Worldwide Demographics

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

However, the percentage of the U.S. that is black keeps ticking downward because there has been so much immigration from Mexico and elsewhere. Mexicans/Latinos now outnumber black Americans 2X nationally.

Latinos have handily overtaken Blacks nationally, but it's not 2X yet.

US macro-demos Census 2020:

white: 57.8%
latino: 18.7%
black: 12.1%
asian: 5.9%
other: 5.5%



But the trend lines are clear. Chicago is one of the best examples of this black to latino minority inversion. Chicago was one of the biggest recipients of southern blacks during the 20th century's great migrations, probably 2nd only to NYC in terms of #s, reaching a peak of about 40% of the city's population by 1980, while latinos accounted for only around 14% at the time.

And then the mexicans REALLY started coming to Chicago. And boy did they ever.

Here are the macro-demos for Chicago as of ACS 2024:

white: 32.1%
latino: 29.7%
black: 27.4%
asian: 7.2%
other: 3.5%


And while one might be tempted to argue that's only because of black flight out of the city to the burbs, regionally the gap is even bigger, with latinos outnumbering blacks by 9 full points and trending to go up 2X sometime later this century.


Here are the macro-demos for the 7 county CMAP Region* as of ACS 2024:

white: 47.9%
latino: 24.8%
black: 15.8%
asian: 7.9%
other: 3.6%


(*) the 7 county CMAP Region cloesly approximates the Chicago MSA, minus NWI and two outlying rural IL counties hardly anyone lives in anyway.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not sure if there's any even plurality black low-income neighborhoods in the Western U.S. Watts is maybe 10% black these days. Maybe Compton, somewhat? At least for a few more years, until Compton becomes 90% Hispanic like the former black neighborhoods to the north. Oakland has some plurality black areas, but I think more middle class.

If you look further from the coast, there are some working-class majority-black parts of Vegas (including areas of North Las Vegas), This is a relatively small area, though, and around 55% black, 30% Latino, and 10% white.

I think that's it, though. Aside from being like 2/3rds Latino, Compton is also more lower-middle class than dirt poor. Sections of West Oakland are very poor, still, but it's less than 40% black these days.

Originally Posted by Crawford

And I don't think Seattle, Portland or San Diego have any black neighborhoods anymore. Maybe a few legacy enclaves with some older households.

Yeah, all of them have individual blocks (and Seattle few mini-enclaves around historic public housing) but not enough to form the majority in any single neighborhood.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And while one might be tempted to argue that's only because of black flight out of the city to the burbs, regionally the gap is even bigger, with latinos outnumbering blacks by 9 full points and trending to go up 2X sometime later this century.

It's also worth noting that black birth rates are essentially identical to white birth rates these days. The old racist stereotype of black mothers having tons of kids is decades out of date.

Regardless, this means that much like the white population, the black population is starting to decline wherever new migrants (international or domestic) aren't being attracted.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

East Palo Alto is very diverse, pretty safe and actually quite expensive. And there are barely any black people in East Palo Alto, or anywhere in SV. It's "bad" compared to Palo Alto or Atherton, but "bad" in SV means homes cost less than $3 million.

It's definitely more working class in EPA; more commercial and industrial areas there. More apartments, etc. Coming from Houston, it came across as safe and well kept but by Bay Area standards, especially in SV, it was "run down".

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think you're too biased here regarding the Francophone population of the Caribbean, because Martinique/Guadalupe doesn't translate elsewhere.

Originally Posted by eschaton

It does seem like from the limited genetic studies I've seen of Martinique/Guadeloupe the average black person is a bit less African for some reason (about 70% African/25% European, with minor admixture elsewhere - likely Tamil), but these islands are somewhat outliers compared to the region as a whole (though not as much as St. Barts).

