Average Win % for Major Professional Sports Teams by City, 1990-2015

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

City Average Championships
San Antonio 0.68 5
Green Bay 0.61 2
Oklahoma City 0.61 0
Salt Lake City 0.60 0
Portland 0.57 0
San Francisco 0.56 5
Indianapolis 0.56 1
Boston 0.55 8
Pittsburgh 0.55 5
Montreal 0.54 1
Dallas 0.53 5
Calgary 0.53 0
San Jose 0.53 0
Anaheim 0.52 2
Nashville 0.52 0
Vancouver 0.52 0
Denver 0.52 4
Philadelphia 0.52 1
Chicago 0.52 10
Buffalo 0.52 0
St Louis 0.52 3
Ottawa 0.51 0
Seattle 0.51 1
Houston 0.51 2
Raleigh 0.51 1
Baltimore 0.51 2
Los Angeles 0.51 7
New York 0.51 9
New Jersey 0.51 3
Detroit 0.50 6
Miami 0.50 5
Phoenix 0.50 1
Orlando 0.50 0
Kansas City 0.49 1
New Orleans 0.49 1
Memphis 0.49 0
Toronto 0.49 2
San Diego 0.49 0
Winnipeg 0.48 0
Minneapolis 0.48 1
Edmonton 0.48 1
Columbus 0.47 0
Cleveland 0.47 0
Washington 0.46 1
Oakland 0.46 1
Atlanta 0.46 1
Jacksonville 0.46 0
Cincinnati 0.46 1
Milwaukee 0.46 0
Sacramento 0.44 0
Hartford 0.44 0
Tampa Bay 0.43 2
Quebec City 0.43 0
Charlotte 0.41 0
Advertisements

Largest Native American Tribe by County

TribalGroup

The census data used for this map was downloaded from the National Historical Geographic Information System. The ten largest tribal groupings were included in the map above, a map with more tribal groupings is at the bottom of this post.

It’s interesting to note that while Navajo are the largest Native American tribe by population, they are dwarfed in terms of geographic spread by the Cherokee, who are the second largest group by population. Because of the Trail of Tears and other Indian removals, the Cherokee population ended up spread across much of the eastern United States. Many of the tribes that lived in these eastern areas were severely reduced in population by removal, disease, war, and genocide. This left the Cherokee as the largest Native American group east of the Mississippi. The Navajo, as the largest tribe nationwide, are concentrated in a smaller area centered around the Four Corners region of the Southwest.

Map with more tribal groupings:

tribes2all.png

Data Source:

Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011.

http://www.nhgis.org

Slavery in the Northern United States, 1790-1860

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

On July 4th 1827 the last slaves* in New York State became free, and the next day the Black population held a huge parade and celebration along Broadway in New York City. This was a joyous moment, but it came over half a century after the Declaration of Independence declared that “all men are created equal”, and over 25 years after New York had first passed a law mandating freedom for slaves on a gradual basis. It took years of struggle, hardship, and frustration to end the institution of slavery in New York, and this process was mirrored in most of the other Northern States. Because the Southern States fought a war to preserve slavery, the long and hard road to emancipation in the North has been overshadowed and forgotten. The map/slideshow above illustrates this process by showing the percentage of the population that were slaves from 1790 to 1860.

*75 slaves remained in bondage in rural areas of New York according to the 1830 Census, they were likely held by Southerners who until 1841 were allowed to bring slaves into New York for up to 9 months.

Slavery was difficult to end in the North because slaves made up a significant proportion of the population and were hugely important to the economy. The first U.S. census in 1790 counted 40,086 slaves in the 8 Northern States, for a total of about 2% of the population. In some important northern areas slaves made up an even more significant proportion of the population, such as in Kings County (modern-day Brooklyn) where 1 in every 3 residents was held in bondage. Every Northern state except Vermont and Massachusetts (which Maine was a part of at the time) still held slaves in 1790. Slavery in the North wasn’t limited to household servants either: archeological digs have revealed evidence that huge slaveholding plantations existed in the North as late as the beginning of the 19th century.

slavery1790

The map above shows the proportion of slaves for each Northern county according to the 1790 census.  The most obvious geographic pattern is the huge concentration of slavery radiating outwards from New York City, with slaves making up a significant proportion of the population in New Jersey, Upstate New York, and southern Connectdicut and Rhode Island. The only other areas with a large proportion of slaves are two pockets in southern and western Pennsylvania. Looking at the 10 Northern counties with the highest proportion of slaves, we can see that all 10 are in New York or New Jersey and most are in the area around New York City:

