the first map, it is impossible to read the white labels against the light and beige background. In the second map, the various shades of purple (ish) are very difficult to distinguish. I whine because this is so common today: some well-meaning designer (or app) selects a ‘pleasing’ color palate and fails to achieve the desired clear communication.The purpose of the map is to convey information and not to be a nondescript wall hanging in a cheap motel. Contrast is under appreciated, especially when it comes to the eyes of older readers. Harrumph!
ReplyDeleteEven more tangential--I don't see any shades of purple, just one. It could be your monitor or phone screen but, not to be snarky, but have you ever been checked for color-blindness or cataracts? I see blue, yellow, green, purple, and a reddish orange, with no confusion among them. Granted, they're not the bright pure primary-color shades of those colors but they are distinct. (And I'm not old-old, but I'm in my mid-late 60s, so I'm no spring chicken.)
DeleteBelieve it or not, if you take a racial map from, I believe, 1860 (or maybe 1865), you will find that the u-shaped population distribution of African Americans (from the coastal plain of Virginia, down the coast, across Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, then up the Mississippi River...is pretty much that same as it is today.
ReplyDeleteTrue, a remarkable number of people, of all "races" and ethnicities) never venture far from their place of birth, even if where they are doesn't best serve their needs. Many people choose "the devil they know."
DeleteThis is known as the Black Belt, especially the swing through Alabama. This was originally a geological term due to the dark soil. It's the edge of an old inland sea which deposited a rich soil that is ideal for growing cotton. You can guess the rest. As a socioeconomic term, it can be extended to include the tobacco growing regions and the lower Mississippi River. Wikipedia has articles on both usages. Incidentally, it also shows prominently on electoral maps, but only after the Voting Rights Act.
DeleteOn the racial-dot map that is put out, I find it a bit "woke" to make it such that the color for African Americans is anything but black. I'm not saying it has to be black, of course; but c'mon, that does kind of make sense. And Hispanics should be brown, whites could be white, on and on
ReplyDeleteNot to be mean-spirited, but simply to be intuitive.
The term “woke” meaning “aware, understanding” comes from African American dialect. Why do you have a problem with it?
DeleteWould it be too “woke” for you to be reminded that the majority of African Americans are descended from people who were brought here against their will?
etymology #1 here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/woke
DeleteAaron, seriously? So, if black people were represented with black, would you have all the European-origin areas in identical white or indistinguishable shades of light beige? And what possible purpose would that serve?
DeleteAnonymous off on a tangent nobody touched. As far as "woke" is concerned, words change in meaning and this in particular means A or Z and everything in between. Like "slop".
DeleteOn the far earlier racial dot map, I often had to keep consulting the legend to figure out just which race was the most prevalent in an area. Why wouldn't, say, white represent whites, black represent blacks, brown represent Hispanics, etc.? That does have a strong intuitive feel to it. I know that blacks are not LITERALLY blacks (nor are whites literally white, Asians literally yellow, etc.), but why make it difficult?
DeleteThe only fathomable reason is...trying to tiptoe (a version of wokeness, in some instances). Elagie, I'd be fine with whites being identical white or indistinguishable shades of light beige. Of course, though, I'm not woke.
Why is being woke a bad thing?
DeleteIreland literally hosted Nazis during WW2 but they still have a bit of a grudge against the English about the potato famine, and yet it's led to about ten per cent of America claiming to be Irish.
ReplyDelete