I just ran across this map for the whole US, pretty interesting to see across the whole country:
http://demographics.coopercenter.org...ource=PourOver
Printable View
I just ran across this map for the whole US, pretty interesting to see across the whole country:
http://demographics.coopercenter.org...ource=PourOver
Is there a reason why it's called a Nationwide Segregation Map?
http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...Racial-Dot-Map
Searched under "easy being green"...
The map isn't a "segregation map" per se. It shows the areas where the blacks originally were located which were the areas that slavery predominated in a crescent from the southeastern seacoast thorough the bottom lands of the deep south. It shows the Hispanics concentrated in the Mexican/US border areas. It shows the out migration of both groups to the northern cities where the jobs are/were.
The map shows the history of slavery and the US annexation of parts of Mexico. It shows the areas of the south where slavery wasn't common or economic. It shows the magnetism of the large cities during the US industrial heyday.
Ok...but what exactly does this have to do with Detroit?
It has nothing to do with Detroit. This thread is just an attempt to stir up shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerEastsider
I don't think "segregation" is an appropriate term for the title of the thread, but I also don't think its an attempt to stir anything up. It's just interesting to see what groups are predominate in different areas. Until recently I was in that very "red" Bay Area.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitBoy
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast
I mean, clearly the purpose of the map is to show how the residence of racial groups in Americans is divided. That said, some folks are always trying to find controversy in every little thing. So I can understand why the word "segregation" would be bothersome.
I think the OP posted it in this part of the forum because the fact is the Detroit area has some of the starkest divide of race [[in terms of residence) in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerEastsider
What it says is that blacks and Hispanics have chosen to move to the metro areas of the north and eschew the rural areas.
In my experience there has been a slow, small, steady increase of the [[low) Black and Hispanic proportions of the populations in Michigan's small towns that I am familiar with.
It still may be true that blacks and Hispanics in the aggregate prefer urban areas. There
is probably also a similar slow, small, steady increase in the number of Asians in the small towns, but I am confident that the influx of Asians into urban areas is proportionately greater
at this time.
Again, this has nothing to do with Detroit. The majority of the 500,000+ people who fled Detroit in the last 10 years were black and they did so due to the mismanagement of the city for decades. No one has segregated people in the City of Detroit to arrive at the current demographics.
Well, it is an interesting map and if you zero in on the Detroit metro and enlarge the scale, you can see how the metro is segregated. It also shows the lack of diversity once you get out of northern metro areas. The rural areas in the north and west are white to a high percentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitBoy
Yes, thank you to detlump for sharing this info!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Although not a Detroit-related observation, did anyone notice
how the Western and Eastern halves of the US differed mark-
edly in population density? Almost like a "line of demarcation"
from the Dakotas southward through central Texas...
Well unless you want to live in the middle of nowhere, on top of a mountain, or in the heat and coldness of a desert, not too many places out west the pioneers could have chosen.Quote:
Originally Posted by beachboy
A high percentage of the population lives within 60 miles of either the east or west coast.Quote:
Originally Posted by beachboy
Thank You for posting this. My area is of note, north Oak Park [[west of Rackham Golf Course/North of 696 is pretty solid white, south of the freeway African American. It would look even more interesting if Jews had their own dot or color.
Yep, Iowa and Southern Illinois are a lot more densely populated than the Great Plains of the Dakotas, Nebraska and eastern Colorado. And Michigan, Ohio and Indiana are also more densely populated than Southern Illinois and Iowa.Quote:
Originally Posted by beachboy
I'm guessing part of it has to do with when these places were settled relative to industrialization, mechanization of agriculture, the Dust Bowl, railways...
After a certain point, rural areas stopped growing, and places with a lot of cities tended to grow more, at least until A/C was invented. The Great Plains probably also had less of a rural/small town population base because of climate, and it's not just about precipitation, but also evapotranspiration rates which are higher in warm climates. La Crosse, WI gets about as much precipitation as San Antonio, but the water in the soils and rivers around San Antonio can dry up much faster.