County (Borough) State Slave % of Population
Kings (Brooklyn) NY 32.58%
Richmond (Staten Island) NY 19.73%
Bergen NJ 18.26%
Somerset NJ 14.72%
Queens (Queens) NY 14.41%
Ulster NY 9.92%
Monmouth NJ 9.43%
Middlesex NJ 8.26%
New York (Manhattan) NY 7.17%
Suffolk NY 6.68%

The high proportion of slavery around New York City is explained by the city’s long history of importing slaves, dating back to its original founding as the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam.New Amsterdam faced a severe labor shortage within a few years of it’s founding, and began importing slaves in 1626.  Importation of slaves continued even after the British took control of the area. By 1703, 42 percent of all households in New York City owned slaves, second among American cities only to Charleston SC. After the American Revolution the tide began to turn against slavery in the area, as the Black and abolitionist communities campaigned against slavery, and as slaves increasingly rebelled by running away from their masters. Nonetheless, it still took New York and New Jersey until 1799 and 1804 respectively to pass laws instituting gradual emancipation, making them the last two Northern States to do so. Gradual emancipation moved especially slowly in New Jersey, to the point that when the Civil War broke out in 1860 there were still 18 enslaved people in the “free” state!

image (32)

Despite both New Jersey and New York dragging their feet on the issue of slavery, the institution declined consistently in the decades after Independence. The number of slaves in the Northern States decreased in every US census from 1790 to 1860. The mirror image of this trend was occurring in the South, where the number of slaves increased by an average of almost 30% a decade. Thus while the decline in the total number of slaves in the North is significant, the fall in the North’s share of all slaves is even more impressive:

image (33)

Nonetheless, while the decline of slavery in the North may seem rapid to us today, it obviously took painfully long for those in bondage at the time.

The death of slavery in the North teaches us that even the most vile of institutions take time to destroy. This applies to slavery in the South as well: the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the United States, and even after the Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery there were still Blacks being held in near-bondage under the South’s sharecropping systems.

One last thing to realize when talking about the destruction of slavery in the North is that the role of politicians and abolitionists is often overemphasized, while the role of slaves in ending this institution is overlooked. It took a huge number of slaves running away from their masters in the 1790s to convince the New York legislature to pass a bill for gradual emancipation. After gradual emancipation was put in place, the death of slavery in New York was sped up by an “epidemic” of slaves fleeing. The likelihood that their slaves would run also encouraged slaveowners in the North to free them voluntarily. It was Dubois that pointed out that  “slaves freed themselves” during the Civil War, and this applies equally to the end of slavery in the North.

Data Source:

Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011.

http://www.nhgis.org

Combined Presidential Elections, 1856-2012

combinedelections.png

 

This map uses election data from 1856 to 2012 to show the most Republican and Democratic states over US presidential election history. This map was NOT created by adding all the total votes for each party in each state and comparing them, as that would put more weight on more recent elections. Instead, an average was taken of the two-party share of the vote in each state, after eliminating votes for third-party candidates. So, if a state voted 40% republican, 45% republican, and 50% republican in three elections, it would average 45% republican, even if significantly more votes were cast in one election than the others.

The data starts in 1856 because that’s when the Republican party first debuted in a presidential election.

A few observations based on this map:

– A lot of the presidential geography we take for granted is very recent. The South is a mostly Republican area today, but was the “Solid South” for the Democrats for over a century. Even after the battle over Civil Rights switched the South to the Republicans, Democratic presidential candidates could compete in that region. Carter swept most of the South in 1976, and in 1980 it was one of his stronger regions in a landslide loss. Bill Clinton was able to win several southern states in both 1992 and 1996. And even Obama has won a few southern states in both 2008 and 2012. If we balance 100 years of solidly Democratic voting with 50 years of a slight Republican lean, we can see why the South comes out in this map as a Democratic region.

-Likewise, a state like Vermont that we think of as solidly Democratic is really a very recent addition to the Democratic coalition. The state didn’t switch sides until 1992, before that it was usually a solidly Republican state with Democrats only winning it in landslides such as 1964. Because of this long history as a Republican state, it is second only to Kansas in average Republican vote.

