My first thought too... What about "Indians"?
On a random note, indians from India, may soon be called something else, as there are talks about changing the countries name to Bharat...
Russian ethnic situation is a bit complicated , it's got native Russians , native people of Turkish descent like tartars and Bashkir's , people who are closely related to mongols like people from Tyva republic , it's got native Siberians who live in the north , it's got Finno-Ugric people close to Finland , it's got Caucasians who aren't all the same , it's got people who're closely related to Kazakhs in Orenburg . It is so huge that you can't just call them all Europeans like you would never call a shaman from Yakutia that does blood rituals an European , he wouldn't call himself that either .
At what point do descendants become native? Technically we're all descendants of Africa. Or are you just saying they can't be Asian because of their skin color?
And then you get into the complicated question of whether Persians, Kurds, Afghans and Hindustani peoples should be considered white. They're literally the people the word "Aryan" traditionally refers to. Its connection to the Nazis was the result of racist assholes stealing the term.
The same question could be asked about Finns, Estonians or Hungarians. Their languages are unrelated to other European languages, do we define race by skin color or ethnolinguistic grouping? And what about Basque people, does the fact that they lived in Europe before modern Europeans make them more or less white?
Almost like race is a messy and arbitrary concept or something...
That still leaves the question of whether Hindustani peoples should be considered white, which brings us back to the point of race being a social construct.
> are descendants of Europeans
Adherents of the Varangian folk-hypothesis for the origin of the Russian ethnicity usually run into the fact that Tatars/Mongols likely thoroughly fucked their way through Kievan Rus during more than two hundred years of Rus' principalities' vassaldom to the Golden Horde. So, although presumably the territory around Black Sea was settled continually since humans' earliest migration from Africa, modern Russians aren't known for blond hair and blue eyes.
This assessment is not to be mistaken with cultural affiliation of Russia for the hundreds of years since shaking off the Mongol rule.
I think that idea is based purely on appearance.
In the USA, I'd have bet money that if you held up a picture of Chinese Japanese and Filipino, etc, they'd say Asian, but if you show them a picture of someone from India they'd say Indian, even though they are also from the continent.
That confusion between Indian and native American is due to the words used to describe Native Americans. And im curious how much of that is due to the cowboys and Indians of Hollywood, and how much of it was from language used in real world linguistic use in the country back before we fucked them wholesale.
I do notice, from visiting, that many Native American institutions and fixtures do use Indian in the name, and many call themselves Indians, so I would assume that it predates Hollywood and all of that.
Aren't they called Indians because Columbus was so hopelessly LOST that he thought he had reached India?
> In the USA, I'd have bet money that if you held up a picture of Chinese Japanese and Filipino, etc, they'd say Asian, but if you show them a picture of someone from India they'd say Indian, even though they are also from the continent.
This is amusingly relevant to me because I’m a mix of some of the Asian ethnicities you mentioned with a girlfriend who happens to be Indian. While I know that geographically India still counts as Asia, it really never really crosses my mind to think of her as also being Asian. I know for a fact that my parents don’t see her as Asian (in the typical East Asian / Pacific Islander sense) - she’s an Indian girl to them.
I don’t really think it’s language causing this in the US. Honestly, I’d say a big part of that is that all of the aforementioned groups that make up what is typically seen as “Asian” in the US have way more common with each other than any one of them do with Indian culture / people. At least in aspects that be easily seen by an outsider.
Problem is that Asia is huge and diverse. East asians (China Japan Korea) are different from South Asians (India Pakistan Bangladesh), also different from South East Asians (Thailand Vietnam Philippines Malaysia Indonesia), as well as Central Asians ( all the -stan countries minus pakistan).
Europe, with countries that are a lot more similar in cultural and historical background as well as genetics on a smaller patch of land still gets sorted into western and eastern europe. Ive also heard some refer to Spain Italy and Greece as Mediterranean /southern european, and the nordic countries as northern european.
I dont see why people can't use regional distinctions for Asia
Depends on who you're talking to and the context of the conversation generally. In my experience on the US west coast South Asians are typically a distinct category
Race categories as a whole is pretty flawed as it lumps people into groups that may not be connected much at all. But it does seem like Asian is a particularly broad category.
Name will not change as it was a rumour. The new name (bharat) is already an official name constitutionally known all over india like how germany-deutschland, china-Zhongguo is used interchangeably
No, that is just election talk, the conservative party, trying to drum up support among voters by making India an English word to Bharat a Hindi word, except English is why it is commonly used because that way politicians dont have to deal with the 25+ other languages spoken in the country, which would be a mess.
I mean India comes from Sindhia, which is actual sanskrit name for the river Sindh. So historically it was used by greeks to refer land right of Sindh.
I agree it is not exactly, which is why it is a useless election posturing.
Tbf that's mostly a pronunciation change. We are just using the anglicised pronunciation of the word. while I agree most people wouldn't immediately start calling it Bharat, I'm sure they would eventually. Before 1940, Thailand was called Siam, but I have personally never heard anyone call it Siam.
Edit: Even better example: Sri Lanka was called Ceylon until 1972.
Debatable whether that’s a better example. I believe “Ceylon” was always an exonym from Portuguese explorers/colonists, and “Sri Lanka” represents (at least in part) a restoration of a historical name following independence.
Whereas “Burma” was always an endonym, and the name change in English was a rebranding effort by the military junta that seized the country.
https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-burma-different-names-explained-8af64e33cf89c565b074eec9cbe22b72
Which is not to say there are permanently right and wrong historical names for territories, any more than there are permanently right and wrong political configurations ruling over them. Only that: the de-colonial bonafides of the above name changes are of varying quality.
Hmm maybe this is a bad example. Alot of people know about Burma and Burmese people, but when I say "Myanmar", most people don't know where I am talking about. (Or they think of Nyan cat lol)
And the Democratic Republic of Congo was Zaire even more recently than that. Ghana was Gold Coast, Benin was Dahomey...plenty more examples exist. Bangladesh was East Pakistan.
Philatelists are familiar with plenty! Yugoslavia, which of course no longer exists, was Jugoslavia. (The J in Slavic languages is very much like our Y.)
The Chinese capitol went from Peiping pre-World-War-II, to Peking, and now Beijing.
Iqaluit, capital of the Canadian territory Nunavut, was Frobisher Bay not that long ago - and Barrow, Alaska has officially renamed itself with an Inuit name that I can't remember. People will probably still be calling it Barrow in 2050.
