U.S. Census 2020: The Hispanic and Asian Nation

(That number was the entire U.S. population in Lincoln's day)

 

We recently did a deep-dive into the 2020 U.S. Census numbers, showing the demographic changes over a century in America's largest cities.

Today we take a more zoomed-in view, looking at the changes from 1980 to 2020. Our British Isles founding fathers launched a nation 'for ourselves and our posterity;' that nation is slowly but surely ebbing away.

What do the numbers say?

 

 

2020 Census: Who's Fleeing Whom?

Fisher's famous census maps from 2010

Nearly ten years ago, after the 2010 U.S. Census results came out, we did a deep-dive into the shifting ethnic make-up of America's cities.

 

Delayed due to Covid, the 2020 Census numbers are finally out. So here’s our ‘Who’s Fleeing Whom?’ series, updated for 2020.

*     *     * 

Why did we write this piece? Though black criminality in North America has always surpassed that of Euros, separating oneself from Afro neighbors was not difficult for the first 350 years of British North America / the United States.  Even in the North, segregation in housing was permitted de facto where it was not de jure.

 

The 'Great Migration,' waves of Afros moving from the South to the North, began in earnest in 1910, with its second wave after WWII (1945).

Image source

 

However, the flight of Euro-Americans out of the cities did not truly begin until Blacks were free to live where they pleased-- the 1960s.  Since then, a sort of merry-go-round has ensued:  Whites, suffering under Afro dysfunction, flee to suburbs, only to be pursued by the Talented Tenth fleeing same.  The latter are followed, as night follows day, by the Untalented Nine-Tenths, who promptly re-create the urban chaos they left behind. Euro-Americans are forced to pack up, and the musical chairs begin again.

 

We can in fact watch the flight unfold before our eyes via U.S. Census numbers. 

1910: Before the Great Migration got underway: Our first figures (where available).

1960: Just before the end of Segregation.

1980: Fast-forward twenty years to see what the first wave of 'White Flight' has wrought.

2020: Finally, the most recent figures. Enter en masse Hispanics, who did not even exist as a census category two generations ago, and Asians, who have flooded in recently.

 

So, one-fifth of the way into our new century : Who's fleeing whom?

 

 

Who Is Fleeing Whom?

 Image source

Nearly ten years ago, after the 2010 U.S. Census results came out, we did a deep-dive into the shifts in ethnic make-up of America's cities.

At this moment, the full 2020 Census figures are being crunched. As soon as they are out, we shall update this piece to reflect the new face of these metropolises, some of which we suspect will have changed radically in the last ten years.

As we wait for the new numbers, let's revisit the data up until 2010... and predict what changes are about to be revealed.

*     *     * 

Why did we write this piece? Though black criminality in North America has always surpassed that of Euros, separating oneself from Afro neighbors was not difficult for the first 350 years of British North America / the United States.  Even in the North, segregation in housing was permitted de facto where it was not de jure.

 

The 'Great Migration,' waves of Afros moving from the South to the North, began in earnest in 1910, with its second wave after WWII (1945).

Image source

 

However, the flight of Euro-Americans out of the cities did not truly begin until Blacks were free to live where they pleased-- the 1960s.  Since then, a sort of merry-go-round has ensued:  Whites, suffering under Afro dysfunction, flee to suburbs, only to be pursued by the Talented Tenth fleeing same.  The latter are followed, as night follows day,  by the Untalented Nine-Tenths, who promptly re-create the urban hellscapes they left behind. Euro-Americans are forced to pack up, and the musical chairs begin again.  Section 8 vouchers have revved this carousel up to warp speed.

 

We can in fact watch the flight unfold before our eyes via U.S. Census numbers. 

We give the figures from 1960, just before Segregation ended. 

We then fast-forward twenty years to 1980 to see what the first wave of 'White Flight' has wrought.  

Finally, we give the most recent figures (2010), which contain some surprises, especially re: Hispanics, who did not even exist as a census category two generations ago.  

For selected cities, we have also given the figures from 1910, before the Great Migration got underway.  Asians have been included where their historic presence has been strongest.

