Dixie
Thomas Sowell writes:
“Now that census data show — for the first time in American history — the number of white babies born exceeded by the number of babies born to non-white minorities the question is: What does this mean for the future of American society?
Politically, it means that minorities who traditionally vote overwhelmingly for Democrats can ensure that the country veers ever further to the left over the years, making America more like the welfare states of Europe, whose unsustainable spending led ultimately to finical crises and widespread riots …
Yet when all is said and done, the future political direction of the country seems painfully clear for these demographic trends, unless something happens to change the current correlation between race and political party affiliation. Moreover, even that may not be enough.”
Here’s the percentage of the black population in the South on the eve of the White Man’s Revolution of 1876:
1870
Alabama – 48 percent black
Georgia – 46 percent black
South Carolina -59 percent black
Mississippi – 54 percent black
Florida – 49 percent black
Louisiana – 50 percent black
Texas – 31 percent black
North Carolina -37 percent black
Tennessee – 26 percent black
Arkansas – 25 percent
Missouri – 7 percent
Kentucky – 17 percent
Virginia – 42 percent
Maryland – 22 percent
Here’s the percentage of the black population in the South in 2012:
2012
Alabama – 26.2 percent
Georgia – 30.5 percent
South Carolina – 27.9 percent
Mississippi – 37 percent
Florida – 16 percent
Louisiana – 32 percent
Texas – 11.8 percent
North Carolina – 21.5 percent
Tennessee – 16.7 percent
Arkansas – 15.4 percent
Missouri – 11.6 percent
Kentucky – 7.8 percent
Virginia – 19.4 percent
Maryland – 29.4 percent
What’s the moral of the story? Just because a state has a large black population doesn’t mean it will stay that way or get worse. Half the black population in America relocated to the North and West in the Jim Crow era.
In 1901, Rep. George White of North Carolina gave his farewell speech to Congress in the aftermath of the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898:
“This, Mr. Chairman, is perhaps the Negroes’ temporary farewell to the American Congress; but let me say, phoenix-like he will rise up some day and come again. These parting words are in behalf of an outraged, heartbroken, bruised, and bleeding, but God-fearing people, faithful, industrious, loyal people-rising people, full of potential force.
Mr. Chairman, in the trial of Lord Bacon, when the court disturbed the counsel for the defendant, Sir Walter Raleigh raised himself up to his full height and, addressing the court, said, “Sir, I am pleading for the life of a human being.”
The only apology that I have to make for the earnestness with which I have spoken is that I am pleading for the life, the liberty, the future happiness, and manhood suffrage for one-eighth of the entire population of the United States.”
It would be 28 years before another African American was elected to Congress. In an early demonstration of attrition through enforcement, the states that chose the policy of resistance over submission succeeded in driving out large numbers of blacks to other states.
The same thing might happen again with Hispanics: illegal aliens mignt flee the states that choose resistance while relocating en masse to those states which are more willing to accomodate them.
Wayne,
You said “in Southern New England, everywhere you look is a Hispanic.” Let me tell ya, in my little town, the white kids still staff the fast food and donut shops and the retail stores. I think they would pitch a fit in this town if they got replaced by brownies. These are the only jobs around, the white natives “own” them because they have a work ethic and don’t dream of getting on welfare.
That said, even a lot of employed people are on HUD and SNAP now, because the jobs don’t pay enough. But better whites have those retail and fast food jobs, and get some HUD and SNAP in the process. The whites could have chosen welfare and stay at home eating bonbons and watching Oprah, which would have made room for a brownie invasion, but they didn’t. They still work, though the wages are extremely low compared to the cost of living. The pay is roughly the same as 20 years ago, but inflation has stealthily impoverished working class White America.
These are the things that turned out to be really important — the eagerness of these rural White teenagers to staff Dunkin Donuts. Other parts of the state the teenagers were rich and didn’t staff the DD’s and McD’s, and those areas went brown (Middlesex County, New Haven County).
What we are up against is a regime of “soft control” — things like making us lazy, making us stupid — the malign encouragement to live a life of mass media consumption, high fructose corn syrup, and an unused, incurious intellect.
We’re talking apples and oranges here, Hunter. I say “They’re red and crunchy!”, and you retort with “No, they’re orange and juicy!”.
Looking at the state-by-state racial demographics a couple years ago, I noticed a stark dividing line running from east to west across the country. It starts at the Mason-Dixon line, heads south separating the South Atlantic states from the inland states, turns west, separating the Gulf Coast and Mexican Border states from the rest, turns north following the Nevada-Utah line to the Oregon border, then heads west again to the Pacific where it keeps going a few thousand miles out, separating Alaska from Hawaii.
I call this great divide America’s racial fault line. Not political, not economic, not religious, not cultural (not yet anyway), but RACIAL fault line. The states directly north of this line are on average about 25-30% whiter than the states directly south of this line (see statistics above). That’s why I found it so significant. Because this stark racial divide is relatively new (due mainly to mass Third World immigration and higher non-white birthrates over the past few decades), the overall societal ramifications of it are only beginning to be felt. But that will surely change.
This racial fault line separates the country into what I call two incipient racial nations, one white and one non-white. I gave these racial nations descriptive names: the white one “Northern and Middle America”, and the non-white one “Southern Tier America”. When I first began to tell people about these racial nations, they would often confuse them with the traditional North and South. I guess this isn’t surprising since these racial nations have no historical basis, but instead are predictive entities that have yet to fully come into being. So confusing them with well-known historic regions like the North or South is perfectly understandable.
Now I’ve come up with new descriptive names for these emerging racial nations: the Warm States and the Cold States. Alas, it seems that they’re still confused with the traditional North and South. This is not so, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly. Since I’m all out of reasonably accurate descriptive names for these two entities, I guess I’ll just have to be more precise when describing them in the future.
You seem to be convinced that the South is demographically changing less rapidly than the rest of the country. Maybe. But, again, I’m not talking about the traditional South, I’m talking about Southern Tier America, aka the Warm States.
