Census Results Are In

[Pangloss]

So the results of the 2010 census are in, and the US has officially grown to over 308 million peeps. This has interesting political ramifications.

 

By that new count, Texas will gain four seats, Florida will gain two, while New York and Ohio each lose two. Fourteen other states gained or lost one seat. The gainers included Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah, and the losers included Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

 

That article goes on at some length about redistricting, and is an interesting read. The big wins by Republicans in the mid-terms have significant ramifications in that arena, but some of the modifiers on that power are interesting as well -- minority populations in certain states, for example, have an influence.

 

“Just because Texas is getting four new seats does not mean Republicans will get four new Republicans to Congress,” Mr. Storey said. “You don’t have unfettered ability to redraw new boundaries.”

 

Another aspect of this that I thought was interesting was the reduction impact on the northeastern states. A good example of this may be found in the impact on Massachusetts, which was analyzed by the Boston Globe this morning:

 

Massachusetts will be losing one of its 10 seats in the U.S. House as its population growth failed to keep pace with states in the western and southern part of the country, setting the stage for a potentially contentious redistricting debate.

 

The Massachusetts population grew 3.1 percent over the past decade to a total of 6,547,629 residents in the 2010 census.

 

A century ago, Massachusetts had 16 seats in Congress.

 

The national growth rate was listed in the first article as 9.7%, so I guess 3.1% growth essentially equals a reduction, relative to the rest of the country.

[Marat]

The curious thing about the shift of America's population from the Northeast to the Southwest over the last thirty years has been that the people who moved seem to have adopted the local thinking of the places they moved to, rather than importing their own ideas. Why do liberal New Englanders who used to spend their afternoons discussing Emily Dickenson's poetry at the Boston Athenaeum suddenly become right-wing Texans barbecuing steaks in the football stadium parking lot just because they are now living in a different environment?

 

I've always thought of the United States as a gigantic person whose blood (population) is now draining from his head (the Northeast) to his feet (Florida, Texas) with a corresponding decline in IQ. European cultural historians now describe the U.S. as "the world's only first-world economy with a third-world culture."

[ParanoiA]

The curious thing about the shift of America's population from the Northeast to the Southwest over the last thirty years has been that the people who moved seem to have adopted the local thinking of the places they moved to, rather than importing their own ideas. Why do liberal New Englanders who used to spend their afternoons discussing Emily Dickenson's poetry at the Boston Athenaeum suddenly become right-wing Texans barbecuing steaks in the football stadium parking lot just because they are now living in a different environment?

 

I've always thought of the United States as a gigantic person whose blood (population) is now draining from his head (the Northeast) to his feet (Florida, Texas) with a corresponding decline in IQ. European cultural historians now describe the U.S. as "the world's only first-world economy with a third-world culture."

 

Funny how you ridicule and challenge their IQ in the second paragraph while you're the one puzzled in the first.

 

Gee...it's almost like you're wrong about that second bit, which is why you're puzzled at that first bit...ain't it?

 

Any other broad groups of people you'd like to stereotype and ridicule?

 

Looks like those New Englanders discovered a bit of class, dropped the pretense and got to know their new neighbors. Maybe you should give it a try?

[Mr Skeptic]

It rather makes sense. In the area near the original 13 colonies, the population would have reached a comfortable limit much earlier, and the more sparsely populated areas still have plenty of room. But is this about birth rates, migration, or both?

[Pangloss]

The curious thing about the shift of America's population from the Northeast to the Southwest over the last thirty years has been that the people who moved seem to have adopted the local thinking of the places they moved to, rather than importing their own ideas.

 

Well perhaps, but I'm reminded of the counter-argument to the red-state-blue-state meme, with the visual graphic showing the states to be more purplish, reflecting the fact that there are both Democrats and Republicans in every state. Maybe they bring culture with them, encouraging improvements in the arts, etc. There's a long tradition of that in this country -- just ask anybody who lives in California.

 

 

Why do liberal New Englanders who used to spend their afternoons discussing Emily Dickenson's poetry at the Boston Athenaeum suddenly become right-wing Texans barbecuing steaks in the football stadium parking lot just because they are now living in a different environment?