-If we were to use the current electoral college, and assign states based on which party got a higher share of the two-party vote from 1856 to 2012, the Democrats would win in a very close election, 296 electoral votes to 242.

Screen Shot 2016-04-16 at 4.29.31 PM

-Looking at Republican states, their most consistent stronghold has been the Great Plains and the Western Mountain states:

State Republican Share of the Two Party Vote, 1856-2012
Kansas 61.38%
Vermont 60.79%
North Dakota 59.90%
Nebraska 59.75%
Idaho 59.48%
Alaska 59.01%
Wyoming 58.82%
Utah 57.01%
South Dakota 56.44%
Maine 55.11%
Iowa 53.77%
New Hampshire 53.62%
Michigan 53.30%
Oklahoma 53.22%
Colorado 53.05%
Pennsylvania 52.83%
Oregon 52.47%
Minnesota 52.47%
Wisconsin 52.13%
Indiana 52.13%
Nevada 51.61%
Ohio 51.43%
Arizona 51.34%
Washington 50.92%
Connecticut 50.84%
Massachusetts 50.78%
Illinois 50.46%
Montana 50.36%
New Jersey 50.13%
New Mexico 49.71%
California 49.40%
Rhode Island 49.20%
West Virginia 48.74%
New York 48.34%
Delaware 47.77%
Missouri 46.39%
Tennessee 45.10%
Kentucky 44.95%
Maryland 44.26%
North Carolina 43.56%
Virginia 43.33%
Hawaii 42.26%
Alabama 41.27%
Florida 40.07%
Arkansas 38.80%
Texas 37.86%
Georgia 34.39%
Louisiana 34.26%
South Carolina 31.64%
Mississippi 31.54%
District of Columbia 12.89%

Looking at the results above, the “swingiest” state has been New Jersey, where Republicans have won an average of 50.13% of the two-party vote since 1856.

Multiracial Population by County, 2010

Multiracial.png

The  map is based on data from 2010, and includes any individual who reported descent from two or more races on their Census form. Multiracial Americans make up a total of about 2.9% of the population, but there is wide regional variation. The county with the highest Multiracial proportion of the population is Hawaii County, at 29.2%.

There is a clear east/west divide, with western states having an overall higher percentage of Multiracial americans. On the other hand, the Deep South has low levels of people identifying with multiple races. For example, Mississippi only has a handful of counties where the Multiracial population is above 1.5%.

The big outlier is Oklahoma. The surrounding states have average levels of Multiracial people, but in Oklahoma 7% of the population is multiracial, the highest rate outside of Hawaii (24%) and Alaska (8%). There is also a clear divide in Oklahoma, with the multiracial population increasing as you go from west to east across the state. This large Multiracial population is a legacy of the frequent intermarriages between White, Native American, and Black individuals, both in the present day, and going back to the state’s historical origin as “Indian Territory.”

Pew provides more info on population patterns of Multiracial Americans here.

Data Source:

Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011. http://www.nhgis.org

Majority-Minority Counties in the US, 1790-2010

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Map in gif/gallery form here.

The map/slideshow above shows the location of majority-minority counties in every United States Census from 1790 to 2010. There has been a lot of commentary on the news that America is projected to become a majority-minority country in the next few decades, with minorities set to be over 50% of the population by 2044. Four states (Hawaii, California, New Mexico, and Texas) are already majority-minority, and the growing diversity of America is reshaping our politics, culture, and society.

However, the concept of a majority-minority nation (or state, or county) is fraught with potential confusion, since our understanding of who counts as a minority in America is constantly shifting. These shifts are reflected in the Census’ changing racial categories, which can be explored with this great interactive resource from Vox.  For example, much of the recent rise in the minority population has been driven by a growing Hispanic population, but until 1980 most Hispanics were counted as White by the Census.

Definitions of race have shifted even more suddenly in the past: in 1920 Mexicans were counted by the Census as White, but were then switched to being a separate race in 1930, and then were switched back to being White in 1940. These quick changes were not arbitrary, but came out of changing American views of Mexicans. In the 1920s, fear of Mexicans and illegal immigration began to grow, and in 1925 the border patrol was first established. This prompted the switch of Mexicans from being formally White to being a minority group in 1930 (although it is important to note that Mexicans were already being treated as second-class citizens in many states). However, in the 1930s Mexican diplomats and Mexican-Americans protested vigorously against the loss of “Mexican Whiteness”. The racial “threat” of Mexicans also receded during this time, as the Great Depression drastically slowed immigration into America. In 1936, the Census Bureau decided that Mexicans would again be considered White, and they remained classified this way until the addition of the Hispanic “ethnicity” in 1980.