I listed the ten states where the percentage of whites shrank the most between 2000 and 2010, above. Seven of the ten were Warm States, that is fully 7 of the 16 Warm States were among the top ten measured by white decline, compared to only 3 of the 34 Cold States. But that doesn’t even tell the whole story. The population of those 7 Warm States total roughly 100 million, compared to a mere 19 million in the 3 Cold States. In other words, it is utterly beyond dispute that the Warm States are browning much faster than the Cold States. The Warm States are, as of 2010, about 20-25% browner than the Cold States, and getting browner quicker, much quicker.
It’s true that there is no great migration of whites from the Warm States to the Cold States, but I never claimed that. There are states where the raw numbers of whites both rose and fell on both sides of the racial fault line. But I think that the exodus of whites from California is a harbinger of things to come in many other Warm States, as negative political and economic changes inevitably follow the demographic changes. We shall see.
You wrote “The most non-White metro area in America is Detroit.” No, it’s Los Angeles with its non-Hispanic white population at a mere 33.3% (I’m only including the 51 metro areas over one million in population. I believe these stats are from the census bureau’s 2008 estimates, it doesn’t say in my notes). You must be thinking of Detroit city rather than the entire metro area. The Detroit metro area actually comes in at a respectable 22nd whitest, at 68.9%. The city of Detroit, as we all know, is overwhelmingly black, but the suburbs are largely white. In fact, some of Detroit’s suburbs, like Grosse Pointe and Bloomfield Hills, are among the nicest, richest and whitest towns in America.
FYI here is a list of the 20 whitest large metro areas, the top 19 all in the Cold States:
Pittsburgh: 88.2% white
Cincinnati: 83.4%
Providence: 82%
Minneapolis-St Paul: 81.9%
Buffalo: 81.5%
Louisville: 81.5%
Rochester: 80.5%
Portland: 78.7%
Columbus: 78.6%
Boston: 78.2%
Indianapolis: 78%
Salt Lake City: 77.8%
Kansas City: 77.2%
St Louis: 76.6%
Nashville: 76.3%
Hartford: 74.9%
Cleveland: 73.6%
Seattle: 72.7%
Milwaukee: 71.8%
Tampa-St Petersburg: 71.2%
jeppo,
(1) In the year 2012, 44 percent of the black population in America lives in the North and West, whereas 95 percent of blacks lived in the South in 1870. Every Southern state with the exception of Missouri (which most people consider a Midwestern state) is less black than it was a century ago.
(2) Let’s repeat: the South is less black than it was a century ago, and the Deep South is much less black than it was a century, and you are sitting here saying the sky is falling.
(3) Let’s repeat: the North and West are far more black than they were a century ago. Northerners have a folk memory of the South being extremely black and the North being extremely White, but that is not really true anymore.
(4) America reached Peak Whiteness in the 1960s. If memory serves, America was about 88 percent to 90 percent White when the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed. 47 years ago, blacks were about 10 percent of the population, and they have grown to a whopping 13 percent of the population since then.
(5) Immigration is driving demographic change in America. The immigrants that are coming here are – surprise, surprise – mostly Asians and Hispanics.
(4) Where are the hordes of Asians and Hispanics actually settling? Once again, Asians and Hispanics are the game changer, whereas the black population has oscillated between 10 percent and 15 percent for a century now.
Hispanics
New Mexico – 46.3 percent
California – 37.6 percent
Texas – 37.6 percent
Illinois – 15.8 percent
Arizona – 29.6 percent
Florida – 22.5 percent
Colorado – 20.7 percent
Nevada – 26.5 percent
New Jersey – 17.7 percent
New York – 17.6 percent
Illinois – 15.8 percent
Connecticut – 13.4 percent
Utah – 13.0 percent
Rhode Island – 12.4 percent
Oregon – 11.7 percent
Washington – 11.2 percent
Idaho – 11.2 percent
Kansas – 10.5 percent
Massachusetts – 9.6 percent
Wyoming – 8.9 percent
Hawaii – 8.9 percent
Oklahoma – 8.9 percent
Georgia – 8.8 percent
North Carolina – 8.4 percent
Maryland – 8.2 percent
Delaware – 8.2 percent
Virginia – 7.9 percent
Wisconsin – 5.9 percent
Alaska – 5.5 percent
Arkansas – 6.4 percent
Indiana – 6.0 percent
Pennsylvania – 5.7 percent
Nebraska – 5.5 percent
South Carolina – 5.1 percent
Iowa – 5.0 percent
Minnesota – 4.7 percent
Tennessee – 4.6 percent
Michigan – 4.4 percent
Louisiana – 4.2 percent
Alabama – 3.9 percent
Missouri – 3.5 percent
Kentucky – 3.1 percent
Ohio – 3.1 percent
Montana – 2.9 percent
New Hampshire – 2.8 percent
South Dakota – 2.7 percent
Mississippi – 2.7 percent
North Dakota – 2.0 percent
Vermont – 1.5 percent
Maine – 1.3 percent
West Virginia – 1.2 percent
West Virginia is looking better and better, according to these statistics. The Dakotas are another bright spot, but the compositions of the rural areas of the states are not compared. Rural areas of many northern and Great Plains states may still be much whiter than the rural South. I’ve never even MET a black farmer or farm worker, but I know they’re common in some other states.
I’ve never even met any, YET. Current government programs setting up subsidised mini-farms for “disadvantaged minorities in agriculture” on lands currently owned by retirement-aged white traditional farmers mean that could change soon.
