JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
To prove a point. Which point? That is beyond me.
[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
- Status
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Re: two posts above:
It was related to the discussion about ancestries in the USA and about immigration to the USA, in one thread of World History subforum.
Note that people are often not very accurate (they miss the truth) when reporting their ancestry or ancestries.
For example in the 1980 census 49,6 million Americans reported English ancestry, but by the next census - of 1990 - number of Americans reporting English ancestry declined to 32,65 million, and by the census of 2000 to only 24,51 million (even though during that period the total population of the USA increased from 226,5 million in 1980 to 248,7 million in 1990 and 281,4 million in 2000). So percentage-wise, proportion of Americans declaring some (not necessarily exclusively) English ancestry declined from almost 22% in 1980 to less than 9% in 2000. Americans tend to be more accurate in reporting race than in reporting ancestry, but even self-reported race is often far from actual continental origins of an individual, as for example this study in the link below shows:
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(14)00476-5
E.g. many Americans who report their race as "White" actually have some recent Sub-Saharan ancestors, especially in southern states. But % of recent (post-1492) European admixture among self-reported African-Americans is even higher than of African ancestry in self-reported Whites.
It was related to the discussion about ancestries in the USA and about immigration to the USA, in one thread of World History subforum.
Note that people are often not very accurate (they miss the truth) when reporting their ancestry or ancestries.
For example in the 1980 census 49,6 million Americans reported English ancestry, but by the next census - of 1990 - number of Americans reporting English ancestry declined to 32,65 million, and by the census of 2000 to only 24,51 million (even though during that period the total population of the USA increased from 226,5 million in 1980 to 248,7 million in 1990 and 281,4 million in 2000). So percentage-wise, proportion of Americans declaring some (not necessarily exclusively) English ancestry declined from almost 22% in 1980 to less than 9% in 2000. Americans tend to be more accurate in reporting race than in reporting ancestry, but even self-reported race is often far from actual continental origins of an individual, as for example this study in the link below shows:
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(14)00476-5
E.g. many Americans who report their race as "White" actually have some recent Sub-Saharan ancestors, especially in southern states. But % of recent (post-1492) European admixture among self-reported African-Americans is even higher than of African ancestry in self-reported Whites.
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Really, ancestry can be as varied as there are nations on Earth. Perhaps one is of Anglo-Irish ancestry and after 10 years decides to identify his ancestry as Irish rather than as English, for whatever reasons.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Another reason why I posted that graph was to show that the impact of immigration is overestimated.
High immigration during the period of 1830 - 1914 did not really "totally overwhelm" the 1790-1830 "old stock" Americans, because the U.S. population was growing not only thanks to immigration, but also thanks to very high rates of natural growth.
It seems that the high average rate of natural increase (livebirths minus deaths per 1000 people per year) was driven by good health, relative prosperity based on people owning their own land or running their own businesses, and very high birthrates.
Here is the data on rates of natural increase in the USA during each decade (I used this data to make the graph posted above):
http://www.nber.org/papers/h0056
Or someone is of Romano-Briton ancestry and after 10 years decides to identify his ancestry as Anglo-Saxon or Gaelic Scottish*, for whatever reasons. Or someone is of Breton ancestry and after 10 years becomes a Scoto-Norman and after next 10 years becomes a Gaelic Scot, only to turn into an Inglis-speaking Scot 10 years later, only to emigrate to Ireland and become a Scotch-Irish later, etc. OK, but that was not the main point.
The main point was to show that Americans are not as much a "nation of immigrants" as is usually claimed, because many of them are still descendants of the old "colonial stock" - i.e. those who lived in the English colonies before independence, before the 1790 census.
Of course those people had also immigrated to North America before 1776 - but by that time they were European colonists, not Americans.
*Original people of Scotland were Brythonic-speaking Britons and Picts. Gaelic-speakers came from Ireland and founded the Scottish realm, their Gaelic language replaced Brythonic in most of Scotland. But in Bernicia (Scottish Borders) English was already spoken when Gaels conquered that land.
High immigration during the period of 1830 - 1914 did not really "totally overwhelm" the 1790-1830 "old stock" Americans, because the U.S. population was growing not only thanks to immigration, but also thanks to very high rates of natural growth.
It seems that the high average rate of natural increase (livebirths minus deaths per 1000 people per year) was driven by good health, relative prosperity based on people owning their own land or running their own businesses, and very high birthrates.