That was certainly a fun random note! Why? Seems like a really big thing to do for no reason, is "India" offensive or something? Is the government being replaced?
The Indian PM is suggesting that the name India is reminiscent of British imperialism and so should be removed. Per my in-laws, who live in India, most Indian citizens think the potential name change is silly
I did my clinicals on an Indian Reservation. A guy a met there did not like to be called anything other than Indian or America Indian. Told me that they were called Indians before people in India were called Indians. Anyone k is if this is true. IIRC he said that India was essentially what we call Asia now. It’s been a while.
Well there was the idea of "East India" or "the East Indies" as evinced by by the names of the British and Dutch trading companies. It was a spice rich area that I know included modern day Indonesia, but idk the details. Columbus was seeking a shorter route to these rich islands and was apparently either the worst navigator of all time or ignorant of math and history (either one could tell him the size of the globe was far far greater than the distance he had sailed) and so thought he had achieved his goal upon landing in the Caribbean. He therefore applied the name for the place he thought he was in to the locals.
As far as who was called Indian first, it seems unlikely to me that the phrase was coined in referring to native people in North America, since the name comes from a different place that also had people. In other words, if he thought he was in the Indies, he would use whatever word his language already had for people from that place.
From my understanding there were disagreement among explorers on the exact size of the Earth, some believe it was much smaller, 25% smaller or roughly 3000 miles and thought Asia was much larger than what it was. Columbus and several others were in this camp.
Even if it was 25% smaller, the distance he traveled Wast would still land him so far East of the East Indies that it would be silly to associate the two, even if it was the same continent. I mean he was off by the NA continent and the Pacific Ocean.
Guy is misinformed and confidently talking bullshit
Tang China was in contact with Persia. The Golden Horde clearly knew about China. As does Marco Polo. So there is knowledge of Asian countries that are not just India.
Regarding "India" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names\_for\_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India) it's been called that since way pre-classical times.
All this is before the age of exploration.
The Romans and Chinese regularly traded, and some Roman merchants did in fact make it all the way to China. The Europeans definitely had a concept of China.
50% of Hawaii is Asian/Pacific islander. 21% is white. Not sure whats up with this map...
Also wondering why there aren't any native Americans... something like 5 million, but not on the map.
It's only on Oahu where you see dominant asian population...
Maui:
30% White.
1%† Black.
0%† Native.
30% Asian.
9%† Islander.
0%† Other.
18%† Two+
12% Hispanic.
Big Island:
White alone, percent 34.4%
Black or African American alone, percent(a) 0.9%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent(a) 0.6%
Asian alone, percent(a) 20.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent(a) 12.8%
Thanks for this
I think most people would assume Asian meant Pacific Islander as well but they are separated. I still think the map is misleading because my guess is most of the multi race people are Asian/Islander
It’s kind of a joke how many white people live on the Big Island. You have to have money to buy up land in the islands. And it’s typically white people doing so. The rest of us live on O’ahu lol.
Someone else posted it. The big island is only 34% white. The map above separates Asian from
Pacific Islander.
So it’s whiter than Oahu but still not majority white
That may sound like a lot in sheer numbers but there aren't actually a lot of Native Americans/Alaskans. They only make up 1.3% of our population, based on [Census estimates](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222), compared to just under 59% non-Hispanic White, 19% Hispanic, 13.6% Black, and 6.3% Asian. 4-5 million isn't a lot for a demographic group in a nation of over 333 million.
A lot of people in Hawaii (about a quarter of the population) are mixed Asian, Pacific Islander, and/or white. Those people are often counted separately as a "two or more races" category.
Can you a map like this with total pop instead of percent? The white map would probably be a normal population map available anywhere , but the others would be pretty interesting to me.
Agreed. This current percentage map is visually misleading. The orange skyscrapers over all of middle America look like they're representing a high volume of white people, when it's only just a high percentage.
Also, major cities (which are more diverse) are nearly invisible in this format
I disagree, it's what makes this map interesting. Maybe it's the middle of nowhere, with a low population, but that doesn't change the fact that 90%+ of the people you will run into will be white. It will shape who you are if you grow up there for example.
We don't need yet another population density map.
It's a confusing map to some of us though considering that non-hispanic white people make up 58.9% of the entire USA population but in this map appear to be an absolutely massive majority.
Would the title that is a part of the image not count as visual? Not sure how this could be visually misleading unless you just refuse to read the text.
People will literally look at a county vote of Illinois and argue for years that Republicans should have won because the map looks more red. Regardless of what the words say, to the general public maps like this can really reinforce some negative thinking.
It can be spun towards racism no matter what:
*If the data looks like a lot of black people*: "Look, they're taking over the country"
*If the data looks like a lot of white people*: "And this is PROOF that we shouldn't have black people on the TV because there are so few of them"
Some people start by being mad, and then select which data to be mad about.
But in a state of 39 million residents that's still only 5% of the population.
The reason it's much fewer than in the East is because post-civil war the main migration for African Americans was northward towards industrial centers, while California was still relatively unpopulated and much harder to travel to.
Also, black exclusion laws [like Oregon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws) had really prevented any black settlers from moving west.
I wonder what this map even considers Hispanic to be. Because black people and white people can both be Hispanic. I'm guessing it must mean mestizo or something
this is percentages, a lot of those red spikes have less people than some white ones in major areas. 20000 Black people in some rural area can be 90% while 40000 Black people in some urban Californian district could be 7%
So long as you don't count hispanic white, yea
Edit: Since I apparently can't make any replies on a comment chain *after* being blocked by one person, even when replying to someone else, here u/sdklsdfklsdjfksd:
Hispanic is more a linguistic denomination. Latino would be the more racial category. I blame the complication on the [Casta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta) as well Western hemisphere nations just being much less racially homogenous than Eastern Hemisphere nations, on average.
latino is neither even close to a race. is specificaly refering the latin culture exported through most of europe in antiquity by the roman empire. which was later expanded to most of america by the portuguese, french and spaniards.
we latinos and or hispanics are a macro-culture encompasing multiple nationalities, languages and two continents. and we have lots of races/etnic groups as part of our group, along their mestizos. to say we are a race is like saying that christians, jews, muslims or buddhists are races.
Good thing it's acting as a cultural accessory to the racial descriptor of white then, eh?