Asians
Hawaii – 38.6 percent
California – 13.0 percent
New Jersey – 8.3 percent
New York – 7.3 percent
Washington – 7.2 percent
Nevada – 7.2 percent
Maryland – 5.5 percent
Virginia – 5.5 percent
Alaska – 5.4 percent
Massachusetts – 5.3 percent
Illinois – 4.6 percent
Minnesota – 4.0 percent
Connecticut – 3.8 percent
Texas – 3.8 percent
Oregon – 3.7 percent
Delaware – 3.2 percent
Georgia – 3.2 percent
Colorado – 2.8 percent
Arizona – 2.8 percent
Pennsylvania – 2.7 percent
Kansas – 2.4 percent
Michigan – 2.4 percent
Florida – 2.4 percent
Wisconsin – 2.3 percent
New Hampshire – 2.2 percent
North Carolina – 2.2 percent
Utah – 2.0 percent
Nebraska – 1.8 percent
Iowa – 1.7 percent
Ohio – 1.7 percent
Oklahoma – 1.7 percent
Indiana – 1.6 percent
Kentucky – 1.6 percent
Missouri – 1.6 percent
Louisiana – 1.5 percent
New Mexico – 1.4 percent
Tennessee – 1.4 percent
Vermont – 1.3 percent
South Carolina – 1.3 percent
Arkansas – 1.2 percent
Idaho – 1.2 percent
Alabama – 1.1 percent
North Dakota – 1.0 percent
Maine – 1.0 percent
Mississippi – 0.9 percent
South Dakota – 0.9 percent
Wyoming – 0.8 percent
West Virginia – 0.7 percent
Montana – 0.6 percent
Like northern blacks, Asians are mostly metropolitan, but Asian professionals (doctors for example) do spearhead into white rural areas.
(5) Why do I keep saying the South is changing less than the rest of America?
– First, the overall numbers show that the decline in whiteness from 1970 until 2012 was the lowest in the South, and the greatest in the Northeast and West.
– Second, because this is obviously explained by the fact that immigration is driving demographic change, not the presence of the black population, and Hispanics and Asians are settling in the North and West.
– Third, if you look at the actual numbers, you will see that the average Northern state gained on the average Southern state in non-Whiteness. The Northern and Western states are changing faster and are posting greater declines in whiteness. The exceptions being Ohio, Vermont and Maine, the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana.
(6) The Mason-Dixon line used to be a racial dividing line. In 2012, Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia are whiter than Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania while Virginia is whiter than Maryland.
How is the Mason-Dixon line a racial boundary line in 2012? Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are north of the Mason-Dixon line. Those states are nowhere near as White as Kentucky or Missouri or even Alabama.
(7) The statistics show why the North and West are changing so much faster than the South: the black population has dispersed across America, while Asians and Hispanics are settling more in the North and West, and Asians and Hispanics are bringing in their relatives and/or reproducing at greater rates..
Mississippi, for example, has the largest black population in America. Yet Mississippi was one of the slowest changing states from 1970 to 2012. How come? Because there was only a 0.9 percent increase in Asians and a 2.9 percent increase in Hispanics.
How is that Alabama is now a pretty White state? Because like Mississippi, Alabama only posted a small growth in the Hispanic and Asian population.
(8) There are no “two racial incipient nations”: the Northeast and West are changing faster than the Midwest and the South because more Hispanics and Asians are settling there. In the Northeast, almost every state posted almost a 20 percent decline in the White population.
That’s why all the Northeastern states (except Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire) gained on South Carolina from 1970 to 2012. If America was bifurcating into “two separate racial nations,” then South Carolina would be separating from the Northeast, whereas just the opposite is true.
(9) The states that you describe as “warm states” and “cold states” are nothing of the sort: how are Washington and Oregon “cold states,” when those states have a temperate climate, and how are Oklahoma and Missouri “cold states,” but not Virginia and North Caroilina?
(10) Yes, that’s because it is true: from 1970 until 2012, the South changed the least, whereas the North and West, particularly the West Coast and Northeast, changed the most due to immigration driven demographic changes in the Hispanic and Asian population.
Mississippi became 5 percent less White. Massachusetts became 18.9 percent less WHite. Thus, Massachusetts gained 13.9 net points in non-Whiteness on Mississippi in that time period.
What about the Northwest Republic? Idaho gained 7 net points on Mississippi, Washington gained 16.5 percent on Mississippi, and Oregon gained 7.5 percent on Misssissippi.
Are we gonna vote ourselves out of this mess?
(11) There is no such thing as “warm states” and “cold states” because there is no correspondence in your division to climate patterns. Wyoming is a very cold state. It can be very cold in Colorado too because of the elevation.
(12) It is indisputable that the Northeast is changing faster than any other region. Here are the numbers that prove it:
New York – 21.7 percent
New Jersey – 25.7 percent
Pennsylvania – 10.5 percent
Maryland – 25.3 percent
Delaware – 18.7 percent
Connecticut – 19.8 percent
Rhode Island – 19.6 percent
Massachusetts – 18.9 percent
(13) There is a huge migration of Whites from the North and West to the South: Californians flooding into Oklahoma and Texas, seemingly endless numbers of Yankees moving to Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
What’s most striking is that the Northeast, the region which is browning the fastest, is also the region which lost the most seats in the 2010 census. Not only are non-White immigrants moving to the Northeast, but the Whites who live there are moving out of the unaffordable, high unemployment states like New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.
(14) As I have already explained, “Warm States” and “Cold States” are artificial categories that lump Wyoming with Massachusetts and California with South Carolina. Those categories have never occurred to anyone but you for a reason.
There is a huge difference between Mississippi and California. Virtually everyone who lives in Mississippi was born there and their families have lived there for hundreds of years. In California and Nevada, most of the people who live don’t have roots there, they are Northern economic migrants, and they depart those states like nomads without think much of it.
That’s why California had a 30 percent net drop in the size of its White population. It is because the Whites who lived there fled the state. They didn’t flee in Georgia or North Carolina or Texas.
This is where jeppo got the idea that there are “two incipient racial nations”:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/hispanic%20americans%20map/nomadct/dev7.jpg
Now why is this such a misleading map? As someone who lives in the purple section of this map, I can walk outside and tell you why it is misleading.
The two blackest counties in East Alabama:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01/01011.html
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01/01087.html
Bullock County – 70 percent black – 10,914 population – 7,650 blacks
Macon County – 82.6 percent black – 21,425 population – 17,607 blacks
In Bullock County and Macon County, there are about 25,437 blacks on the ground. But watch this:
Jefferson County – 42.0 percent black – 658,466 population – 276,555 blacks.