Here is the data on rates of natural increase in the USA during each decade (I used this data to make the graph posted above):
http://www.nber.org/papers/h0056
JohannaK said:
Or someone is of Romano-Briton ancestry and after 10 years decides to identify his ancestry as Anglo-Saxon or Gaelic Scottish*, for whatever reasons. Or someone is of Breton ancestry and after 10 years becomes a Scoto-Norman and after next 10 years becomes a Gaelic Scot, only to turn into an Inglis-speaking Scot 10 years later, only to emigrate to Ireland and become a Scotch-Irish later, etc. OK, but that was not the main point.
The main point was to show that Americans are not as much a "nation of immigrants" as is usually claimed, because many of them are still descendants of the old "colonial stock" - i.e. those who lived in the English colonies before independence, before the 1790 census.
Of course those people had also immigrated to North America before 1776 - but by that time they were European colonists, not Americans.
*Original people of Scotland were Brythonic-speaking Britons and Picts. Gaelic-speakers came from Ireland and founded the Scottish realm, their Gaelic language replaced Brythonic in most of Scotland. But in Bernicia (Scottish Borders) English was already spoken when Gaels conquered that land.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Well, ultimately all people came to other parts of the world from Sub-Saharan Africa.
But that was dozens of thousands of years ago, while post-1492 Sub-Saharan emigrants were "recent" ones.
So "Sub-Saharan ancestry" in that study = recent (post-1492) Sub-Saharan ancestry.
But that was dozens of thousands of years ago, while post-1492 Sub-Saharan emigrants were "recent" ones.
So "Sub-Saharan ancestry" in that study = recent (post-1492) Sub-Saharan ancestry.
How is that relevant? Race in the US is a social construct, not some sort of Mendelian attribute.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Leoreth said:
Indeed - both "ancestry" and "race" self-reported answers in the U.S. are based on perceived origins.
BTW, I've heard that in 2020 census they are going to update options to choose in question about "race", because current classification (see the picture below for 2010 census question on race) is insufficient:
Spoiler :
For example, people from Latino / Hispanic countries have a problem how to answer the question on race (because Hispanic / Latino is not considered a race, but a cultural identity - see the video below):
What is interesting, they usually don't consider the option "Native American", even though most of them are Mestizos (i.e. of mixed Amerindian-European ancestry, sometimes with African admixture too):
Link to video.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Leoreth said:
But there is a separate question on whether a person is Latino / Hispanic.
Latino / Hispanic is not an option of answer in the question about race.
Check this:
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2009/questionnaire.aspx
Question 5. is about whether a person has a Latino / Hispanic heritage:
While question 6. is about race - and people need to answer both questions:
So what should people from Hispanic / Latino countries - most of whom are Mestizo - write down as their "race"?
Mestizo is apparently not a suggested census option, only "White" and "American Indian".
Of course they can use "some other race" and write down "Mestizo" there - but how many actually do this?
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
There should really be a "I don't give a crap, and neither should you" option.
Yeah, I kind of felt thrown back into the forties when filling out these forms.
(But I think it's mostly about access to AA and similar workplace regulations so you can always check "white" if you don't care. I doubt anyone would come and tell you you're wrong.)
(But I think it's mostly about access to AA and similar workplace regulations so you can always check "white" if you don't care. I doubt anyone would come and tell you you're wrong.)
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
But why "not known" instead of "human", or at least "humanoid" ???
(leaving it blank may indicate "white" - blanco in Spanish
)
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Because I'm reasonably sure I am human, or humanoid at least.
What I'm not sure about is my ethnicity (allegedly).
But really it's because I just don't trust anyone with an unhealthy interest in ethnicities, altogether. It's never gone well in the past, so why should it now?
What I'm not sure about is my ethnicity (allegedly).
But really it's because I just don't trust anyone with an unhealthy interest in ethnicities, altogether. It's never gone well in the past, so why should it now?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
When my work sent me a survey asking me if I am a part of a visible minority, I told them I'm not doing it. HR kept sending me the survey every once in a while, but I just ignored it. I haven't heard from them about it in a couple years now.
Feel free to ask me where I was born and/or where I live, but please don't ask me if the colour of my skin is "visible". I won't tell you because that's a stupid question.
Feel free to ask me where I was born and/or where I live, but please don't ask me if the colour of my skin is "visible". I won't tell you because that's a stupid question.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What's the big deal with a form asking your race or ethnicity? It's significant biographical information, so if its pertinent, it seems harmless.
Maybe it's a generational thing.
Maybe it's a generational thing.
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
Maybe you should just check your white cis-het-male privilege, Traitorfish
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Maybe I'm an ashamed descendant of Australian Aborigines and want to hide my heritage (not my case as far as I know)
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Maybe I'm a closet communist that wants to seize your country but writing in "Of Indefinite East European Ethnicity" would foil my plan.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