 

You can't do both? Oh. I guess I'll have to sell off my tickets to either the Metropolitan Opera or the Miami Dolphins! Dangit.

 

But to the point, I think that there's probably something to what you're saying, at least in the sense that it seems (to me) like fairly normal human behavior to adapt to one's environment. It goes to acceptance, but not necessarily in a negative way -- it can also be a motivation.

 

BTW, they have rock and roll in the Northeast too, you know.

 

 

I've always thought of the United States as a gigantic person whose blood (population) is now draining from his head (the Northeast) to his feet (Florida, Texas) with a corresponding decline in IQ.

 

Ouch. Seriously? Is there a reference for this bit about IQ declining?

 

 

European cultural historians now describe the U.S. as "the world's only first-world economy with a third-world culture."

 

European historians aren't exactly my idea of a rockin' Saturday night, but hey, whatever floats yer boat I guess. But seriously, if that were true the world wouldn't be so busy importing American culture as fast as it possibly can. And that street runs both ways, and even faster now with the Internet.

[Marat]

If you visit Iowa, you will find that the houses, the politics, and the general culture are quite New Englandish, and the explanation always given by the locals is that Iowa was mainly settled by people from New England who left their cultural stamp on the state. But that was in the 19th century, and now it seems as if migrants assimilate rather than bring their culture with them, much as the old Yankee family of George Bush has now become so ultra-Texan in just a few generations.

[Pangloss]

If you visit Iowa, you will find that the houses, the politics, and the general culture are quite New Englandish, and the explanation always given by the locals is that Iowa was mainly settled by people from New England who left their cultural stamp on the state. But that was in the 19th century, and now it seems as if migrants assimilate rather than bring their culture with them, much as the old Yankee family of George Bush has now become so ultra-Texan in just a few generations.

 

Marat I really think you're going to have to back that statement up with some kind of study if you want it to be taken as fact.

 

Have you ever been to South Florida, by any chance? There's a reason they sometimes call it the 6th borough.

 

Saw the same thing when I was growing up in Atlanta, too. Gone with the Wind is as much an Atlanta institution as Coca-Cola, but the GWTW quote that everyone came to know as I was growing up was, "Yankees in Georgia? Who let them in??" Businesses coming into town, suburban sprawl, all that buildup on the lilly-white north side of town came with northern accents. Grocery stores stocking croissants and cheese steak, and "New York style" delicatessens going up on every street corner. Clothing styles, car ownership, home construction -- northern influx changed Atlanta a lot, in my opinion.

 

Not that I was complaining -- it sure boosted donations to the High Museum and Atlanta Opera, which I always found time to squeeze in between Braves games. But yeah, all the newbies started saying "y'all" and eating grits for breakfast, too. I'll never forget the first time I heard "y'all" and "yous guys" in the same sentence. Still laughing about that one 15 years later.

[CaptainPanic]

[...]The curious thing about the shift of America's population from the Northeast to the Southwest over the last thirty years has been that the people who moved seem to have adopted the local thinking of the places they moved to, rather than importing their own ideas. [...]

 

And now imagine that we said the same, while discussing Muslim immigrants... lol.

 

[...]The curious thing about the shift of a population from the Middle-East to the USA over the last thirty years has been that the people who moved seem to have adopted the local thinking of the places they moved to, rather than importing their own ideas. [...]

 

I understand why you wrote that... it is a form of wishful thinking.

It's never nice when people who think the same as you change to another way of thinking which you absolutely disagree with. And it is very nice when people who are very different adapt to your culture.

 

But it's a simple fact that people who move adapt. Any immigrant, whether they crossed a single state border, or several oceans, needs to choose between adapting or being an outcast.

Edited December 22, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[ParanoiA]

I understand why you wrote that... it is a form of wishful thinking.

It's never nice when people who think the same as you change to another way of thinking which you absolutely disagree with. And it is very nice when people who are very different adapt to your culture.