For the French situation, they are not outliers though. At the 2022 census, there were 280,760 natives of Martinique and Guadeloupe who lived in Metropolitan France, as opposed to only 51,578 Haitian immigrants, 2,650 natives of St Martin and St Barth, and probably less than 2,000 immigrants from other Caribbean islands (excluding Cuban and Dominican Republic).

So in the French context, the Black Caribbean population is largely made up of Guadeloupeans and Martinicans, and they look lighter than the Black Americans (at least that's how it looks to me).

Originally Posted by eschaton

Jim Crow slowly ground down the creole identity into the black one as Anglophones became more dominant in Louisiana, but there's still something of a sense of a separate identity from blackness - which is why often light-skinned creoles in the past attempted to transition to whiteness if they left the area.

That's the history of Pope Leo XIV's family.

Originally Posted by eschaton

The British had no real use for an intermediate caste between the planters and slave to be made of free people of color, because there were plenty of poor whites to go around.

The class of free people of color appeared in the French colonies not because it served any purpose, but it just appeared organically, as mixed children were freed, and also as some former slaves were freed (France abolished slavery during the French Revolution, then Napoleon reinstated it, then it was abolished for good in 1848, but already between 1815 and 1848 a significant number of slaves were freed in various waves, so by 1848 there was already a significant part of the colored population that was free, with the decree of 1848 freeing all the rest).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And the entire premise (French nonwhites are broadly integrated with larger population and U.S. nonwhites aren't) is bizarre and not supported by anything. Most of France is entirely white French people. It's just a few districts in a few cities which are majority Arab or African.

France has changed, just like East Palo Alto. You're not up-to-date with today's France obviously.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The class of free people of color appeared in the French colonies not because it served any purpose, but it just appeared organically, as mixed children were freed, and also as some former slaves were freed (France abolished slavery during the French Revolution, then Napoleon reinstated it, then it was abolished for good in 1848, but already between 1815 and 1848 a significant number of slaves were freed in various waves, so by 1848 there was already a significant part of the colored population that was free, with the decree of 1848 freeing all the rest).

Well yeah, but my point is that France just tended to be less interested in sending settlers to its colonies (and those that came often didn't being along wives) meaning the tier below the planters had to be comprised of the mixed-race children of the planters, rather than some farmers imported from Normandy or something.

It's a bit more complicated, of course, because climate also plays a role. The Caribbean was deadly awful for white folks once Malaria and Yellow fever were introduced. Places like Barbados were originally majority white as colonies, but the white migrants died off at such a rapid rate that they drifted into heavily black plantation states over time.

Somewhere like the U.S. south was intermediate. Most white people would get malaria, but survive. This was awful for new migrants (that needed six months to "season" before real work), but the kids of locals would get sick during childhood and then be fine. And in the Northern U.S. (or Quebec) there really wasn't a use for plantation agriculture, and European-descended populations could take off on their own.

Regardless, in British North America, the mixed-race children of white planters could be kept in slavery (or if not, in very subservient conditions) because there were always more white people coming who could do the job. After Bacon's Rebellion, a pretty strict color line was set up as well.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

France has changed, just like East Palo Alto. You're not up-to-date with today's France obviously.

I'll be in Strasbourg for a week in July. You're telling me the nonwhite population in Strasbourg will be fairly evenly distributed among the Alsatians, and there will no distinct immigrant enclaves? I find this hard to believe. And Strasbourg is a prosperous city with a professional expat population, due to EU.

I've explored St. Denis and environs multiple times and the nonwhite population appears to be 90%+. There are so few whites I get noticed (I'm Northern European looking). Back where I usually stay in the 7th around Rue Saint-Dominique, the only nonwhites are people working or passing thru.

I'm sure there is increasing integration over time, but France has considerable segregation. It's obviously hard to compare given the lack of granular data on race-ethnicity. If it's like in Germany, any urban social housing complexes will now be overwhelmingly skewed towards nonwhites. In Germany these complexes are often called Affenkäfige, which is horribly racist (monkey cages).

