Америка на глобусы нанесена Бетховеном

[egovoru]

Когда в США проводят перепись населения, то спрашивают, в том числе, и о национальном происхождении (насколько я поняла, можно назвать только одну национальность). По результатам опроса 2000 г. была составлена карта, где каждое графство закрашено в цвет той национальности, какую назвали большинство его жителей. По-моему, выглядит она весьма поучительно.

Вопреки ожидаемому, основной голубой цвет обозначает на ней происхождение вовсе не английское, а немецкое. Правда, по условиям ценза можно назваться и просто «американцем» – не индейцем, а в знак отречения от старого мира. Бросается в глаза, что эти самые «отреченцы» обитают не где попало, а исключительно в штатах бывшей Конфедерации. Но английское и «американское» происхождения даже в сумме (15.9%) только чуть-чуть перевешивают немецкое (15.2%). Причем, это в 2000 году, а вот к 2010 стало уже 15.7% и 17.1%, т.е., соотношение изменилось в пользу немцев.

Довольно естественно, что назвавшие свое происхождение английским обитают в Новой Англии, африканским – там, где выращивали хлопок, а мексиканским – на бывших мексиканских территориях. Опять же, французов и ожидаешь встретить на границе с Квебеком и вокруг Нового Орлеана. Но вот что ирланцы и итальянцы до сих пор образуют компактные поселения к северу и к югу от города Нью-Йорка, я бы ни за что не догадалась. Или что мормоны Юты, оказывается, исключительно английского происхождения :)

Было бы интересно сопоставить эти данные по самоидентификации жителей с общим числом иммигрантов из каждой страны за всю историю США, но я что-то не смогла быстро отыскать такую статистику.

Comments

[piterburg.livejournal.com]

Pennsylvania in 18-th and 19th centuries was a magnet for immigrants, especially various ethnic and religious minorities, besides German, Swedes, Dutch and Scotch-Irish, there were also mass immigration of various Slavs later on (2nd half of 19th century), mostly Slovaks, Serbs and Ukrainians.

Why Pennsylvania was so attractive? The answer is not entirely clear to me, but part of the reason was that it was then the second most-populous state with a strong economy. The other part was that it was a state with laws and tradition encouraging religious tolerance, being founded by Quakers with that in mind to begin with.

As far as why Pennsylvania does not show signs of Scotch-Irish majority counties at present, I know the answer: they liked living on borderlands, away from civilization and the strong hand of government, so as Pennsylvania got developed and populated, lots of Scotch-Irish moved on, to the newly opened remote areas, to what now is West Virginia, to Kentucky and Tennessee, and further West and South. This is also well known to historians.

It is less clear to me what happened in Maine and New Hampshire. Maine, for example, is quite remote and inaccessible to this day, with population density in the interior areas being similar to that of Siberia, less than a person per square kilometer. Maybe Scotch -Irish in Maine got subsumed by subsequent immigration waves, maybe they moved on. Generally, lots of settlers moved on from New England in 19th century. 200 years ago Massachusetts was deforested and subdivided into farms and fields, but New England was a difficult area to farm, as the soils are very stony, so lots of farmers abandoned their homesteads and moved on when Midwest and West opened up, with their good soils and abundance of space. The minimum of forest cover in Massachusetts was about 1840, after that the forest started returning with the new maximum of forest cover occuring around 2000. Nowadays, walking it in a forest in Central or Western Massachusetts it is not uncommon to come across remnants of farms abandoned a couple of centuries years ago: some foundations of farm buildings, border stones and boundary walls..

So maybe Scotch - Irish similarly abandoned Maine? I do not know..

[egovoru.livejournal.com]

"Pennsylvania in 18-th and 19th centuries was a magnet for immigrants"

So much so that Philadelphia even served as the temporary capital of the US in 1790–1800, and was the site of several major state builiding events, such as the Second Continental Congress, which signed the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitutional Convention.

Religous tolerance may indeed be an important factor, but not the only one: Rdode Island also was tolerant from the very beginning, and yet its significance cannot rival that of Pennsylvania.

[piterburg.livejournal.com]

Rhode Island was always a tiny colony/state squeezed by larger neighbors in a location without a possibility of expansion. It never had a chance existing in shadow of its mighty neighbors.

However, a difference in ethos between Providence and Boston is still noticeable: while Puritan Boston has entrepreneurs, and researchers, brains and stiff upper lips, Providence has freethinkers, kinksters and bohemians. Unlike Massachusetts, the bicycle riders in Rhode Island rarely wear helmets, and prostitution was legal in Rhode Island from 2004 to 2009. Those are just two little illustrations. I guess spirit of Roger Williams still lives..:-)

[egovoru.livejournal.com]

I would be grateful for your opinion on the problem that we discuss in my most recent post (http://egovoru.livejournal.com/84006.html). I guess you would have something to say, taking into account your experience of living in the US for a long time.

[piterburg.livejournal.com]

Yes, thank you, a very interesting discussion there. The problem itself is very interesting, as well as comments and observations.

I will comment on it later today.