 

So: Who's fleeing whom?

 

 

 1. The Midwest

We start with the Midwest, industrial center and destination of choice for the Great Migrators:

 

Weapons of Mass Migration: Are You a Target?

Reaction to Trump's threat to turn off the migrant tap

Donald Trump's proposed immigration policies--though moderate by the standards of any other era in U.S. history--are spurring an unprecedented wave of outrage.

The immense waves of migrants (legal and illegal) pouring into the U.S. and Europe are, say his opponents, a blessing, a gift, even the only way to survive.

Image source

Is it true? 

Today there are a quarter of a billion people living outside their home countries--the most ever recorded in human history. But these mass movements aren't happening by chance-- far larger forces are at play.

Image source

We live in an era where demographic weapons are in fact being lobbed around the globe, disturbing the fragile ecosystems of human societies, in some cases threatening to topple them. 

Who is in the line of fire? Can one make oneself less of a target? 

Africans flood into Europe;  Latin Americans flood into the U.S.

How? 

Governments Are Us

Harper's Weekly, 1869

David Brooks has a history lesson for Donald Trump (via Steve Sailer):

The Trump story is that good honest Americans are being screwed by aliens.  …  This is a tribal story.  

Somebody is going to have to arise to point out that this is a deeply wrong and un-American story. The whole point of America is that we are not a tribe. We are a universal nation, founded on universal principles, attracting talented people from across the globe, active across the world on behalf of all people who seek democracy and dignity.

Naturalization ceremony, 2010

This lovely fiction from Mr. Brooks is as quaint as it is ahistorical. But it does go back a fair way. Not as far as our founders, bequeathing a nation 'to ourselves and our posterity.' Not as far as our first naturalization act, in 1790, extended to 'free white persons of good character.' 

Not as far as Thomas Jefferson, quoted by Alexander Hamilton:

Not multiculturalists

'The opinion advanced in [Jefferson's] The Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. 

'They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? 

'There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule.'

The idea that the U.S. was meant to become a League of Nations avant l'heure dates back to the mid 19^th century, when America's first nativist party, the 'Know-Nothings,' agitated against Catholic immigrants (both Irish and German). They were  lambasted by people like George Julian, VP candidate:

'Know Nothingism . . . tramples down the doctrine of human brotherhood. It judges men by the accidents of their condition, instead of striving to find a common lot for all, with a common access to the blessings of life.' (1)

By the 1912 presidential election, Woodrow Wilson was currying favor with his new electorate by trumpeting:

'America has, so to say, opened its doors and extended its welcome to men who were Americans everywhere in the world. She has invited all the free forces of the modern civilized peoples to come to America where men can be free, and where all free forces can unite and forget all their differences of origins.' 

Wilson-style multiculturalism: No Asians or Blacks, thanks

But even a 'proposition nation' man like Wilson wasn't a true multiculturalist—he did not extend this welcome to Blacks or Asians:

'The whole question is one of assimilation of diverse races. We cannot make a homogeneous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race.'

These days, things have gone so far that we're being told that not letting masses of Mexicans or Africans into our countries is the equivalent of turning away the Jews in 1940, or runaway slaves in 1840.

Forcing Africans to be governed by their own: Worse than slavery

This is an astounding statement. Forcing a Mexican to be governed by other Mexicans, or a Senegalese to be governed by other Senegalese, is akin to committing genocide upon them. What a statement on the governing abilities of Mexicans or Senegalese! Perhaps Jefferson was onto something after all…

The 'magic dirt' theory, of course, says that once these foreigners set foot on our soil, they are suddenly blessed with the qualities that have allowed us to govern ourselves so successfully all these years.

Coming to take part in the Great Democratic Experiment

But we at TWCS suspect that, on the contrary, Jefferson was right—Governments Are Us. 'That temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism' has not been equally distributed on Planet Earth. 

We mostly rule ourselves now--the age of empire is over.  If we rule ourselves badly, that's because we are somehow ill-equipped to handle the running of a large, modern representative state.