The “two incipient racial nations” theory only shows the dispersal of blacks and Hispanics, which are more dispersed in the Southwest and Southeast, and their dispersal is mostly across sparsely populated and depopulating rural counties.
Macon County has experienced an 11.0 percent decline in population. Bullock County had a 6.8 percent decline. In other words, the blacks who live in Bullock and Macon County are leaving, most of them are headed toward the cities.
In the North, blacks and Hispanics are more concentrated. They are piled on top of each other in numbers that are breathtaking in the South. I can’t even imagine what a city of 800,000 blacks must look like. There is nothing around here within hundreds of miles to compare it to.
Once again we’re talking apples and oranges. I’m not comparing the South vs. the rest of the country, or the percentage of blacks in each. I’m comparing the two incipient racial nations, Northern and Middle America, aka the Cold States vs. Southern Tier America, aka the Warm States, and the percentage of whites in each.
Your statistics help make my point for me: the large majority of blacks, Hispanics and Asians (and probably American Indians, Pacific Islanders and people of mixed race as well) all live in the Warm States (NOT the traditional South), just as the large majority of whites live in the Cold States.
And the percentage of blacks per state in 1870 is completely irrelevant to the demographic crisis that we face today. I suppose that if you extrapolate the black percentages from 1870 to 2010 into the future, you can easily come to the erroneous conclusion that the Deep South will be completely negro-free in just a few more decades. Whoopee! But that would be a perfect example of how to lie with statistics.
A far better baseline to begin with would be the 2000 census, so we can chart the state-by-state demographic changes that are happening now, in this new century. And using those 2000-2010 numbers, I think I proved pretty conclusively that the Warm States are browning much faster than the Cold States are.
As of 2010, there are ten states where white children are now a minority (I believe the census bureau’s definition of children are all those under 18 years of age). Needless to say, they are all Warm States. From west to east, they are Hawaii, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia and Maryland (plus, as always, the District of Corruption).
So even if immigration was permanently cut off tomorrow, and assuming that any internal migration was race neutral, these ten states are guaranteed to have non-white majorities in the near future (four of them already have). But, unfortunately, immigration is not going to be cut off in the near future, so there will likely be many more than ten states with non-white majorities over time, and almost all of them will be Warm States, because they’re less white to begin with and because they’ve been attracting the bulk of immigrants.
As for internal migration, right now the white flow back and forth across the racial fault line is more or less neutral, but this could change as the demographic, political and economic situation continues to evolve, just like it’s changed in California. I’m not sure about the internal migration of other minority groups, but we know for a fact that blacks are migrating to the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast states. Not a flood mind you, but a steady trickle, partially reversing the massive 20th Century outmigration of blacks from the South.
Look, I realize that these concepts (the east-west racial fault line separating the two incipient racial nations, and the emerging 8.5 ethnic provinces within these two nations) are new and strange and open to ridicule. They certainly are ahistorical. But these are, for the most part, predictive concepts rather than fully existing present-day realities. I don’t have a crystal ball, so using RECENT demographic statistics and attempting to extrapolate them into the future to try to predict the racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, political and economic makeup of the United States and its constituent parts over the coming decades is the best that I can do.
“Pittsburgh: 88.2% white
Cincinnati: 83.4%
Providence: 82%
Minneapolis-St Paul: 81.9%
For what it’s worth, every time I see a Somali female thing (they’re NOT women, frankly) walking with her sarong (I don’t know what the term is for their dress, it’s just not white) down the street ANYWHERE in Mpls/St.Paul, my blood boils. ONE negro is TWO too many, frankly. May Ellison roast in hell, and right speedily.
And, with these demographics, John de Nugent [www.johndenugent.com] is correct.
Pittsburgh IS the whitest city in the USA.
The Mason-Dixon line is part of the east-west racial fault line because Pennsylvania is 79.5% white compared to Maryland, which is only 54.7% white.
Mosin,
Gibsmedat farms for “minority-disadvantaged farmers” will work if they give them to Asian and perhaps Hispanics, but not blacks. Blacks hate that work and will sell their farm first chance they get.
(1) There are four major regions in America: the West, the South, the Midwest, and the Northeast.
(2) There is no such thing as “cold states” and “warm states.” It is not cold in Tennessee, but not in Alabama, or hot in California, but not in Oregon. This division has no correspondence to climate.
(3) There are no two incipient racial nations: 44 percent of blacks live in the North and West. 3/4ths or more Asians and Hispanics live in the North and West too.
150 years ago, there were two incipient racial nations: the South had virtually all the blacks, and the North and West almost none. Today, the majority of non-Whites live in the North and West, not the South.
(4) Once again, there is no such thing as “warm states” and “cold states.” Is there a racial fault line between New York and Vermont and New Hampshire? What about between Illinois and Wisconsin?
(5) Since we are creating categories here, I will use the “Dixie” category, which is not synonymous with the South. East Texas and North Florida are part of Dixie. Thus, almost 1/2 of blacks, at least 3/4 of Hispanics, and virtually all the Asians live in non-Dixie counties.
(6) It is not irrelevant that 44 percent of blacks live in the North and West.
– If “demographics is destiny,” then Whites would have abandoned the South a long time ago. Of course, that would have been another false Yankee prediction, as from 1870 to 1970, the North and West became less White, and more black.
– We’re supposedly doomed here in the “southern tier” when almost half the blacks were offloaded on you guys. Okay so South Carolina was 59 percent black, now it is 66 percent White, and we’re doomed here.
– The map you are using two argue for “two incipient racial nations” really only shows that blacks are more dispersed in the South than the North. Of course that is a good thing because it spreads around the problem, gives every community a stake in the problem, and hardens racial attitudes.
(7) For the record, I have used the 1870 census, the 1970 census, and the 2010 census. The 1970 census shows America at the peak of its whiteness. It is the proper baseline to use to track the decline from the highwater mark.
(8) Just for the record, it was the Northern states led by Ted Kennedy that voted for the Immigration Act of 1965, and most recently for the DREAM Act.
