Minority majority MSAs in the US

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SAN Man

Do you know which states and at what time period?

In the 2020 census, the state that comes the closest to majority black is Mississippi and that is only 36.6%.

Basically the more racist the state, the more likely it is that black was either the majority or near majority of the population. South Carolina was majority black until the 1930 census. Mississippi was majority black until the 1940 census. Louisiana was majority black from 1870 - 1900 (this state also had the first black governor in the U.S., back in the 1870s). Most other deep South states were pretty close in population as well. And Virginia was majority black (slave) prior to the Declaration of Independence.

source: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...P-twps0056.pdf

[Crawford]

I believe MS is more like 40% AA. And the under-18 population is closer to 50% AA. And MS doesn't get much immigration or domestic in-migration. So there will possibly be a majority AA state in the not-so distant future.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Basically the more racist the state, the more likely it is that black was either the majority or near majority of the population. South Carolina was majority black until the 1930 census. Mississippi was majority black until the 1940 census. Louisiana was majority black from 1870 - 1900 (this state also had the first black governor in the U.S., back in the 1870s). Most other deep South states were pretty close in population as well. And Virginia was majority black (slave) prior to the Declaration of Independence.

source: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...P-twps0056.pdf

The Great African American migration helped to reduce the proportion of Blacks in South.

In Brazil, we have an analogous phenomenon and it was even bigger: the big Northeast migration to the Southeast, specially to São Paulo metro area. São Paulo metro area was 90% White till 1950. Today is barely 50%. More than 5 million of Northeasterns reside in São Paulo plus another millions of descendents. They are a very visible minority, not only by the looks (most of them are Mixed), but because their social position as working class people and also the accent, that doesn't fade away, even on the 2nd generation.

[SAN Man]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Basically the more racist the state, the more likely it is that black was either the majority or near majority of the population. South Carolina was majority black until the 1930 census. Mississippi was majority black until the 1940 census. Louisiana was majority black from 1870 - 1900 (this state also had the first black governor in the U.S., back in the 1870s). Most other deep South states were pretty close in population as well. And Virginia was majority black (slave) prior to the Declaration of Independence.

source: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...P-twps0056.pdf

I've been scrolling through that link you gave. Lots of information, thanks! I had no idea about some historical populations. The black population reached their peak in Louisiana in 1880 at 51.5%, reached a post peak low of 29.4 in 1980. A lot can change in 100 years!

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Take a look at what St. Louis' and Cincinnati's and Pittsburgh's MSAs (and Columbus' and Rochester's, for instance) encompass.

Given the vast geographic reaches of those MSAs, I'm not surprised one bit by the numbers. Consider that vast land area, and especially consider that vast land area for relatively small metro populations. These all have vastly oversized metro boundaries for their core cities.

Once again, we need to stop using MSA as a definition for any meaningful comparison.

St. Louis MSA isn’t picking up a constellation of historically populous small cities that arent direct industrial satellites or suburbs/exurbs like (some) more eastern midwestern cities, though. population density drops off a lot harder than say cincinnati.

[Docere]

Which counties would be included in a more accurate greater Pittsburgh?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Docere

Which counties would be included in a more accurate greater Pittsburgh?

If the definition must be county-based, there's nothing wrong with Pittsburgh MSA. The least metropolitan county (Fayette?) is home of several undisputable Pittsburgh suburbs.

That's why Pittsburgh UA and MSA population is not dramatically different. In fact, I can't think of any major area in the US where the MSA and UA population is very different. Only in terms of area, with UAs being obviously much smaller than MSAs.

[Steely Dan]

^ because we still don't have 2020 UA data yet (when census bureau, WHEN?????????), we have to go back to 2010 numbers for now.

2010 pittsburgh MSA: 2,356,285

2010 pittsburgh UA: 1,733,853

difference: 622,432 (35.9%)

that is not a negligible difference.

Originally Posted by Docere

Which counties would be included in a more accurate greater Pittsburgh?

the main problem is using counties in the first place.

they are WAY too big and clumsy of a geographic unit to properly determine the size of individual "cities" without municipal borders.

but they make things much simpler to calculate, which is why we end up with them as the very imperfect the kludge that they are.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the main problem is using counties in the first place.

they are WAY too big and clumsy of a geographic unit to properly determine the size of individual "cities" without municipal borders.

but they make things much simpler to calculate, which is why we end up with them as the very imperfect the kludge that they are.

At the very least, no county with a population under 10,000 - if not much more - should be considered part of an MSA.

[Docere]

Even if we limit Pittsburgh to the urbanized area of 1.7 million and put the entire minority population of the Pittsburgh MSA in it, Pittsburgh would still be more than 75% NHW.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ because we still don't have 2020 UA data yet (when census bureau, WHEN?????????), we have to go back to 2010 numbers for now.

2010 pittsburgh MSA: 2,356,285

2010 pittsburgh UA: 1,733,853

difference: 622,432 (35.9%)

that is not a negligible difference.






the main problem is using counties in the first place.

they are WAY too big and clumsy of a geographic unit to properly determine the size of individual "cities" without municipal borders.

but they make things much simpler to calculate, which is why we end up with them as the very imperfect the kludge that they are.