(Formerly 'Failed States Index')

So if we few in well-run countries usher in the many fleeing ill-run countries,  what will be the result? Is it possible such people will recreate the conditions they've created in their own countries, right here on our soil? If so, we should be very, very careful which groups we let in the door.

What is the evidence?

Progressives: the New Race Realists

I will save you from your people

One hundred years ago, progressives referred to people of color as 'backward races,' 'degenerate and unprogressive,' 'non-adults.' Today's leftists, of course, believe no such thing. They think all humans are equal, as they tell us at every available opportunity.

Don't they?

Careful: TWCS is noticing a sea change.

The rhetoric and the actions emanating from the left as of late show that they have perhaps taken a U-turn—a salutary one.  People of Color, they are now saying, in fact have little agency, are near-prisoners of their instincts, and thus can't be held to the same standards as other ethnies.

 Take up the Leftist's burden

In other words, today's progressives have become de facto race realists.

On what do we base such a claim?

Why Re-Colonization? Commonweal Orientation

Driving in Varanasi, India

(Part II of two)

Europe and the U.S. are both being overrun with illegal immigrants from the South. We recently asked the question, 'Why?' One answer, we've found, could be the former's higher levels of Future Orientation. This ability to fully conceive of and plan for the future creates societies that are the envy of the world.

 Africa's illegal aliens flood into Europe;  Latin America's flood into the U.S.

But we also argue that a second quality is drawing the masses to Euros' doors. We call this trait Commonweal Orientation. Where it is found in abundance, safe and prosperous societies seem to flourish. So what is it, and why has it been so unevenly distributed on Planet Earth?

When the Melting Pot Reaches a Boil

'The Face of Tomorrow'

As we have seen, some are hoping fervently for a 'post-racial' West in which we all blend to a mocha color and harmony comes at last.  In such a world, so it's thought, we'll see no more prejudice, exclusion, oppression, micro-aggressions, or 'other-ing.'  There isn't a social problem, it appears, that cannot be righted by us all becoming beige.

But where is the evidence that tossing diverse ethnies in a pot leads to a happy racial purée?  To those who insist it is coming, we at Those Who Can See offer three counter-hypotheses:

(1)  No multi-ethnic society will blend smoothly down to one race.

(2)  Multi-ethnic societies will always breed inequality, and the more disparate the groups, the more inequality there will be.

(3)  The resentments that spring from this can only weaken, not strengthen, society.


For these reasons, we propose that the ideal society is not ethnically diverse, but ethnically homogenous.

*     *     *

The prophets of a Beige Future are everywhere.  Being colored is trendy; being white is bland:

'Ours! ... It was our people!  ... Everywhere you saw nothing but this superb brown color that only the loveliest human beings have... [...]  Personally, I don't want to be Western. I don't want to be a white Catholic; I'd rather be a black atheist.'

--French Socialist MP (and white Catholic) Jean-Luc Melenchon, describing a political rally full of immigrants

'Look at all the beautiful colours the women here are wearing. Within ten years this is what it is going to look like all over Europe. Back home it’s so bleak and dreary, the colours are devoid of life. ...' 

--Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg, appreciating the aesthetics of Lagos, Nigeria

We see echoes of the 'exoticism' of 18th and 19th century colonialism, where displaying a Chinese painted screen or an Ashanti mask in your drawing room was a sign of status. Today, appropriating not the possessions but the very identity of these 'exotics' has become à la mode.

La Japonaise (Monet's wife in Japanese costume), 1876

But let us not be fooled:  The light-skinned elite may preach 'marrying out' to the masses, but they avoid it scrupulously among themselves.  At the same time, it is rare that high-status men of color have children as dark as or darker than themselves.

 Black legends and their wives: Music greats Herbie Hancock and James Brown, sports icons Michael Jordan and Pele, acting legends Sidney Poitier and James Earl Jones (Courtesy of A Field Negro)

Which leads us to the two great color systems the colonial world has known:  The one-drop rule and the pigmentocracy. Is there evidence that either one can lead to post-racial paradise?
 