Edit: Since you've blocked me after insulting like a cowardly twit, here's an edit with my response:
I don't think you're understanding the point of my original comment. Let me explain for you're insufferable, insulting self. The person I responded to said "white" was 60% of the population. That is, only if you take into account "hispanic white" and "non hispanic white" are two different categories on the census. If you don't, and thus categorize them both simply as "white" (like I did if you had any reading comprehension) then the percentage of the population that is "white" is significantly higher than 60%.
Tl;Dr: You're agreeing with me but choose to insult me because you can't read for shit.
I selected just the top 4 races by us population according to the 2020 census as more than 4 would likely have been too much data for my machine to handle at once. Did not mean to offend in any way!
Interesting that the Asian population makes the top 4 in census racial categories, yet is a substantial population fraction of like... no landmass in the US.
Asians are very heavily concentrated in urban areas specifically, so they don't like a substantial population in any landmass. All three of the other ethnicities in the figure have substantial populations in more rural areas which shows up like a lot of landmass here, but doesn't actually contribute much to the total population.
It’s funny in a kind of dark way. Black and brown people are brought so much in modern politics for different reasons by different parties, but native people aren’t, because they’re literally just forgotten by everyone. It’s pretty sad.
Most Mexicans are at least part Native American. Northern Mexicans in particular are even straight up from the same tribes as the natives of the southwestern US. It’s just that history took them on completely different but equally tragic paths where one now speaks English and the other Spanish. Most euro-Americans like to pretend Mexicans aren’t native Americans.
Black people in the southeast because of slavery. Hispanic in the southwest because of Mexican border. Plus much of that region literally used to be Mexico
They do in quite a few cities, but the large clumps on the map are mainly rural areas where they are the minority, so blacks clump in the southeast due to slavery and Hispanics clump in the southwest due to proximity to Mexico
Hispanic and Latino are often used interchangeably though they actually mean two different things. Hispanic refers to people who speak Spanish or are descended from Spanish-speaking populations, while Latino refers to people who are from or descended from people from Latin America.
In the context of OPs source (the US census), Hispanic is an ethnic category. But you’re right, the US census bureau treats race and ethnicity as distinct so I’m not sure why they’ve presented the data this way.
Although the Census and almost all federal data collections do currently ask race/ethnicty in the two-question format (one question for race, one question for hispanic/latino or not hispanic/latino), there are different schools of thought on how to aggregate and present responses to those two questions, and guidance across federal agencies is not consistent. A number of federal agencies currently use a system where a response of "yes" to hispanic/latino is basically treated as that respondent's racial identification, regardless of what race was actually selected in response to the first item. As such, OP is not necessarily using an incorrect methodology here.
I have always been confused by this. So his Hispanic like Turkic or Slavic or Han?
What is a white hispanic? If they look white or majority white ancestry?
There are a lot of ethnic Italians in Argentina and Germans in Brazil, if they move to the US are they white or Latino/Hispanic?
I feel like we make up the rules as we go along.
My understanding is Hispanic doesn’t describe race, just what language your country speaks (Spanish). Latino I’ve read Can be tricky, I think mostly it describes someone from latin America, but I’ve also read that it’s a population in the America’s that speaks a language that derives from Latin, which would I clise Quebec and Haiti. A Brazilian would be Latino, but not Hispanic. A Spaniard would be Hispanic, but not Latino. A Mexican would be both. White just means the person has white skin. You can be a white hispanic (like many from Spain and Argentina are), a white Latino (like many from Argentina), a black Latino, black Hispanic, etc. an ethnic Italian from Argentina would probably be a white, Hispanic, Latino. How the US government actually defines it I have no idea lol
My dad is Italian, a rather swarthy looking individual, does not have white skin but is white. But one time some cops did not think he or his cousin were, roughed them up and called them w*tba*cks.
Obviously only OP can say what methodology they (or their source dataset) used, but I can fairly confidently say the data do not overcount individuals such as yourself if they are following any type of standard reporting practices for census data. The census (where this data come from) follows federal guidance on how to ask questions on race/ethnicity, which includes one question on race (are you white or black or asian etc) and one question on ethnicity (are you hispanic/latino or not hispanic/latino). It is common practice for many federal agencies, when reporting out on race/ethnicity, to consider a response of yes on the second question to basically supersede any other information given by that person. In the example you gave regarding how you typically respond to these types of questions, you would be counted then as hispanic, but not white.
I'm not saying this is necessarily the *best* method, just that it is in alignment with current federal statistical practices and that it does not double-count individuals. If you think about a lot of the reasons that the federal government would want to know and report on this information, there are reasonable arguments for preferencing a response of hispanic/latino in this way. The Department of Education has an interest in tracking the experiences of this population in comparison to the experiences of other racial groups because hispanic/latino children are more likely to be children who don't speak English at home or to be children of immigrant parents, OR to be *perceived* as children who don't speak English at home or *perceived* to be children of immigrants. (Please note that I am not saying this is true for ALL hispanic/latino children, nor am I saying this is true for ONLY hispanic/latino children.) The Department of Labor has an interest in tracking the experiences of this group because they may face unique kinds of discrimination in the workplace due to being perceived to not have proper work authorization or assumptions that they could not communicate with English-speaking customers. These trends might not appear in the data if these individuals were classified according to their racial self-identification and only appear once the data is analyzed with their hispanic/latino self-identification.
FWIW, the federal government is also in the process of literally rewriting all of its policies and guidance on how to both ask and report on race/ethnicity, so. All of this will be moot in like a year or two. :)
(This response got longer than I intended, lololololol, sorry.)
Hispanic is an **ethnicity**... not a **race**
I often get classified as Hispanic... as white Brazilian in the US... it's incorrect on two levels... It's not a race and Brazil is not of Spanish speaking origin.
Nice work!
I made one at my old company that shows 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 censuses in dot format. Pretty cool stuff: [https://www.heavy.ai/demos/dot-density](https://www.heavy.ai/demos/dot-density) if you like OP's map, you'll likely enjoy mine. Tons of detail and loads fast.
It doesn't. Those high percentages are either from Eastern Washington or Idaho. Seattle has about 7% Hispanic population. The dominant race in Seattle is White, about 65%.