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'll be in Strasbourg for a week in July. You're telling me the nonwhite population in Strasbourg will be fairly evenly distributed among the Alsatians, and there will no distinct immigrant enclaves? I find this hard to believe. And Strasbourg is a prosperous city with a professional expat population, due to EU.

I've explored St. Denis and environs multiple times and the nonwhite population appears to be 90%+. There are so few whites I get noticed (I'm Northern European looking). Back where I usually stay in the 7th around Rue Saint-Dominique, the only nonwhites are people working or passing thru.

I'm sure there is increasing integration over time, but France has considerable segregation. It's obviously hard to compare given the lack of granular data on race-ethnicity. If it's like in Germany, any urban social housing complexes will now be overwhelmingly skewed towards nonwhites. In Germany these complexes are often called Affenkäfige, which is horribly racist (monkey cages).

Which hotel? We stayed at the Hotel St. Dominque a few years ago. Almost set our room on fire...

[Crawford]

We have an apartment sometimes available for our use, via a family member. So usually not paying for hotel. That neighborhood has a ton of units owned by outsiders.

I know exactly where you previously stayed, however. Glad you didn't burn it down and cause an intl. incident!

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Well yeah, but my point is that France just tended to be less interested in sending settlers to its colonies (and those that came often didn't being along wives) meaning the tier below the planters had to be comprised of the mixed-race children of the planters, rather than some farmers imported from Normandy or something.

Actually there were many White people in St Domingue (Haiti). In fact St Domingue attracted more French settlers than Canada over the course of its history. But all of them were either killed or forced to flee during the Haitian Revolution, with many relocating to Louisiana with their slaves, which is why the White past of Haiti is now totally forgotten.

And yet even in this society where there were many White people, the class of free colored man developed. So it has to be for other reasons.

Besides, I don't see exactly what you're referring to when you say some lower class White people were needed. Needed for what? Black slaves did all the manual jobs, plus served as house servants. White people were either masters of slaves and owning plantations, or were civil servants, clerks, priests, merchants. I can't see why a White underclass would be needed here.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'll be in Strasbourg for a week in July. You're telling me the nonwhite population in Strasbourg will be fairly evenly distributed among the Alsatians, and there will no distinct immigrant enclaves?

Yes, the nonwhite population is peppered a bit everywhere. You have neighborhoods with more people of non-European backgrounds, but it's nothing like the ethnic neighborhoods of the US. You're never going to find a purely Black African neighborhood, or a purely Arab neighborhood.

And I was commenting on your claim that Black people are only present in some very circumscribed parts of France, but not in the overall country at large. You're describing the France of 20 years ago, not the France of today. In today's France, Black people are everywhere, even in Northwest France where there used to be none.

Strasbourg historically is not a city that had Black people, but today you'll see Black people even in Strasbourg (although not as many as you'd see in Paris). And you'll see them a bit everywhere, same for the Turks, not in one particular area.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I've explored St. Denis and environs multiple times and the nonwhite population appears to be 90%+. There are so few whites I get noticed (I'm Northern European looking).

You're taking the most extreme case in France and generalizing it to the entire country. Also, you don't even realize what you're doing here: you're conflating ALL non-White as ONE group. This is not ONE group, these are diverse groups (Black Africans, Caribbeans, North African Arabs and Berbers, Turks, North African Jews, etc). It's like I said, people live side by side in the same neighborhood. You don't have one purely Black African neighborhood, and then one purely Turkish neighborhood, and then one purely Algerian neighborhood. That doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm sure there is increasing integration over time, but France has considerable segregation. It's obviously hard to compare given the lack of granular data on race-ethnicity. If it's like in Germany, any urban social housing complexes will now be overwhelmingly skewed towards nonwhites. In Germany these complexes are often called Affenkäfige, which is horribly racist (monkey cages).