(9) Hawaii, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada are Western states. Maryland is a Northeastern state. I find it interesting that White children are not a minority New York, Illinois, and New Jersey. Those states are barely majority White even when Jews are counted as White.
(10) Aren’t the majority of the immigrants Asians and Hispanics? Haven’t most of them settled in the Northeast and West? Doesn’t that explain why those states are changing so much faster?
(11) If the West and Northeast continue to attract Asians and Hispanics, and those regions continue to change faster, as has been the case for 50 years now, isn’t it reasonable to assume those states will overtake the Southern states?
(12) Isn’t Washington a “cold state”? How is it then that Washington is 71 percent White? That is less than Arkansas or Tennessee. How long will it be before Washington is less White than South Carolina?
(13) How is White internal migration neutral? Whites are pouring out of Blue States into Red States. In spite of changing faster than any other region, the Northeast loss House seats and California didn’t gain any.
(14) Some blacks have moved to the South … roughly 3 percent, most of whom are snowbird retired public employees, hardly a “Great Migration.” The number of blacks moving here is dwarfed by the number of Whites.
(15) Of course it is ridiculous: the South has shed almost half its black population, the South is whiter today than it was 100 years ago, and 3/4 of the Hispanics and virtually all the Asians live in the North and West, and you have gone from around 98 percent White to 75 percent White, and you are telling us that we’re doomed!
(16) Translation: the black population is more dispersed in the South, more concentrated in the North and West, but there is really only about a 56/44 split.
(17) Yankees have been telling us for 150 years that the South is swamped with blacks … the more non-White their own states become, the more blacks, Hispanics, and Asians move there, and the less correspondence that reality has to the folk memory of 98 percent whiteness, the more we are told we are doomed.
If a Southerner from 100 years ago could travel through time to 2012, he would be struck by how much whiter the South has become, and how much darker the North has grown.
If you had tried to predict the future in 1900 on the basis of demographics, you could have confidently assumed that Detroit at 98 percent White was about as safe as you could get.
Historical events determined the course of history: the rise of Jim Crow, WW1 and WW2, the Civil Rights Movement and the Immigration Act of 1965.
What historical events might determine the course of history in the 21st century?
(1) The biggest change will be the impact of energy scarcity on the economy.
(2) The aging of the Baby Boomers.
(3) The virtual certainty of the collapse of the welfare state.
(4) Partisan gridlock driven by diversity.
Here’s my prediction: no one can predict the future composition of America, because as shit inevitably begins to unwind, populations will be radically shuffled around again.
“Here are the numbers that prove it:
New York – 21.7 percent
New Jersey – 25.7 percent
Pennsylvania – 10.5 percent
Maryland – 25.3 percent
Delaware – 18.7 percent
Connecticut – 19.8 percent
Rhode Island – 19.6 percent
Massachusetts – 18.9 percent”
I note that Pennsylvania is “browning” only half as quickly as the others, and Fr John says “Pittsburgh IS the whitest city in the USA,” which anchors the northern Appalachian region that contrasts with the Philadephia metropolitan area. From where in Maryland does +25% browning come?! Not Delmarva or the Appalachian panhandle.
First of all, I’m not an American so I have no dog in the eternal Yankee vs. Southron battle royale. Secondly, I favour no American state or region over any other, period. Third, I do admit to a strong bias in favour of white Americans over all others, wherever they might live. That’s why I’m so interested in, and saddened by, the ongoing demographic collapse of the white population in what is still the world’s greatest country.
The terms Northern and Middle America, Southern Tier America, Cold States and Warm States, and the concepts behind them are mine and mine alone. They came from my reading of the racial realities in America today, and the likely future consequences of them if present-day trends continue. If you can think of any better descriptive terms for these two regions, hey, I’m all ears.
I don’t expect you to adopt these terms, Hunter, but can’t you at least humour me just a little bit? Why must you continually change the topic to the South vs. the rest of the country when that has nothing to do with all that I’ve been saying?
The map that I linked to was to argue for the emergence of 8.5 ethnic provinces within the two incipient racial nations, a subtopic of the main topic that we’ve been discussing.
I disagree with using 1970 as the baseline to plot possible future demographic trends. It’s always better to choose a more recent date, like 2000 for example, so as to filter out any irrelevant noise from demographic trends that may have petered out 20 or 30 years ago.
I have some slightly out of date (2000-2006) stats in my notes with state-by-state changes in the white population. The top 5 states in white population losses were Pennsylvania, California, Louisiana, New Jersey and New York. The top 5 states in white population gains were Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina. So it looks like the white population in the Warm States definitely grew faster than it did in the Cold States during this period. But these were pre-recession numbers that might not reflect today’s reality at all.
According to the Office of Immigration Studies in their table “Persons Granted Legal Permanent Resident Status by State of Residence, 2010”, found on page 616 of the 2012 World Almanac, the 16 Warm States plus DC added approximately 558,ooo permanent residents, while the 34 Cold States added 478,000. Assuming that most of these newcomers were non-white (duh), the Warm States added more legal non-whites to its existing smaller population than the larger Cold States did.
On the same page there is an incomplete chart of illegals per state, and the growth of the illegal population from 2000 to 2010. From what I can tell, the vast majority of (mostly non-white) illegals have settled in the Warm States, where it seems that the 2000-2010 growth in the illegal population was higher than in the Cold States as well.
Like I said, making predictions is hard, especially about the future. All any of us can do is make educated guesses based on the best, and most recent, evidence at hand. And that’s exactly what I’ve tried to do.
(1) The demographic collapse of America is caused by one thing: the North’s past and present support of mass immigration, which is just one of its many insane ideas, which would turnaround tomorrow … if, and this is a big if, the North backed down from its “nation of immigrants” crap.
(2) Perhaps these concepts make sense to you as a foreigner. No one here naturally thinks to lump California with Alabama or Vermont with Wyoming.