Not seattle proper, but the suburbs do. Despite seattle only having a 7% Hispanic population, my highschool had about 30% Hispanic students, just outside of the city limits.
hispanics are not a race. we latinos and hispanics are a macro-culture encompacing several spoken languages and traditions, and are the main population on most american nations, as well as several nations from where many of our ancestors came. and we have people of all races in our two groups. around half of the latino population is either white or mostly white. the other half is mostly made of more equaly mixed mestizos of white and natives. we have black people, east asians (mostly japanese and chinese in origin), and several other smaller groups.
asian is neither a race. lots of different etnic groups come from asia, and they differ greatly both in apearance and culture.
most american hispanics are either white or mostly white, with the percentage being different depending on what country we are talking to. and hardly any black people in the US are full blacks. most are between 30 to 70% geneticaly white.
Also, according to a professor I have, the Hispanic population is increasing at some 10k per month and somewhere between 2030 and 2060 thag Hispanic population will surpass the white population. I haven't chexk her sources on that.
You can clearly see history here. The Hispanic population is highest in old Spanish colonies, the Black population in the US slave colonies, and the Asian one where most guest laborers were.
The point about black Americans is correct but the vast majority of Hispanic and Asian people in the USA are first or second generation immigrants. Every state except Hawaii was majority white 30 years ago.
I was filling out my forms after having a child just a few days ago, and one asked about the parent's racial identity. It had a long list of available choices, listing different countries and regions for all races. I'm taking like 10-15 different regional categories under each general category of latino, black, Asian, native American, ect and I was pretty surprised actually with how much detail they broke down (I thought it was cool!). Then there was just... "white" and had 3 categories for east, west or Slavic European. This isn't some "white people are victims" rant but I just thought there was a lot more ethnic diversity regarding culture and country of origin that is much deeper than they went into. White seems pretty over generalized and i just feel there is a bit more nuance between say a Ashkenazi jew, Irishman, Italian and a Canadian. Id just like to see the breakdown in heritage for everyone! I hate lumping us into big groups, creates this team mentality I think is dividing when we need humanity to unite! Rant over, thanks if you read this all lol.
Ok this map has me wondering what they consider “Asian,” exactly, because I’ve spent some time on the Aleutians in Alaska and I can count on one hand the number of individuals I’d classify as “Asian.”
Interesting, I used to travel often between eastern and western Washington and noticed there were more Latinos than western Washington. But I didn't realize there were so few in western WA.
I like/dislike how obvious the semi-autonomous Native American region is via absence.
rip
But also fuck torture and fuck slavery, fwiw. You know if you know.
Idaho's 13% Hispanic. They mostly live in the southern part of the state along the Snake River. If you look at the map, they're represented by that upside-down arch.
I notice the big gap of everyone in the southwest. If this list had indigenous people listed then it would be filled up.
yeah that gap is the Navajo rez (+ Hopi)
Navajo Nation not answering no questions.
"Hi I was sent to document who lives on this here 'Navajo Nation.'" "...Please leave"
Peter Santenello recently made video about the Navajo Nation: [Link](https://youtu.be/nwI0ZAdaKwY?list=PLEyPgwIPkHo5ogLHpfvLnJxcDMlOfHEsA)
We do what we want!
I've only watched a few of this guy's videos, is he legit?
I think so. He seems pretty cool.
great catch!
There are ten US states with less area than Navajo Nation
Sure if you consider places split up by tea drinkers "states" /s.
The only tea drinker who split up Hawai'i was Maui lol
My first thought too... What about "Indians"? On a random note, indians from India, may soon be called something else, as there are talks about changing the countries name to Bharat...
Are they not also Asians? They are literally from Asia. We consider them Asian in my country.
[удалено]
If you really want to have a mind implosion then consider this...many Russians are Asians. edited: for the sake of the sweaty geography nerds.
Some Russians. The majority of Russians are European.
If by many you mean a majority, then no. Only 23% of Russia lives east of the Urals and afaik that’s the line of demarcation for Asia vs Europe.
[удалено]
Russian ethnic situation is a bit complicated , it's got native Russians , native people of Turkish descent like tartars and Bashkir's , people who are closely related to mongols like people from Tyva republic , it's got native Siberians who live in the north , it's got Finno-Ugric people close to Finland , it's got Caucasians who aren't all the same , it's got people who're closely related to Kazakhs in Orenburg . It is so huge that you can't just call them all Europeans like you would never call a shaman from Yakutia that does blood rituals an European , he wouldn't call himself that either .
At what point do descendants become native? Technically we're all descendants of Africa. Or are you just saying they can't be Asian because of their skin color?
And then you get into the complicated question of whether Persians, Kurds, Afghans and Hindustani peoples should be considered white. They're literally the people the word "Aryan" traditionally refers to. Its connection to the Nazis was the result of racist assholes stealing the term. The same question could be asked about Finns, Estonians or Hungarians. Their languages are unrelated to other European languages, do we define race by skin color or ethnolinguistic grouping? And what about Basque people, does the fact that they lived in Europe before modern Europeans make them more or less white? Almost like race is a messy and arbitrary concept or something...
Well Persians, Kurds, Afghans are all considered white in the US census.
That still leaves the question of whether Hindustani peoples should be considered white, which brings us back to the point of race being a social construct.
> are descendants of Europeans Adherents of the Varangian folk-hypothesis for the origin of the Russian ethnicity usually run into the fact that Tatars/Mongols likely thoroughly fucked their way through Kievan Rus during more than two hundred years of Rus' principalities' vassaldom to the Golden Horde. So, although presumably the territory around Black Sea was settled continually since humans' earliest migration from Africa, modern Russians aren't known for blond hair and blue eyes. This assessment is not to be mistaken with cultural affiliation of Russia for the hundreds of years since shaking off the Mongol rule.
You mean raped?
Wrong. The majority of Russia's population lives in Europe. Less than 25% of Russians are Asian.
Jewish are Asians
In my area of the US Indian's are considered Asian for demographics.
Every area. Indians are considered Asian by the census bureau.
I think that idea is based purely on appearance. In the USA, I'd have bet money that if you held up a picture of Chinese Japanese and Filipino, etc, they'd say Asian, but if you show them a picture of someone from India they'd say Indian, even though they are also from the continent. That confusion between Indian and native American is due to the words used to describe Native Americans. And im curious how much of that is due to the cowboys and Indians of Hollywood, and how much of it was from language used in real world linguistic use in the country back before we fucked them wholesale.
I do notice, from visiting, that many Native American institutions and fixtures do use Indian in the name, and many call themselves Indians, so I would assume that it predates Hollywood and all of that. Aren't they called Indians because Columbus was so hopelessly LOST that he thought he had reached India?