 

But it's a simple fact that people who move adapt. Any immigrant, whether they crossed a single state border, or several oceans, needs to choose between adapting or being an outcast.

 

And why exactly is that? I tend to agree with the observation, but I've become ever more curious and suspicious about culture in general.

 

On the one hand, culture is set of restrictions, social agreements and standards - the pack expecting assimilation by new members in order to be accepted. I resent that on a very fundamental level. F**k you if you don't like how I live, I didn't ask permission for a reason - that sort of thing. After all, I thought the pride of america was this unapologetic approach to liberty and diversity - that we got a little of everybody over here, the best minds from all over the world.

 

But on the other hand, without some measure of cultural assimilation we risk losing established principles that define a nation - like a reverence for personal freedom, or tolerance, or whatnot.

 

I've long been dissappointed that we import citizens from counties that seem to appreciate our freedoms on the surface, in their words, but their actions are more in line with where they came from, not where they're at. Albeit anecdotal, I have friends whom immigrated from Vietnam and while they vehemently rage against communism, they have no issues at all with using the same tactics as the communists, only using them to advance freedom. Statements to illustrate contradiction, like "liberty at the point of a gun" go nowhere with them. They have no problems interfering and stripping your liberties in order to flush out communism. And they frequently advocate putting democrats in jail for socialist policies.

 

Now, I typically laugh off the shock value of such positions. But I have to say, it's conflicting to see immigrants from countries that don't hold freedom and liberty in the same esteem (or romance?) as our nation's history has suggested, and to subsequently see them gleefully invoke this irreverence at the polls, and support politicians that also put such ideas aside. And it's just as conflicting to hear my fellow countrymen lecture immigrants on how they should live "around here".

 

Somehow, there must be a way to impart the principles of the republic on new citizens, while simultaneously dropping the expectation that they act like the rest of us. Is that possible?

[CaptainPanic]

And why exactly is that? I tend to agree with the observation, but I've become ever more curious and suspicious about culture in general.

 

On the one hand, culture is set of restrictions, social agreements and standards - the pack expecting assimilation by new members in order to be accepted. I resent that on a very fundamental level. F**k you if you don't like how I live, I didn't ask permission for a reason - that sort of thing. After all, I thought the pride of america was this unapologetic approach to liberty and diversity - that we got a little of everybody over here, the best minds from all over the world.

 

But on the other hand, without some measure of cultural assimilation we risk losing established principles that define a nation - like a reverence for personal freedom, or tolerance, or whatnot.

 

I've long been dissappointed that we import citizens from counties that seem to appreciate our freedoms on the surface, in their words, but their actions are more in line with where they came from, not where they're at. Albeit anecdotal, I have friends whom immigrated from Vietnam and while they vehemently rage against communism, they have no issues at all with using the same tactics as the communists, only using them to advance freedom. Statements to illustrate contradiction, like "liberty at the point of a gun" go nowhere with them. They have no problems interfering and stripping your liberties in order to flush out communism. And they frequently advocate putting democrats in jail for socialist policies.

 

Now, I typically laugh off the shock value of such positions. But I have to say, it's conflicting to see immigrants from countries that don't hold freedom and liberty in the same esteem (or romance?) as our nation's history has suggested, and to subsequently see them gleefully invoke this irreverence at the polls, and support politicians that also put such ideas aside. And it's just as conflicting to hear my fellow countrymen lecture immigrants on how they should live "around here".

 

Somehow, there must be a way to impart the principles of the republic on new citizens, while simultaneously dropping the expectation that they act like the rest of us. Is that possible?

What I wrote is: you have to adapt to the local culture where you live to be accepted.

What you wrote is: the tolerance level of the culture is too narrow.

 

It is true that a culture can be extremely tolerant, and accept almost anyone as they are, unchanged. A culture can also be extremely narrow, and almost everyone will need to adapt and change to fit. I strongly believe that we're undergoing a process of world-wide narrowing of cultures. I propose that this is a major effect of nationalism (or in the States, it may perhaps be called partisanism?). Or perhaps it is even the definition of nationalism: that your tolerance of other cultures becomes less, because of an increased love for your own?