The regional divisions in America are Northeast, Midwest, South, Southwest and Northwest, or North, West and South. The subnational divisions are Dixie, Yankeeland, New Amsterdam, Midlands, Far West, Aztlan, and Ecotopia.
(3) Don’t mean to be rude man … I have just never thought of the West as part of the South. It is a distinct region with its own culture. It is weird to see someone lump Tennessee with New York and Virginia with Utah.
(4) Once again, you are taken with this idea of “two incipient racial nations,” and it is derived from the census map of blacks and Hispanics by county, but that map is misleading because it shows the dispersal of non-Whites across counties, when the vast majority of non-Whites live in urban areas.
(5) In making “projections” on the basis of that map, you forget how few people actually live in those rural counties, not to mention the fact that the trend for over 100 years has been depopulation in those areas.
(6) The 1970 Census shows the complete effect of the Immigration Act of 1965. It is the proper baseline because it tracks the growth of the Asian and Hispanic population which is driving demographic change.
(7) The Louisiana stats are inaccurate and reflect Hurricane Katrina.
(8) The White population gains in those states reflect the growth of the Sunbelt on the eve of the collapse of the housing bubble.
(9) That makes no sense: the Northeast gained plenty of immigrants, but lost plenty of Whites, which is why it loss so many House seats. Similarly, Whites leaving California went to Oklahoma and Texas.
(10) The Pew Hispanic Center has already calculated that net emigration has peaked (more Hispanics are returning to Mexico) and that every state in the Eastern South led by Florida lost illegal aliens since 2007.
(11) Based on the most recent data, we can say that Mexican immigration is now in decline, that illegals are returning to Mexico, and that more illegals have left Florida (225,000) in three years than any other state.
The demographic collapse of America and the rest of the West has been caused by our traitorious politicians and their string-pullers and bagmen.
As an outsider, I would never presume to have even a small fraction of your knowledge of American history and politics. However, sometimes foreigners can see the big picture in a way that the natives can’t, because we’re not saddled with any regional baggage or bias.
You’re not being rude, Hunter. I appreciate any and all feedback, good, bad or indifferent. Thanks.
The concept of the east-west racial fault line, which led to the Cold States/Warm States incipient racial nations thesis, I got from poring over the raw demographic data. The concept of the 8.5 ethnic provinces was influenced by books like The Nine Nations of North America, Albion’s Seed, and American Nations. I was also inspired to update the ideas from those books by that state-by-state map of dominant ethnicities, more so than the county-by-county map.
The 2000 census is a much better baseline than the 1970 one. Where have the immigrants and internal migrants settled in the last 10 years is a far more relevant question than where did they go 40 years ago.
Yeah, I realize that Katrina skewed the stats for Louisiana and Mississippi, which also saw an outflow of whites in the 2000-2006 time period. I should have mentioned it.
Some states where the white population grew also lost House seats in the redistricting, like Iowa, Michigan and Missouri. These Cold States obviously didn’t attract many immigrants at all.
Yes, let us hope and pray that America has *finally* reached Peak Beaner.
jeppo,
(1) Who are these string pullers? Are they randomly scattered across the country? No, they concentrated in what you call the “Cold States.” It was your “Cold States” that passed the Immigration Act of 1965, who put Obama in the White House, and who most recently attempted to pass the DREAM Act in 1965.
(2) The problem with foreigners trying to analyze our racial predicament here in America is that they are so easily taken with misleading graphs. I’m quite sure this is the graph that has caused your particular misunderstanding about blacks.
http://maps.howstuffworks.com/united-states-african-american-population-map.htm
An outsider looking at this map (who doesn’t live in this area) might assume that virtually all the blacks in America live in the Deep South. The problem with this map though is obvious.
It is a map of counties. 56 percent of the black population lives in the Deep South. 44 percent of the black population lives in the North and West. You would never guess this though by looking purely at maps.
Even within the South, the overwhelming majority of blacks live in urban metropolitan areas, not in the countryside. The typical county is sparsely populated. Even within the typical country, few blacks actually live in the countryside.
Here is the map of Hispanics by county:
http://maps.howstuffworks.com/united-states-hispanic-population-map.htm
It is misleading for the same reason. It looks like all counties are equal. A county with a population of 10,000 of which 60 percent is Hispanic looks darker than a county of 300,000 that is 40 percent Hispanic. These maps really only show the relative dispersion of blacks and Hispanics.
damnyankees have done us more harm than the negro. it’s the dmanyankee that unleashed the negro and it’s damnyankees and negros that form voting blocks here in the South that give power to our very few home grown DWL’s
and yankees need to come to grips with the fact that they benefited from negro slavery in the South, in a very real and direct way. It gave the yankees cheap raw materiel, the tariffs on cotton protected yankee industry by making their good cheaper in the domestic market, and the tariff money paid for structural improvements in the north, not to mention the money yankees made on the slave trade.
(3) Bingo.
You obviously got this idea from the county-by-county map.
Blacks:
http://maps.howstuffworks.com/united-states-african-american-population-map.htm
Hispanics:
http://maps.howstuffworks.com/united-states-hispanic-population-map.htm
The county-by-county is highly misleading because of the relative size of the populations that live in those counties. If you look at the purple region that stretches across Alabama, you might assume that a ton of blacks live in that area, but that is really not the case.
The blacks in Alabama are concentrated in a handful of cities: Birmingham, Montgomery, Mobile, Huntsville, Tuscaloosa, Dothan, etc. I was recently in Greene County (AL) which at 81.5 percent black is the second blackest county in this state.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01/01063.html
What’s 81.5 percent of 9,045? It is 7,361 blacks.
Here’s neighboring Tuscaloosa County:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01/01125.html
What’s 29.6 percent of 194,656? It is 57,618.
Even though blacks are a minority in Tuscaloosa County and a majority in Greene County, there are 7.8x as many negroes in Tuscaloosa County (Tuscaloosa) than in Greene County (Eutaw).
jeppo,
(1) Mississippi has the largest black population in America, percentage wise, 37 percent of Mississippi is black. That’s 37 percent of 2,978,512 which means there are 1,102,049 blacks in Mississippi.