There is some degree of segregation, but it's nowhere near the levels seen in the US. I would know, I have lived in both places. And the segregation in France is not an ethnic one, but a class and money one. But Americans always try to analyze everything in terms of races, which is why they get France wrong. France has a different history from the US. Fault lines here are not based on race. They are based on social status, education, money.

[New Brisavoine]

Also, one point to keep in mind when visiting France: immigrants tend to disproportionately use public transports, whereas non immigrants tend to use private vehicles (cars) much more. And because the immigrants in France since the 1980s have been essentially non-White, that means you'll see much more non-Whites in public transports than their real share of the population. That's why some people wrongly assume that there are more non-White people in certain areas than there really is.

For example whenever I go to Le Mans, in Western France, the public in the tram lines is 3/4 non-White, so it would seem that this is a city with a super large non-White population, but in reality the White people tend to use their cars much more, so the share of non-White people in the overall population is not as large. But it can be quite deceiving.

Regarding St Denis: in the metro area of Paris, at the 2022 census, the sub-Saharan African immigrants made up 4.7% of the total population (that doesn't include their children born on French soil). In the arrondissement of St Denis (that is St Denis plus the nearest municipalities around it) the sub-Saharan African immigrants made up 10.8% of the total population. So even in St Denis, it's not like it's 100% Black area.

Even if you enlarge and include all African immigrants (i.e. also the North Africans), in the Paris metro area 10.7% of the total population were African immigrants in 2022, and in the arrondissement of St Denis 24.3% of the total population were African immigrants. Even if you double the figures to include their children, it's not like even St Denis is an 80% or 90% African area. It's much more mixed than that.

You also have European immigrants in that arrondissement (in particular many Portuguese), Haitian immigrants, Sri Lankan immigrants, Chinese immigrants (they own the textile warehouses in the industrial zone of St Denis, but you probably didn't see that side of St Denis, as it is far away from the train and métro stations).

[Crawford]

We aren't talking about foreign born status but race. St. Denis is a heavily black area. I have no idea if they're immigrants or French for five generations, but the area is almost certainly majority black. Of course there's diversity within races, which is obviously true in the U.S. and elsewhere. Even Sub-Saharan blacks would be incredibly diverse in terms of ethnicity, tribe origins, language, religion, etc.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

St. Denis is a heavily black area. I have no idea if they're immigrants or French for five generations, but the area is almost certainly majority black.

No it isn't.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Regarding St Denis: in the metro area of Paris, at the 2022 census, the sub-Saharan African immigrants made up 4.7% of the total population (that doesn't include their children born on French soil). In the arrondissement of St Denis (that is St Denis plus the nearest municipalities around it) the sub-Saharan African immigrants made up 10.8% of the total population. So even in St Denis, it's not like it's 100% Black area.

And there aren't 5-generation Black Africans in France, because this immigration is too new for that.

You are a clear example of what I was describing above: you saw lots of Black people around the train station or the métro station at St Denis (and there are indeed many), and so you concluded that this is the ethnic make up of St Denis, which is not the case.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Actually there were many White people in St Domingue (Haiti). In fact St Domingue attracted more French settlers than Canada over the course of its history. But all of them were either killed or forced to flee during the Haitian Revolution, with many relocating to Louisiana with their slaves, which is why the White past of Haiti is now totally forgotten.

My understanding is the white population of Haiti was about 8% of the total in colonial times. While that's certainly larger than it was after the Haitian Revolution, even in the blackest part of British North America (South Carolina) there was about a 50/50 split.

Also keep in mind that Britain used the whole "indentured servitude" thing to export people from Europe to the colonies against their will. Now, this wasn't slavery, but you often had little choice in the matter (getting assigned to it after a minor crime or ending up in debt), and then had to work for a master for seven years before being freed. Enough poor whites were shipped to the colonies for this reason that they always outnumbered the planters.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

And yet even in this society where there were many White people, the class of free colored man developed. So it has to be for other reasons.