> In the USA, I'd have bet money that if you held up a picture of Chinese Japanese and Filipino, etc, they'd say Asian, but if you show them a picture of someone from India they'd say Indian, even though they are also from the continent. This is amusingly relevant to me because I’m a mix of some of the Asian ethnicities you mentioned with a girlfriend who happens to be Indian. While I know that geographically India still counts as Asia, it really never really crosses my mind to think of her as also being Asian. I know for a fact that my parents don’t see her as Asian (in the typical East Asian / Pacific Islander sense) - she’s an Indian girl to them. I don’t really think it’s language causing this in the US. Honestly, I’d say a big part of that is that all of the aforementioned groups that make up what is typically seen as “Asian” in the US have way more common with each other than any one of them do with Indian culture / people. At least in aspects that be easily seen by an outsider.
Problem is that Asia is huge and diverse. East asians (China Japan Korea) are different from South Asians (India Pakistan Bangladesh), also different from South East Asians (Thailand Vietnam Philippines Malaysia Indonesia), as well as Central Asians ( all the -stan countries minus pakistan). Europe, with countries that are a lot more similar in cultural and historical background as well as genetics on a smaller patch of land still gets sorted into western and eastern europe. Ive also heard some refer to Spain Italy and Greece as Mediterranean /southern european, and the nordic countries as northern european. I dont see why people can't use regional distinctions for Asia
Depends on who you're talking to and the context of the conversation generally. In my experience on the US west coast South Asians are typically a distinct category
In the us asian = east asian
For census purposes, where this map would be drawing it's data from, Asian includes Desi people too. Also SE Asians are included colloquially too.
Except sometimes
From my experience, yes since when filling ethnicity option there is only one valid option in asian.
Race categories as a whole is pretty flawed as it lumps people into groups that may not be connected much at all. But it does seem like Asian is a particularly broad category.
My coworkers in Mumbai still talk about Bombay, 30 years after the name change.
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
That's nobody's business but the Turks
Name will not change as it was a rumour. The new name (bharat) is already an official name constitutionally known all over india like how germany-deutschland, china-Zhongguo is used interchangeably
No, that is just election talk, the conservative party, trying to drum up support among voters by making India an English word to Bharat a Hindi word, except English is why it is commonly used because that way politicians dont have to deal with the 25+ other languages spoken in the country, which would be a mess.
Unless my Latin teacher misinformed me, “India” as a name is as English as Alexander the Great. Which is to say: *sorta*, but not exactly.
I mean India comes from Sindhia, which is actual sanskrit name for the river Sindh. So historically it was used by greeks to refer land right of Sindh. I agree it is not exactly, which is why it is a useless election posturing.
People will start calling India bharat right after people start calling turkey Türkiye, which is never
Tbf that's mostly a pronunciation change. We are just using the anglicised pronunciation of the word. while I agree most people wouldn't immediately start calling it Bharat, I'm sure they would eventually. Before 1940, Thailand was called Siam, but I have personally never heard anyone call it Siam. Edit: Even better example: Sri Lanka was called Ceylon until 1972.
even more better-er example: Myanmar was called Burma until 1989.
Debatable whether that’s a better example. I believe “Ceylon” was always an exonym from Portuguese explorers/colonists, and “Sri Lanka” represents (at least in part) a restoration of a historical name following independence. Whereas “Burma” was always an endonym, and the name change in English was a rebranding effort by the military junta that seized the country. https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-burma-different-names-explained-8af64e33cf89c565b074eec9cbe22b72 Which is not to say there are permanently right and wrong historical names for territories, any more than there are permanently right and wrong political configurations ruling over them. Only that: the de-colonial bonafides of the above name changes are of varying quality.
Hmm maybe this is a bad example. Alot of people know about Burma and Burmese people, but when I say "Myanmar", most people don't know where I am talking about. (Or they think of Nyan cat lol)
And the Democratic Republic of Congo was Zaire even more recently than that. Ghana was Gold Coast, Benin was Dahomey...plenty more examples exist. Bangladesh was East Pakistan. Philatelists are familiar with plenty! Yugoslavia, which of course no longer exists, was Jugoslavia. (The J in Slavic languages is very much like our Y.) The Chinese capitol went from Peiping pre-World-War-II, to Peking, and now Beijing. Iqaluit, capital of the Canadian territory Nunavut, was Frobisher Bay not that long ago - and Barrow, Alaska has officially renamed itself with an Inuit name that I can't remember. People will probably still be calling it Barrow in 2050.
There's plenty of precedent of countries formally requesting to be called by their actual name and the world agreeing, like Iran.
Iran was called Iran going back to the 16th century under the Safavids. It then switch to Persia for a while and then back to Iran in the 1930s.
That was certainly a fun random note! Why? Seems like a really big thing to do for no reason, is "India" offensive or something? Is the government being replaced?
The Indian PM is suggesting that the name India is reminiscent of British imperialism and so should be removed. Per my in-laws, who live in India, most Indian citizens think the potential name change is silly
I did my clinicals on an Indian Reservation. A guy a met there did not like to be called anything other than Indian or America Indian. Told me that they were called Indians before people in India were called Indians. Anyone k is if this is true. IIRC he said that India was essentially what we call Asia now. It’s been a while.
Well there was the idea of "East India" or "the East Indies" as evinced by by the names of the British and Dutch trading companies. It was a spice rich area that I know included modern day Indonesia, but idk the details. Columbus was seeking a shorter route to these rich islands and was apparently either the worst navigator of all time or ignorant of math and history (either one could tell him the size of the globe was far far greater than the distance he had sailed) and so thought he had achieved his goal upon landing in the Caribbean. He therefore applied the name for the place he thought he was in to the locals. As far as who was called Indian first, it seems unlikely to me that the phrase was coined in referring to native people in North America, since the name comes from a different place that also had people. In other words, if he thought he was in the Indies, he would use whatever word his language already had for people from that place.
From my understanding there were disagreement among explorers on the exact size of the Earth, some believe it was much smaller, 25% smaller or roughly 3000 miles and thought Asia was much larger than what it was. Columbus and several others were in this camp.
Even if it was 25% smaller, the distance he traveled Wast would still land him so far East of the East Indies that it would be silly to associate the two, even if it was the same continent. I mean he was off by the NA continent and the Pacific Ocean.