Michigan is a much larger state than Mississippi though. It has more House seats and electoral college voters. 14.2 percent of Michigan’s population of 9,876,187 is black. That means there are 1,402,418 blacks in Michigan.
There are more 1,402,418 blacks in Michigan. There are 1,102,049 blacks in Mississippi.
(2) The 2000 census only shows a fraction of the immigrants that have come here since the Immigration Act of 1965. What about all the millions of immigrants that came here in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s?
(3) Blacks are 12.2 percent of the 11,544,951 people in Ohio. Blacks are 32 percent of the 4,574,836 people who live in Louisiana.
There are 1,408,484 blacks in Ohio. There are 1,463,947 blacks in Louisiana. In other words, there are barely more blacks in Louisiana than Ohio.
(4) Blacks are 14.5 percent of the 12,869,257 people who live of Illinois. Blacks are 26.2 percent of the 4,802,740 people who live in Alabama.
There are 1,866,042 blacks in Illinois. There are 1,258,317 blacks in Alabama.
(5) Blacks are 30.5 percent of the 9,815,210 population of Georgia. Blacks are 15.9 percent of the 19,378,102 population of New York.
There are 2,993,639 blacks in Georgia. There are 3,081,118 blacks in New York.
(6) Blacks are 10.8 percent of the 12,742,886 population of Pennsylvania. Blacks are 27.9 percent of the 4,679,230 population of South Carolina.
There are 1,376,229 blacks in Pennsylvania. There are 1,305,505 blacks in South Carolina.
jews made more off of niggers than any Yankee did. The south brought them in to tend their fields, not the north.
The jew then stabbed the dim witted southron and ruined what they had. You see, the money was up north. jews are money. They used Yankees to do it.
Over a hundred years later the south still is following the jew narrative of divide and conquer.
Do any of you honestly think the soldiers of the north even knew what they were fighting for?
They were invading the south for paychecks or just plain survival.
Your problem should be with the government of the north at that time.
Soldiers fight on orders. I don’t get the grudge still held on with southerners.
But, who knows, the US government just killed 40,000 in lybia for monetary controll and close to 500,ooo Iraqis to secure Israeli security.
I guess they can blame the south for being led by the nose. After all, the majority of the White military comes from the south.
The string-pullers are often anti-white lobbyists with lots of money and influence, like the $PLC of Montgomery, Alabama, for instance. Blaming the damnyankees for everything is exactly what I meant when I said that the natives are sometimes too saddled with regional baggage and bias to see the big picture. Should Northerners take most of the blame for civil rights, immigration, gay marriage, and the election of Obama? Absolutely. Should Southerners get a pass for LBJ, Carter, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II? I don’t think so.
You’re talking about raw numbers of blacks, while I’m talking about percentages. The nine blackest states, percentage-wise, form an arc stretching from the Mason-Dixon line down the Atlantic and across the Gulf to Louisiana, excluding Florida. This is the emerging ethnic province of African America. Because this is where most of America’s blacks live? No. Because blacks will soon form majorities in these states? No. Because the ongoing influx of Hispanics, Asians and white liberals to this region will electorally tip it to state-level Democratic parties dominated by black voters and black interests? Yes. This is likely to be a long, drawn-out process that will start in states like Maryland and Georgia, and eventually culminate in states like Delaware and Alabama. Is African America an inevitability? No, and let’s hope that it never comes to pass. But that’s where the demographic trajectory is headed at the moment.
You’re talking about counties, while I’m talking about states. I used county-by-county maps of ethnicity and religion when researching the concentration of Catholics in the Northeast, Lutherans in the Upper Midwest, and Danes in Utah for example. But the map that primarily inspired me to carve the nation up into 8.5 ethnic provinces was that state-by-state map of ethnicities that I linked to above. Unlike the divisions in Nine Nations or American Nations, I divided the country along state lines rather than county lines, states being the largest and most important sub-national entities by far. Yes, I realize that there are vast cultural differences within various states, northern and southern Florida, or eastern and western Tennessee spring to mind. But if and when a bankrupt federal government begins to devolve its power and influence, it will be to the states, not to the counties. And the states often inspire fierce loyalty in their residents, the counties not so much.
I thought I emphasized the importance of cities and metropolitan areas to the nation in general and my theories in particular. I mentioned that the majority of Americans live in the 51 metro areas with populations over one million. I stated that 23 out of the 25 whitest large metro areas are in the Cold States, while 23 of 26 least white are in the Warm States. We now know that Tampa-St Petersburg and Jacksonville are the whitest large metros in the Warm States, while Chicago, Memphis and New York City are the least white in the Cold States. I listed the 20 whitest large metros in the country, so we now know the interesting fact that 3 of the top 5 are in the Ohio Valley: 1st place Pittsburgh, 2nd Cincinnati and tied for 5th Louisville. We also know the surprising fact that Detroit is the 22nd whitest large metro, and the not-so-surprising news that Los Angeles is the least white. So there’s absolutely no doubt that the big cities are crucial to the nation’s demographic future.
1.) The SPLC isn’t a string puller. It is just one of many disciplinary organizations (ACLU, Media Matters, ADL, etc.) that is funded by the political Left in this country. It is a tentancle, but not the head of the beast.
2.) Are the damnyankees to blame?
– The damnyankees are 100 percent responsible for the abolition of slavery, the first federal civil rights laws, Reconstruction, black citizenship, and the Reconstruction Amendments which overthrew the White Republic and laid the foundation of BRA.
– The damnyankees are responsible for the triumph of the Civil Rights Movement and the overthrow of Jim Crow: they were the ones who struck down segregation on the Supreme Court, and they were the ones who supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, voting as a bipartisan supermajority in Congress against 9 to 1 Southern opposition and a filibuster that lasted almost 60 days!
– The damnyankees put Obama in the White House. Every Northern state voted for Obama. The only reason Obama won FL, VA, and NC is because there were enough carpetbaggers in those states to put him over the top.