The Future of America: Brown?

Image source

Gregory Rodriguze (via Steve Sailer):

Latinos, whose history has been one of mixture and among whom mestizos are the rule rather than the exception, understand hybridity, a notion that America's discourse on race desperately lacks. ... Perhaps once we have fully adopted the concept of mestizaje into our racial dialogue, we will recognize that Los Angeles is well on its way to becoming a mestizo metropolis.

As goes Los Angeles, so goes the nation?  Rodriguez, and many like him, seem to be anxiously awaiting the future browning of America. Is it coming?

The model most bandied about is that of South America, specifically Brazil. Why Brazil and not Mexico?  While Mexico has West Euros and Native Indians, it is largely missing Afros. But Brazil has all three.  So does the U.S.  It is thus assumed that if the U.S. continues to let in tens of millions of mestizo (largely Indian) Mexicans, its demographic and, perhaps, political future will resemble that of Brazil.

Is this a viable hypothesis?  On what assumptions is it based?


I. Inter-marriage

Image source

Overcoming our Asian Privilege

 

"We swim in a sea of whiteness, it's the norm," Ellen O'Neill, one of the campaign  organizers, said. 
"If we're white we don't have to think about it, we don't see it. 

So the first step is getting white people to see it."

Headlines you may have seen recently:

• 'Duluth's "unfair" campaign tackles white privilege'  

• 'No Longer Colorblind:  Portland teachers must rank themselves by their self-assessed "White Privilege" score'

• 'What James Holmes and the Colorado Movie Massacre Tell Us About White (Male) Privilege'

Let us step into another mental world: that of the Blank-slatist.

In his universe,  all human beings are interchangeable, their differences only skin-deep.  If the U.S. population is 64% white, 16% Hispanic, 13% black, and 5% Asian, these same break-downs must apply in every area of human endeavor: Standardized testing, educational accomplishment, politics, the arts, the sciences, the military, criminal justice, sports, etc.  Anywhere a group is under-represented (or in the case of prison, over-represented), this reflects an attack on them by...

...well, by whom?

'Institutional racism,' some have said, and have spilled much ink over it since the late 1960s (h/t Audacious Epigone) :

But as we have seen, in a country where de facto quotas routinely push out qualified Euros in favor of less qualified Afros and Hispanics in both the public and private sectors, this argument has become a tough sell.

So the Blank-slatist has settled on a new culprit: 'white privilege.'

'What is it?,' we ask him.

     'It is systematic, institutional exclusion of non-Whites,' he says.

'But we have looked at the facts and figures, and found the opposite is true--today institutional racism favors Blacks and Hispanics,' we reply.

     'We swim in a sea of whiteness.  White is the "default setting." Minority groups suffer simply from being the minority.'

'But Whites are the minority in many places--Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Houston; even entire states like California or New Mexico, or countries like South Africa--and yet still show superior life outcomes to Blacks and Hispanics.'

     'None of that matters. The very fact of being white gives them an unfair advantage. Check your privilege.'


Taking him at his word, that this nebulous White Privilege beams out its rays twenty-four hours a day and forces Afros, Hispanics, and Asians to under-perform their Euro subjugators, let's fire up our privilege radar and see if his argument holds up.

The Guilty Party

Olave d'Estienne has been kind enough to post this leaflet which lays out the plight of Blacks and Hispanics wronged by the tech industry.

Although they are 12.6% of the population, we are told, Blacks make up only 1% of internet company founders and 1.5% of Silicon Valley employees.   The latter, in addition, are subjected to a humiliating yellow badge-wearing regime which bars them from riding company bicycles.

The leaflet also shares with us the troubling facts that (1) Blacks' higher melanin content makes it harder for face-tracking software to sense them and (2) the disproportionately high crime rates in black ghettos tempt U.S. pedestrians to avoid them, with technology.

Who shall pay for these sins?

The detectives at OnlineITDegree.net claim to have sniffed out the culprit:  Its name is 'tech' and its weapon is 'racism':