|
US v. Pakistan is the most interesting thing to me on that map. edit: snipe, this map Kegluneq posted:
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
I suspect that as per usual the south is skewing the American statistics so that they look closer to third world countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I suspect that as per usual the south is skewing the American statistics so that they look closer to third world countries. It seems to not be quite so simple.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:I'm probably wrong, and someone who knows anything can feel free to correct me, but isn't Greenland pretty much autonomous and just a few steps away from effective independence? That could be why it's measured apart from Denmark. Greenland is as autonomous as it can be without actually being independent but independence is still a good while off. It basically depends on whether they can get a viable mining industry off the ground. It should be possible but it's just one of those things that always seems to be 10 years away. Anyway - maybe it's consistent, French Guiana is also marked separately from France and Scotland and Wales might also be we just can't really see it because the colors are the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas. Seems about right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:34
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:It seems to not be quite so simple. That's just literally RedStates.jpg
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:That's just literally RedStates.jpg It really does hold up even when you control for the presence of blacks and Hispanics. Whites in New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachussetts are at 8.5, 9.7 and 13.7 (respectively). Those in Mississippi, Arkansas and Kentucky are at 54.8, 51.8 and 51.5. That's in the 'black' category of the global map that was posted earlier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
 Greater Texas?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:
Can't forget Greater Utah 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
I'd hate to see the entertainment industry of Los Angeles, Utah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Well if it had LA, it couldn't possibly be run out of Salt Lake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 00:41
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PrinceRandom posted:Greater Texas? Texans had some interesting fantasies about the size of their Republic. In addition to the bits that lie outside the modern state of Texas, there were fair chunks of it across the Nueces and Pecos rivers that were effectively under Mexican administration, and were only "redeemed" during the Mexican-American War.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well if it had LA, it couldn't possibly be run out of Salt Lake. During the mid into the late 19th century (1880s), LA was a moderately sized town at best. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Sep 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas. Seems about right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Greenland is as autonomous as it can be without actually being independent but independence is still a good while off. It basically depends on whether they can get a viable mining industry off the ground. It should be possible but it's just one of those things that always seems to be 10 years away. I hope global warming at least makes Greenlanders wealthy owing to exploitation of previously inaccessible petrol and mineral deposits. I think native peoples have been screwed enough as it is and it'd be nice for climate change to have silver lining for some people. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Personally I was Age of consent is 15 in Sweden. illrepute posted:I hope global warming at least makes Greenlanders wealthy owing to exploitation of previously inaccessible petrol and mineral deposits. Haha yeah, those native people sure are going to get a big chunk of that mineral wealth. Good one!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 10:43
|
|
|
It doesn't hurt to dream. (Yes it does)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
There are sixty-thousand people in the entirety of Greenland. Even if they were the whitest of white people, they would never be able to avoid becoming a client state, similar to how Iceland was occupied by 700 ill-equipped British soldiers during WWII. Also, the Inuit are no more 'native' to Greenland than the English are to North America, though of course the Dorset culture that preceded them is more closely related to them than it is to Europeans. quote:Inuit legends recount them driving away people they called the Tuniit (singular Tuniq) or Sivullirmiut (first Inhabitants). According to legend, the First Inhabitants were "giants", people who were taller and stronger than the Inuit, but who were easily scared off.[1] Scholars now believe the Dorset and the later Thule people were the peoples encountered by the Norse who visited the area. The Norse called these indigenous peoples skræling. Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Sep 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 11:10
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Personally I was I never knew the disparity was that huge between Canada and the U.S., goddamn. wdarkk posted:It seems to not be quite so simple. If you're a hispanic teenage girl in Alabama the pregnancy odds are close to 1 in 5. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
univbee posted:If you're a hispanic teenage girl in Alabama the pregnancy odds are close to 1 in 5. Better off than Greenland, what with the 50% rape before the age of 15 statistic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I suspect that as per usual the south is skewing the American statistics so that they look closer to third world countries. That's because the South is a third world country:  Incarceration Rate  Life Expenctancy (light green is worse, key here)  Obesity  Poverty (Darker is worse, table here) And of course: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
How does reporting your ancestry as American (not Indian) even work? Did they just straight up forget or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
Davincie posted:How does reporting your ancestry as American (not Indian) even work? Did they just straight up forget or something? It's based on self-identification and a lot of people either don't want to pick just one out of several possible ancestries or simply don't care. My immediate family didn't know until about 5 years ago where our ancestors originated so my family had always put "American" down, going back to at least the 1950s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Davincie posted:How does reporting your ancestry as American (not Indian) even work? Did they just straight up forget or something? Probably just means they're heavily mixed to the point where they think asking which specific European country their family hails from would be pointless. Hell, they're probably more honest with themselves than most of the people who report that they're Irish or Italian or whatever. How many Americans nowadays can really say they're Irish, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Probably just means they're heavily mixed to the point where they think asking which specific European country their family hails from would be pointless. Hell, they're probably more honest with themselves than most of the people who report that they're Irish or Italian or whatever. How many Americans nowadays can really say they're Irish, anyway? It's been suggested that a lot of the time when someone puts down "Irish" it means that's the branch they know about, even if most of their ancestry actually traces to England or whatever. I know when I was a kid I would say I was of Frisian ancestry because that's the only branch we had traced, even though in retrospect the plurality group is probably either German or English.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
What I'm getting from those maps is that nationwide we treat minorities like absolute poo poo.