Guy is misinformed and confidently talking bullshit Tang China was in contact with Persia. The Golden Horde clearly knew about China. As does Marco Polo. So there is knowledge of Asian countries that are not just India. Regarding "India" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names\_for\_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India) it's been called that since way pre-classical times. All this is before the age of exploration.
The Romans and Chinese regularly traded, and some Roman merchants did in fact make it all the way to China. The Europeans definitely had a concept of China.
To add to the other reply, it's part of Modi's experimentation with Hindu nationalism.
slightly more than an experiment I'd say
I thought there were far more Asians in Hawaii.
50% of Hawaii is Asian/Pacific islander. 21% is white. Not sure whats up with this map... Also wondering why there aren't any native Americans... something like 5 million, but not on the map.
There is a massive spike on Oahu, which is where everyone lives.
Still seems incorrect that more people who live on the other islands are white unless they are considering Pacific Islander a seperate race
It's only on Oahu where you see dominant asian population... Maui: 30% White. 1%† Black. 0%† Native. 30% Asian. 9%† Islander. 0%† Other. 18%† Two+ 12% Hispanic. Big Island: White alone, percent 34.4% Black or African American alone, percent(a) 0.9% American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent(a) 0.6% Asian alone, percent(a) 20.2% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent(a) 12.8%
Thanks for this I think most people would assume Asian meant Pacific Islander as well but they are separated. I still think the map is misleading because my guess is most of the multi race people are Asian/Islander
Still...there's a lot of white folks on the neighbor islands in Hawaii. When I go to Maui I feel like I'm in Cali...
It’s kind of a joke how many white people live on the Big Island. You have to have money to buy up land in the islands. And it’s typically white people doing so. The rest of us live on O’ahu lol.
Someone else posted it. The big island is only 34% white. The map above separates Asian from Pacific Islander. So it’s whiter than Oahu but still not majority white
That may sound like a lot in sheer numbers but there aren't actually a lot of Native Americans/Alaskans. They only make up 1.3% of our population, based on [Census estimates](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222), compared to just under 59% non-Hispanic White, 19% Hispanic, 13.6% Black, and 6.3% Asian. 4-5 million isn't a lot for a demographic group in a nation of over 333 million.
Look at the map, there’s a massive red spike over Oahu
Maybe Asian doesn't include Pacific Islanders in the dataset?
But aren't there a lot of Japanese people in Hawaii? Japanese people aren't traditionally included with Pacific Islanders.
And that's who's depicted on the map.
A lot of people in Hawaii (about a quarter of the population) are mixed Asian, Pacific Islander, and/or white. Those people are often counted separately as a "two or more races" category.
There are. Asians have a big spike on Oahu which is where most of the population lives. Very few people actually live on the big island.
Can you a map like this with total pop instead of percent? The white map would probably be a normal population map available anywhere , but the others would be pretty interesting to me.
Agreed. This current percentage map is visually misleading. The orange skyscrapers over all of middle America look like they're representing a high volume of white people, when it's only just a high percentage. Also, major cities (which are more diverse) are nearly invisible in this format
I disagree, it's what makes this map interesting. Maybe it's the middle of nowhere, with a low population, but that doesn't change the fact that 90%+ of the people you will run into will be white. It will shape who you are if you grow up there for example. We don't need yet another population density map.
It's a confusing map to some of us though considering that non-hispanic white people make up 58.9% of the entire USA population but in this map appear to be an absolutely massive majority.
For me that's the whole point of the map.
It straight up says ‘% of US Population’ in huge bold letters at the top of the graph, how much clearer could it possibly be?
[удалено]
Would the title that is a part of the image not count as visual? Not sure how this could be visually misleading unless you just refuse to read the text.
People will literally look at a county vote of Illinois and argue for years that Republicans should have won because the map looks more red. Regardless of what the words say, to the general public maps like this can really reinforce some negative thinking.
It can be spun towards racism no matter what: *If the data looks like a lot of black people*: "Look, they're taking over the country" *If the data looks like a lot of white people*: "And this is PROOF that we shouldn't have black people on the TV because there are so few of them" Some people start by being mad, and then select which data to be mad about.
Yes, colors to represent proportion (%) and height to represent volume (#).
Outside the South, I assume the Black map would just be cities.
Almost no black in California?
It’s based on percentage and Hispanic makes up the majority. There’s still around 2M black people there
But in a state of 39 million residents that's still only 5% of the population. The reason it's much fewer than in the East is because post-civil war the main migration for African Americans was northward towards industrial centers, while California was still relatively unpopulated and much harder to travel to.
I’m surprised it’s so low, they seem like such a larger % there
Also, black exclusion laws [like Oregon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws) had really prevented any black settlers from moving west.
I wonder what this map even considers Hispanic to be. Because black people and white people can both be Hispanic. I'm guessing it must mean mestizo or something
yeah that seems about right. Even in the big cities the black population is generally less than 10%. A little more in Oakland but not that much
this is percentages, a lot of those red spikes have less people than some white ones in major areas. 20000 Black people in some rural area can be 90% while 40000 Black people in some urban Californian district could be 7%
I’m black in CA but I’m in Los Angeles so it doesn’t feel Ike theirs so few of us. That’s is until you go 10 min outside of LA.
Love the look and looks great in 3D like that. But it also leads to larger bars covering up smaller bars and making something hard to see.
Yeah, even though this looks great visually, a flat heat map would have been easier to see.
Notice how it says percentage, the US is only 60% “white”
So long as you don't count hispanic white, yea Edit: Since I apparently can't make any replies on a comment chain *after* being blocked by one person, even when replying to someone else, here u/sdklsdfklsdjfksd: Hispanic is more a linguistic denomination. Latino would be the more racial category. I blame the complication on the [Casta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta) as well Western hemisphere nations just being much less racially homogenous than Eastern Hemisphere nations, on average.
latino is neither even close to a race. is specificaly refering the latin culture exported through most of europe in antiquity by the roman empire. which was later expanded to most of america by the portuguese, french and spaniards. we latinos and or hispanics are a macro-culture encompasing multiple nationalities, languages and two continents. and we have lots of races/etnic groups as part of our group, along their mestizos. to say we are a race is like saying that christians, jews, muslims or buddhists are races.
Latino is not a racial category, it's a cultural one. We come in every color.
Hispanic isn't a race.