– The damnyankees are the ones who voted for the Immigration Act of 1965 and the IRCA amnesty of 1986. They also voted for the Immigration Act of 1990 and almost succeeded in passing the DREAM Act in December 2010.
I’m not exaggerating when I say that damnyankees are the pivot on which this whole country swings: if they would just stop voting as a bloc to make things worse, everything would change overnight.
Why was there a Jim Crow era and a Nadir of the Negro? It was because the damnyankees gave up on Reconstruction in the 1890s, and didn’t recommit themselves to their utopian fantasy until the 1940s during WW2.
3.) Neither George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush were Southerners. The Bush family is from New England.
4.) LBJ, Carter, and Clinton were candidates from the minority section of the Democratic Party. They no more represented the South on race and immigration than Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and Stephen Douglas represented the North in the 1850s.
Mitt Romney doesn’t represent the Northeast. Romney won the GOP nomination because he appeals to moderate voters from the weakest link in the Republican coalition.
5.) LBJ became president after JFK was assassinated. He was carrying out JFK’s civil rights agenda. In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was sold as a tribute to the memory of JFK, who was extremely popular with Northern Catholic voters.
5.) Of course.
If you compare the actual number of blacks in the band of Northern states stretching from New York to Illinois with the band stretching across the Deep South from South Carolina to Texas, you will find that they are roughly comparable.
As I have said all along, the by county map is misleading because it measures the dispersal of blacks. In the South, there are remnants of the slave population in sparsely populated rural counties, whereas Northern blacks are concentrated in large ghettoes in major cities.
6.) Okay.
I’m going to have to pull rank here and invoke superior perspective, knowledge of the situation, and familiarity with history: there is no emerging “ethnic province” of Afro-America in the Deep South.
Why?
Because quite simply, there is literally no one there anymore, not even the blacks who have been leaving the rural Black Belt counties in droves for over a 100 years now.
Macon County is the blackest county in Alabama. There was a 10 percent decline in population from 2000 to 2010. Virtually every one of those purple counties in the Census map continues to lose population.
The blacks who live there are trekking to the big cities. Aren’t you the one who has been harping on demographic projections? Well, the blacks in the Black Belt have been leaving for over 100 years now, so might we assume that the emerging ethnic province of Afro-America is to coalesce in major cities, North and South?
7.) There isn’t a continuing influx of Asians, Hispanics, and White liberals. That was true of the Sunbelt South.
The collapse of the housing bubble changed everything. The construction industry is now in a depression. Hispanics are leaving the Eastern South. Blacks aren’t moving here anymore because of their decline in net worth. Similarly, DWLs can’t flip their houses and move across the country anymore.
Florida alone has lost 225,000 illegal aliens in the last few years. The Hispanic population has also declined in Virginia and North Carolina.
8.) That’s another mistake: lots of blacks are disenfranchised felons, lots of Hispanics are not citizens and therefore not eligible to vote, and racial consciousness is greater here, which results in Republican control of every state legislature in Dixie except Arkansas.
9.) The Democrats dominate what you call the Cold States. Every Northern state voted for Obama in 2008.
10.) The United States has collapsed before. That’s why West Virgina exists.
11.) Memphis is cold?
12.) The biggest mistake in your analysis is your failure to realize that project existing trends into the future: Atlanta, for example, darkened but is increasingly White.
50 years ago, how many people were living in Florida, Arizona, and Nevada? Did America’s cities look anything like they do today? That’s your biggest problem.
Historical events dominated demographics across the whole 20th century.
Well, the Southern states are still growing. Georgia grew by 130,000 just between 2010 and 2011. What percentage of those 130,000 people (newborns, immigrants, internal migrants) are white? I’m going to guess that it’s a small minority, probably a very small minority.
According to the Pew Center, 11 of the 12 states that had the fastest growing Hispanic populations between 2000 and 2010 were in the South (the exception was South Dakota). While they concede that the illegal immigrant population shrank in Florida and Virginia between 2007 and 2010, they also claim that it grew in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma during the same period.
And even though it seems that net migration from Mexico is now negative, the vast majority of the growth in the Mexican-American population is now from births rather than immigration. These American-born Mexican babies, unlike their largely illegal parents, can never be deported (not that anyone is making a serious effort to deport illegals anyway).
You seem pretty confident about the demographic situation in the South, Hunter. Perhaps a tad over-confident if you ask me. But you’re the guy on the ground down there, and I generally trust your judgment. I just hope you’re right.
Also, we recently heard the utterly depressing but entirely predictable news that non-white births outnumbered white ones for the first time in the history of the republic. I’d sure like to see a state-by-state breakdown of births by race. But until then I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that non-white births were the majority in 14 of the 16 Warm States (excepting Alabama and Delaware), while white births were still the majority in 31 of the 34 Cold States (excepting New York, New Jersey and Illinois).
All of you crackers need to get a damn life! The white man’s rule is over folks. In essence, you damn well better get used to sitting at the table with us.
Not in a million years.
Where? do i will seat with you in the detroit ghetto? their wouldnt be sitting table if you take control… there would be anything actually
@ NL: First you have to be able to bring something to that table! If white people ceased to exist in the US today, the whole country would fall into 3rd world status in less than 12 months. There would be a plethora of diseases wiping out whole cities, infrastructure would crumble, electricty grids would shut down and there would soon be no more food to eat. In essence, you’d all be dead.
So far you blacks haven’t been able to produce anything that resembles a civilization. No written language, no democracy. Not even the wheel have you invented. After being given everything a modern society has to offer, you now want to rule too? To have your say?
Us “crackers” are in essence what keeps you “niggers” alive in the US. And your table/bowl/fridge/bank account will always be empty without us. Keep that in mind the next time you eat your McDonalds meal, receive government handouts, talk on your cellphone, drive in your car, fly in an airplane, have an operation, watch your favourite TV-show, listen to your Mp3-player, read a magazine, use an elevator, heat up a meal in the microwave or watch your favorite team at the local bar getting drunk on beer and liquir.
Without us “crackers” this would ALL BE GONE. So, what do your people bring to the table, N L?