computer parts fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Sep 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What I'm getting from those maps is that nationwide we treat minorities like absolute poo poo. Also, move to Minnesota, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Guys, it's the South + Texas. It's not a pragmatic approach to "American-Mutt" self-identification. It's Xenophobia. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Teddy Roosevelt salutes all those brave souls identifying solely as Americans. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:New Mexico has a lot of Hispanics, both Mexican immigrants and people who've been living here for the past four hundred years, and I'm not one of them but I think that neither group regards teen pregnancy as abnormal or shameful. My family is "native New Mexican" and I assure you, that is not the case. Maybe a hundred years ago but today it would be met with a lot of yelling and "well by God we'll raise this child!" Even the more recent (but all at least a couple decades) Mexican immigrants family members have married would not be cool with early pregnancies. Get your life in order then get married is heavily stressed.  The route of Estevanico, the first known African in the New World. No, I don't know why wiki has the map in German(?).
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
GreenCard78 posted:My family is "native New Mexican" and I assure you, that is not the case. Maybe a hundred years ago but today it would be met with a lot of yelling and "well by God we'll raise this child!" Even the more recent (but all at least a couple decades) Mexican immigrants family members have married would not be cool with early pregnancies. Get your life in order then get married is heavily stressed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
It is pretty impressive considering that when they reached hispanized Mexico city it had been Tenochtitlan only 14 years earlier. As an aside, I am surprised the Spanish were able to almost every sign of the Aztecs in the first place considering the size of some of those temples, even if they were using with slave labor. They must have been dismantled block by block by human labor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:Guys, it's the South + Texas. It's not a pragmatic approach to "American-Mutt" self-identification. It's Xenophobia. hmm... pretty sure you're just a dumbass bigot who should keep his big dumb mouth shut on issues he doesn't understand. Like you gotta be real dense to to say something like this, probably without any personal experience on the subject, committing the exact same offense for which you look down on southerners, totally unaware of how hypocritical you sound. Patterns of immigration and settlement in the south were very different than in the north. As was mentioned by Basil Hayden, the foreign nation many Americans associate with isn't necessarily the one their patrilineal ancestor originated in, or the one responsible for the majority of their DNA, but rather the nation with which they have the best family stories, or the nation some curious aunt proved your great grandfather came from. In the north, where the vast majority of 19th and 20th century immigrants settled, most families may only have to go back two or three generations to find an immigrant, which means these families are very likely to have preserved the memory of immigration. In the south, where there was much less immigration in the late 19th early 20th century, families have to go much farther back to find immigrant ancestors, which makes it much less likely that they would preserve the memory of their nation. Further even if ancestry can be traced to an immigrant, modern individuals will have much weaker bonds to their stories, because they are much more distant. Are you going to empathize more with your Italian grandmother, or the possibly Welsh guy who shows up on Continental Army land grant records? The struggles of early 20th century immigrant communities might have fostered corporate unity too, which could produce intergenerational commitments to a specific identity, even when the real genetic legacy of a single nation has been diluted over time. Over enough generations such identities may lose meaning absent external pressure. I honestly don't know where my last name comes from, it was probably the British islands somewhere but where or when they came over I have only the roughest sketch. My family has traced some more recent immigrants but their homeland means little to me, I certainly don't associate my identity with wherever the hell they came from, in fact I have good reason to believe some of my ancestors have lied about and purposely obscured their nationality. My grandmother always claimed Swiss her family was Swiss but I suspect she was trying to conceal German ancestry, due to WWI and II related prejudice, but I'll never know, their immigration records are lost. American is the only group I can meaningfully belong to, and this is true for many other southerners. It's unfortunate you're too much of a dumb hick to empathize with someone else's experience though, I hope your ignorance and prejudice at least provides a measure of smug comfort.  Immigrants hugely preferred the north by the mid 19th century. I imagine maps of foreign born residents look almost exactly the same right up until the 1940s.  2010 percentage of foreign born residents by county, sorry not sure about the scale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
It could also be in part the legacy of Scots-Irish immigration, the Scots-Irish aren't a "national" group and seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle over identity. "American" as an identity comes as a default. I highly doubt it is politically motivated.
Ardennes fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Sep 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
My family background has seven different ethnic groups that I know of, possibly more. American is a lot easier than trying to untangle that, and the two big ones are equal percentages so I couldn't just pick a main ethnicity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
I wonder how people in Texas wrote in "Texan".
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
texaholic posted:I wonder how people in Texas wrote in "Texan". You can look at it yourself, XLS link down near the bottom of the page: http://www.census.gov/population/ancestry/data/
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Theodore Roosevelt posted:There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all … The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic … There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. Woodrow Wilson posted:Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Best way I heard someone describe Wilson was "The smartest president with the most ignorant beliefs".
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
LP97S posted:Best way I heard someone describe Wilson was "The smartest president with the most ignorant beliefs". Yeah, between that and his glorification of the KKK, I think he had basically never had serious interactions with anyone who wasn't from his social class. Wealthy white unhyphenated Americans all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2013 07:04
|
|