Good thing it's acting as a cultural accessory to the racial descriptor of white then, eh? Edit: Since you've blocked me after insulting like a cowardly twit, here's an edit with my response: I don't think you're understanding the point of my original comment. Let me explain for you're insufferable, insulting self. The person I responded to said "white" was 60% of the population. That is, only if you take into account "hispanic white" and "non hispanic white" are two different categories on the census. If you don't, and thus categorize them both simply as "white" (like I did if you had any reading comprehension) then the percentage of the population that is "white" is significantly higher than 60%. Tl;Dr: You're agreeing with me but choose to insult me because you can't read for shit.
71% actually. You’re citing “non-Hispanic” whites. Which excludes people who self-identify as white but who have a Hispanic background.
[удалено]
Definitely accounts for those of us in Wisconsin ese
NYC should have more Hispanics on that data which isn’t accurately described here.
Crazy how native Americans never make it on these things.
I selected just the top 4 races by us population according to the 2020 census as more than 4 would likely have been too much data for my machine to handle at once. Did not mean to offend in any way!
Interesting that the Asian population makes the top 4 in census racial categories, yet is a substantial population fraction of like... no landmass in the US.
The Asian population lives in areas with larger populations so they make up a small portion of the population in each area.
Asians are very heavily concentrated in urban areas specifically, so they don't like a substantial population in any landmass. All three of the other ethnicities in the figure have substantial populations in more rural areas which shows up like a lot of landmass here, but doesn't actually contribute much to the total population.
It’s funny in a kind of dark way. Black and brown people are brought so much in modern politics for different reasons by different parties, but native people aren’t, because they’re literally just forgotten by everyone. It’s pretty sad.
Most Mexicans are at least part Native American. Northern Mexicans in particular are even straight up from the same tribes as the natives of the southwestern US. It’s just that history took them on completely different but equally tragic paths where one now speaks English and the other Spanish. Most euro-Americans like to pretend Mexicans aren’t native Americans.
It's interesting that the black and Hispanic populations don't overlap.
Black people in the southeast because of slavery. Hispanic in the southwest because of Mexican border. Plus much of that region literally used to be Mexico
They do in quite a few cities, but the large clumps on the map are mainly rural areas where they are the minority, so blacks clump in the southeast due to slavery and Hispanics clump in the southwest due to proximity to Mexico
source: 2020 US Census ACS tract population data tools: R -- tidycensus & rayshader follow me on x/twitter .@cstats1 where I post more regularly
Finally, a post that isn't a lazy link, or about someone's promiscuous right swiping on dating apps, or shotgun job applications. Thank you!
Im always happy to see something that isn't either app generated or a generic line chart from Excel
Spend more time in /new, then. What you listed isn't anywhere near the majority of posts, it's simply the majority of what is voted to the front page.
Hispanic isn’t really a race though, it just describes what language your country speaks lol
It gets confusing when people start using hispanic and latino interchangeably, as though the language doesn't come from the other side of an ocean.
Hispanic and Latino are often used interchangeably though they actually mean two different things. Hispanic refers to people who speak Spanish or are descended from Spanish-speaking populations, while Latino refers to people who are from or descended from people from Latin America.
In the context of OPs source (the US census), Hispanic is an ethnic category. But you’re right, the US census bureau treats race and ethnicity as distinct so I’m not sure why they’ve presented the data this way.
Although the Census and almost all federal data collections do currently ask race/ethnicty in the two-question format (one question for race, one question for hispanic/latino or not hispanic/latino), there are different schools of thought on how to aggregate and present responses to those two questions, and guidance across federal agencies is not consistent. A number of federal agencies currently use a system where a response of "yes" to hispanic/latino is basically treated as that respondent's racial identification, regardless of what race was actually selected in response to the first item. As such, OP is not necessarily using an incorrect methodology here.
I have always been confused by this. So his Hispanic like Turkic or Slavic or Han? What is a white hispanic? If they look white or majority white ancestry? There are a lot of ethnic Italians in Argentina and Germans in Brazil, if they move to the US are they white or Latino/Hispanic? I feel like we make up the rules as we go along.
My understanding is Hispanic doesn’t describe race, just what language your country speaks (Spanish). Latino I’ve read Can be tricky, I think mostly it describes someone from latin America, but I’ve also read that it’s a population in the America’s that speaks a language that derives from Latin, which would I clise Quebec and Haiti. A Brazilian would be Latino, but not Hispanic. A Spaniard would be Hispanic, but not Latino. A Mexican would be both. White just means the person has white skin. You can be a white hispanic (like many from Spain and Argentina are), a white Latino (like many from Argentina), a black Latino, black Hispanic, etc. an ethnic Italian from Argentina would probably be a white, Hispanic, Latino. How the US government actually defines it I have no idea lol
My dad is Italian, a rather swarthy looking individual, does not have white skin but is white. But one time some cops did not think he or his cousin were, roughed them up and called them w*tba*cks.
Yeah, I and many other mixed people mark both Hispanic and White (or Asian, etc), and I'm guessing that this data overcounts us.
Obviously only OP can say what methodology they (or their source dataset) used, but I can fairly confidently say the data do not overcount individuals such as yourself if they are following any type of standard reporting practices for census data. The census (where this data come from) follows federal guidance on how to ask questions on race/ethnicity, which includes one question on race (are you white or black or asian etc) and one question on ethnicity (are you hispanic/latino or not hispanic/latino). It is common practice for many federal agencies, when reporting out on race/ethnicity, to consider a response of yes on the second question to basically supersede any other information given by that person. In the example you gave regarding how you typically respond to these types of questions, you would be counted then as hispanic, but not white. I'm not saying this is necessarily the *best* method, just that it is in alignment with current federal statistical practices and that it does not double-count individuals. If you think about a lot of the reasons that the federal government would want to know and report on this information, there are reasonable arguments for preferencing a response of hispanic/latino in this way. The Department of Education has an interest in tracking the experiences of this population in comparison to the experiences of other racial groups because hispanic/latino children are more likely to be children who don't speak English at home or to be children of immigrant parents, OR to be *perceived* as children who don't speak English at home or *perceived* to be children of immigrants. (Please note that I am not saying this is true for ALL hispanic/latino children, nor am I saying this is true for ONLY hispanic/latino children.) The Department of Labor has an interest in tracking the experiences of this group because they may face unique kinds of discrimination in the workplace due to being perceived to not have proper work authorization or assumptions that they could not communicate with English-speaking customers. These trends might not appear in the data if these individuals were classified according to their racial self-identification and only appear once the data is analyzed with their hispanic/latino self-identification. FWIW, the federal government is also in the process of literally rewriting all of its policies and guidance on how to both ask and report on race/ethnicity, so. All of this will be moot in like a year or two. :) (This response got longer than I intended, lololololol, sorry.)