Part of it was due to differences in law and culture. The British colonies, as noted upthread, established slavery passed through the mother rather than the father, which meant the only free black population that developed was through (generally poor) white women having children with black men. This group was not upwardly mobile, as it was "Poor on both sides." Lots of this group folded into the white majority before strict racial codes were adopted, which is why some old-line southerners are a few percent black.

In contrast, planters in the South typically kept their own children enslaved and/or sold them to others. Hence the mixed population remained in bondage (though often with higher "house slave" type jobs) until the time of the Civil War.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Besides, I don't see exactly what you're referring to when you say some lower class White people were needed. Needed for what? Black slaves did all the manual jobs, plus served as house servants. White people were either masters of slaves and owning plantations, or were civil servants, clerks, priests, merchants. I can't see why a White underclass would be needed here.

Overseers to whip and otherwise discipline the slaves, for one thing. But my general point is in colonial states where there is a larger settler class, there's less of a reason for the ruling class to try and bring mixed people onboard with some limited levels of rights. They can afford to treat everyone with some black ancestry the same because there's more than enough white folks to fill out a militia.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by eschaton

My understanding is the white population of Haiti was about 8% of the total in colonial times. While that's certainly larger than it was after the Haitian Revolution, even in the blackest part of British North America (South Carolina) there was about a 50/50 split.

The White population of St Domingue in 1789 was roughly as numerous as the White population of Georgia.

Originally Posted by eschaton

Overseers to whip and otherwise discipline the slaves, for one thing.

In the French sugar colonies, these overseers (called "commandeurs") were Black slaves themselves. The masters selected the most trustworthy and experienced slaves, usually born locally. So no need to a White lower class here.

PS: Of note: the population of St Domingue in 1789 was larger than Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, but lower than Virginia. Its White population, however, was only the same size as Georgia's. The total economic output of St Domingue (what we call GDP today) was larger than the entire USA, and its exports were also larger than the exports of the entire USA. All (or nearly all) was destroyed within the space of 15 years. The largest city in St Domingue, Cap-Français (the "Pearl of the Antilles") was as populated as Boston and Charleston in 1789. Only NYC and Philadelphia were larger. Cap-Français was 5/6th destroyed by fire in 1793 during the Haitian Revolution, and its White population either killed or fled to Louisiana.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The White population of St Domingue in 1789 was roughly as numerous as the White population of Georgia.

And they were lording over far, far more slaves.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In the French sugar colonies, these overseers (called "commandeurs") were Black slaves themselves. The masters selected the most trustworthy and experienced slaves, usually born locally. So no need to a White lower class here.

I'd argue there very much was a need, because as the Haitian Revolution showed, apartheid states where a small minority rules over everyone else are inherently politically unstable.

Though the planter class of the South eventually lost via the U.S. Civil War, they're still living in the exact same communities, and many of their descendants are wealthy to this day.

They built the more robust system, because they had the poor whites as their allies, and changes were made very early on in the legal codes to ensure that poor whites and blacks would not ally against the planter class.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'd argue there very much was a need, because as the Haitian Revolution showed, apartheid states where a small minority rules over everyone else are inherently politically unstable.

Cuba and Jamaica were stable, and they too had a White minority ruling over a large Black slave population.

The causes for the Haitian Revolution are not demographic, but are due to the French Revolution itself, which disorganized White rule over the colony.

[iheartthed]

It was a pretty common characteristic of slave colonies that the enslaved populations outnumbered the free populations. Before the Civil War there were a number of Deep South states that had slave majorities or near parity to free populations.

Percentage enslaved of total state populations in 1850 census

57.6% -- South Carolina
51.1% -- Mississippi
47.3% -- Louisiana
45.0% -- Florida
44.4% -- Alabama
42.1% -- Georgia
33.2% -- Virginia
33.2% -- North Carolina
27.4% -- Texas
23.9% -- Tennessee
22.4% -- Arkansas
21.5% -- Kentucky
7.1% -- District of Columbia