But Steely, if you look closer, you’ll see that all major UAs have smaller UAs whose names one never heard of, and even though they’re completely contiguous with the bigger UA, they’re presented separated. From the top of my head, Detroit has one of those inside Oakland County.

EDIT: I went to citypopulation and there are at least two clearly suburbs of Pittsburgh but come separated: Menessen-California and Butler, that together would add 107,000 people to Pittsburgh UA.

[Steely Dan]

^ yes, sometimes the CB's somewhat rigid rules of "contiguosity" for UA's do end up trimming some fat out on the periphery, but I'd rather draw the net in tighter to catch the fish that I actually want, and risk losing a few, than cast the net out way too wide and end up with a bunch of useless bycatch that I don't want.

No system is perfect, but UA's are less imperfect IMO.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Yuri

If the definition must be county-based, there's nothing wrong with Pittsburgh MSA. The least metropolitan county (Fayette?) is home of several undisputable Pittsburgh suburbs.

That's why Pittsburgh UA and MSA population is not dramatically different. In fact, I can't think of any major area in the US where the MSA and UA population is very different. Only in terms of area, with UAs being obviously much smaller than MSAs.

Yes, there is plenty wrong with it.

Armstrong County is the least "metropolitan" by far... it has VERY little to do with Pittsburgh. As does most of Butler County, and at least half of Washington and Westmoreland counties.

From your declarations, it's obvious that you do not know too much about the Pittsburgh area, but still want to make proclamations... that is, if you think Fayette County is the least "metro" county.

Pittsburgh regional topography insures that it is a very different situation than almost any other metro area in the US. The MSA and UA are dramatically different, opposed to what you say, for whatever justification you happen to come up with.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Docere

Even if we limit Pittsburgh to the urbanized area of 1.7 million and put the entire minority population of the Pittsburgh MSA in it, Pittsburgh would still be more than 75% NHW.

Likely true, but still not 85%... and not what one experiences on the ground in populated areas.

That's the thing here... Pittsburgh is really the ONLY major Appalachian metro area.

It's different here... and weird. It's Philly surrounded by hillbillies.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Docere

Which counties would be included in a more accurate greater Pittsburgh?

In terms of land area... lose Armstrong entirely, lose half of Butler, lose half of Washington, lose 3/4 of Fayette.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Yuri

EDIT: I went to citypopulation and there are at least two clearly suburbs of Pittsburgh but come separated: Menessen-California and Butler, that together would add 107,000 people to Pittsburgh UA.

I think you should make a trip to southwestern PA and drive around... and you will see clearly how one would never consider Monessen-California to be joined together in any fashion whatsoever. And that the aforementioned area and Butler are not consiered to be "suburbs" of Pittsburgh at all.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Likely true, but still not 85%.

The Pittsburgh MSA is 82.2% NHW in 2020, not 85%.

If we make a fair assumption that 90% of the 620K people in the MSA that aren't in the UA as of 2010 are NHW, then that would leave the Pittsburgh UA at about 79% NHW.

Trimming all of the exurban fat off of Pittsburgh doesn't move the needle a ton because, overall, it is a very NHW white place relative to other major urban centers, no matter how you slice it.

Pittsburgh is not the "whitest" major urban center in the nation because of Fayette or Armstrong or any other county, it's because it's the whitest major urban center in the nation.

As I said before, that is neither good nor bad, it just is.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The Pittsburgh MSA is 82.2% NHW in 2020, not 85%.

If we make a fair assumption that 90% of the 620K people in the MSA that aren't in the UA as of 2010 are NHW, then that would leave the Pittsburgh UA at about 79% NHW.

Trimming all of the exurban fat off of Pittsburgh doesn't move the needle a ton because, overall, it is a very NHW white place relative to other major urban centers, no matter how you slice it.

As I said before, that is neither good nor bad, it just is.

Pittsburgh is not the "whitest" major urban center in the nation because of Fayette or Armstrong or any other county, it's because it's the whitest major urban center in the nation.

And I don't disagree with that. As soon as I go outside of certain areas of the multiple river valleys, I experience it. Believe me, it's quite a shock from being in Miami.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Docere

Even if we limit Pittsburgh to the urbanized area of 1.7 million and put the entire minority population of the Pittsburgh MSA in it, Pittsburgh would still be more than 75% NHW.

And comparing the "NHW" populations of Cincinnati vs. Pittsburgh illustrates how diverse "NHW" blob is. I remember being struck by how different the "white" people looked in Pittsburgh when I first visited the city in the early 1990s. There are way more "NHW"s from Eastern Europe in Pittsburgh as opposed to Cincinnati, which has, I think, just one major Greek church and experienced minimal immigration in the early 1900s from Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine, etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

AOC to me looks Afro-Latina.

Interesting how people come at this with different perspectives based on our experiences and exposure.

I can see it a bit now but Afro-Latina isn't something I ever would have thought of on my own for AOC.

To me she looks like she has origins in the "Romance" or "Latin" nations of south-central Europe, with some admixture from the Indigenous peoples of the Americas thrown in.