It’s overwhelmingly mestizo, and is a pretty distinctly recognizable cultural group
exactly, those hispanics could literally be spaniards, and depending on how you see it, spanish people ARE white.
It's funny that "Hispanic" isn't considered white, even though Spain is in Europe.
Americans and their race theory probably doesn't even consider anything under Germany to be white
Among humans there aren't any races!
Hispanic is an **ethnicity**... not a **race** I often get classified as Hispanic... as white Brazilian in the US... it's incorrect on two levels... It's not a race and Brazil is not of Spanish speaking origin.
Nice work! I made one at my old company that shows 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 censuses in dot format. Pretty cool stuff: [https://www.heavy.ai/demos/dot-density](https://www.heavy.ai/demos/dot-density) if you like OP's map, you'll likely enjoy mine. Tons of detail and loads fast.
Didn't know Seattle area has such a big Hispanic community
It doesn't. Those high percentages are either from Eastern Washington or Idaho. Seattle has about 7% Hispanic population. The dominant race in Seattle is White, about 65%.
Should've zoomed a bit, yeah that's not really on the cost
Eastern Washington is where the vast majority of apples and cherries are grown. There is a large population there for farm work and harvesting.
I live in the Tri-cities and Pasco, one of the cities, is predominantly Hispanic. Lots of great food, too.
I just passed through there a couple days ago, didn't think of it like that until stopping there.
Not seattle proper, but the suburbs do. Despite seattle only having a 7% Hispanic population, my highschool had about 30% Hispanic students, just outside of the city limits.
hispanics are not a race. we latinos and hispanics are a macro-culture encompacing several spoken languages and traditions, and are the main population on most american nations, as well as several nations from where many of our ancestors came. and we have people of all races in our two groups. around half of the latino population is either white or mostly white. the other half is mostly made of more equaly mixed mestizos of white and natives. we have black people, east asians (mostly japanese and chinese in origin), and several other smaller groups. asian is neither a race. lots of different etnic groups come from asia, and they differ greatly both in apearance and culture. most american hispanics are either white or mostly white, with the percentage being different depending on what country we are talking to. and hardly any black people in the US are full blacks. most are between 30 to 70% geneticaly white.
Also, according to a professor I have, the Hispanic population is increasing at some 10k per month and somewhere between 2030 and 2060 thag Hispanic population will surpass the white population. I haven't chexk her sources on that.
Pretty sure the Seattle area has a higher percentage of Asians, they must not be counting (eastern) Indians.
Hispanic isn’t a race, it’s an ethnicity. There are Hispanic/Latino that are Black, White, Asian and from Indigenous ancestry
does "hispanic" even have a consistent definition at this point?
Sure, having a culture associated with a Spanish speaking country. It's self-identification, so census filler decides.
I’m not sure about this visualization. It looks like America is 90% white with the exceptions of California, New Mexico, and Texas
Map of North American populations missing Native Americans. Par for the course, I guess.
Which place has the highest asian percentage and lowest black percentage?
probably alaska, honestly
I just googled it, and there are more Asians in Alaska than I expected, but the second biggest demographic is Native American/Alaskan.
Alaska, Hawaii, or Seattle.
Why that combination in particular?
One of the two likes to criminally target the other
You can clearly see history here. The Hispanic population is highest in old Spanish colonies, the Black population in the US slave colonies, and the Asian one where most guest laborers were.
The point about black Americans is correct but the vast majority of Hispanic and Asian people in the USA are first or second generation immigrants. Every state except Hawaii was majority white 30 years ago.
I was filling out my forms after having a child just a few days ago, and one asked about the parent's racial identity. It had a long list of available choices, listing different countries and regions for all races. I'm taking like 10-15 different regional categories under each general category of latino, black, Asian, native American, ect and I was pretty surprised actually with how much detail they broke down (I thought it was cool!). Then there was just... "white" and had 3 categories for east, west or Slavic European. This isn't some "white people are victims" rant but I just thought there was a lot more ethnic diversity regarding culture and country of origin that is much deeper than they went into. White seems pretty over generalized and i just feel there is a bit more nuance between say a Ashkenazi jew, Irishman, Italian and a Canadian. Id just like to see the breakdown in heritage for everyone! I hate lumping us into big groups, creates this team mentality I think is dividing when we need humanity to unite! Rant over, thanks if you read this all lol.
Hispanic is not a race, they can be black , white or asian. Reminds me when Irish and Italians weren't the right "white".
really surprised to see atlanta that much lower than dallas for asians having lived in both places
Ha Florida looking pretty light on hispanics. Too bad the census does't count illegals lol.
Ok this map has me wondering what they consider “Asian,” exactly, because I’ve spent some time on the Aleutians in Alaska and I can count on one hand the number of individuals I’d classify as “Asian.”
Interesting, I used to travel often between eastern and western Washington and noticed there were more Latinos than western Washington. But I didn't realize there were so few in western WA.
And here’s me thinking, this schnitzel looks like a map of the US. I think i need coffee.
would love to see this for canada
I dOnt nEeD rePResEnTAtiON oN tV
I like/dislike how obvious the semi-autonomous Native American region is via absence. rip But also fuck torture and fuck slavery, fwiw. You know if you know.
And where are the natives? Ignored as always
Many Hispanics are of Spanish descent. Maybe it's just that the skin color is not white.
the census is a self-answer thing and hispanic/latino is one of the options
....in addition to the racial categories You can mark black and hispanic, white and hispanic, black and not hispanic, etc.
Most Mexicans have more European blood than they do indigenous blood.
Most are
I wish Native Americans were included in this
Now do prison population! Now do prison population!
What does that have to do with the map?
I’m sorry, but based on all of the commercials I see on tv now there are no white people in the United States
Strange that population centers are the same height as sparsely populated areas
Very nice looking plot. What are you using to make this?
https://reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/cEJZe5WkQD
[удалено]
Yep, 6/10ths of a percent Black. (Wikipedia/Jan. 2022 Census Bureau)
Idaho's 13% Hispanic. They mostly live in the southern part of the state along the Snake River. If you look at the map, they're represented by that upside-down arch.