The two maps above show how the change of Mexicans to Non-White in 1930 affected the racial geography of the Southwest. In 1920 the only majority-minority counties in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were a scattering of Native American and Black areas, while in 1930 a new swath of majority-minority Mexican counties suddenly appeared near the US-Mexico border. Thus, as our racial definitions have shifted, so has our sense of which areas are majority-minority.

However, even if race is socially constructed, for certain groups racial definitions have remained stable enough to allow this map of majority-minority counties to also show important migrations. For example, while the American definition of blackness has evolved from the infamous “one drop rule” to the present day’s racial system, where many Americans with Black and White ancestry identify instead as “Multiracial”, the definitions have been stable enough for Census data to capture large historical movements of Blacks. One example you can see on the map/slideshow at the top of this post is The Great Migration of the 20th century. Between 1910 and 1970, six million Blacks moved from the Southern United States to northern cities. They left to escape the oppression and violence of the Jim Crow South, and to find greater economic opportunities in the Northern states. The gif below illustrates this migration, you can see the number of majority-minority Black counties in the South decline from 286 counties in 1900 to only 110 counties in 1970.

output_GJz1Vb

Thus, the map/slideshow at the top of this post is able to use the lens of majority-minority counties to show both how racial definitions have changed, and how the demographics of different areas have shifted over time. Future posts on this blog will go into more detail about specific racial shifts shown by the map, such as the disappearance of majority Native-American areas in California, Michigan, and Minnesota in the 1860s, as well as the presence of majority Chinese areas in Idaho in 1870 and 1880. The rest of this post will instead focus on some of the broad trends in the number of majority-minority counties over US history.

image (31)

If we want to examine the big picture of racial geography in America, one way is to simply count the number of majority-minority counties over time. The graph above shows the percentage of all counties that are majority-minority from 1790 to 2010. However, this data is somewhat misleading, since different states have hugely varying numbers of counties. For example, while California has a larger population than Texas, California only has 58 counties whereas Texas has 254 counties. This means that states with a large number of counties, like Texas, are weighted too heavily if we only look at the raw number of majority-minority counties over time.

An alternative method is to look at the percentage of the population that lives in those majority-minority counties. This gives us a better sense of how concentrated the minority population is. The chart below pairs that data with the total percentage of the population that is a minority in each decade. Comparing the two shows the relationship between overall minority population, and minority density. The more majority-minority counties there are relative to the minority population, the more densely packed the minority population is.The two statistics mostly move in tandem, so as the minority population goes down in the country, so does the size of the population living in majority-minority counties. However, it is interesting to note that even as the minority percentage of the population stabilizes from 1920-1950, the share of the population living in majority-minority counties continues to drop until 1960. This is likely due to the Great Migration. As Blacks moved north the number of majority-minority counties in the South dropped, but Blacks did not move in large enough numbers to create new majority-minority areas in Northern states. Thus, even while the minority proportion of the population was stable or increasing, minorities were becoming more spread out and less densely packed into the South.

image (30)

The overall trend we can see from these charts is that the racial history of the United States resembles a parabola. At the beginning of the nation’s history, the minority percentage of the population (mostly slaves) was high, and a high proportion of the population lived in majority-minority areas in the South. As the minority proportion of the population declined and the Great Migration diffused the Black population into the North, the percentage of majority-minority counties declined until it reached rock bottom in the middle of the 20th century. However, in the past half-century shifting racial definitions, as well as increased immigration and birth rates among minorities, has led to an explosion in both the minority percentage of the population and the size of the population living in majority-minority areas. It is likely that today well over a third of the population lives in majority-minority counties, and in a few decades a majority of Americans will likely be living in those areas.

Note on the Map/Slideshow

One note on the map is that it represents majority-minority counties with a color scheme dictated by whatever the largest minority group is. So, for example, if a county was 49% White, 30% Black, and 21% Asian the county would be colored red to indicate a majority-minority county with the largest group being Black, even though Whites are actually a plurality of the population.

Data Source:

Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 2011. http://www.nhgis.org