Hispanics, the nation's largest and fastest-growing minority group, now account for about one in four children younger than 5 in the United States, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released today.
"Hispanics have both a larger proportion of people in their child-bearing years and tend to have slightly more children," said Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center and co-author of a recent study predicting that the Latino population will double from 15 percent today to 30 percent by 2050.
White: 1,670,988 (99.15%)
| Religions | 1961 | 1991 | 2001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roman Catholic | 34.9% | 38.4% | 40.3% |
| Presbyterian (Protestant) | 29.0% | 21.4% | 20.7% |
| Church of Ireland (Protestant) | 24.2% | 17.7% | 15.3% |
| Other Religions (including other Protestant) | 9.3% | 11.5% | 9.9% |
| Not Stated | 2.0% | 7.3% | 9.0% |
| None | 0.0% | 3.8% | 5.0% |
I'd like to nip in the bud any speculation that this post is trying to prove anything. Just throwing random stats about. The first thing which strikes me about NI is that though the plantations started in 1610, nevertheless the Catholics still haven't overtaken the others in population, possibly due to migration and the modern lack of religious affiliation.
That's one thing and the second is wondering what the difference is between the two peoples anyway. Both are white, both look similar and yet the Catholic seems to me more from "the wrong side of the tracks" but if you look at the Protestant, he doesn't seem greatly different. Oversimplification, yes and it ignores the Boyne and so on but what's the problem unless one side was forced to worship as the other does?
Coming back to the Hispanics - well that's another issue and 24% is substantial. The only question remaining is if it's bad or not. I'm in no position to say but I've read much of the feeling about ghettos and underclass and so on. Here are some random stats:
Still don't know what to conclude but in the meantime, here's some salsa:
That's one thing and the second is wondering what the difference is between the two peoples anyway. Both are white, both look similar and yet the Catholic seems to me more from "the wrong side of the tracks" but if you look at the Protestant, he doesn't seem greatly different. Oversimplification, yes and it ignores the Boyne and so on but what's the problem unless one side was forced to worship as the other does?
Coming back to the Hispanics - well that's another issue and 24% is substantial. The only question remaining is if it's bad or not. I'm in no position to say but I've read much of the feeling about ghettos and underclass and so on. Here are some random stats:
Deborah Duran established correlation between acculturation and depression (Duran, 1995) Women and Latinos are more likely to experience a major depressive episode. Prevalence of depression is higher in Latino women (46%) than Latino men (19.6%).
Among female high-school students in 1997, the rate of attempted suicide among Latino girls (14.9%) was one-and-a-half times that of African American (9.0%) and non-Hispanic white (10.3%) girls.
Still don't know what to conclude but in the meantime, here's some salsa:
Emigration almost certainly the biggest factor in keeping the catholic population in the minority. Even if the community becomes the majority I doubt there will be a move to a united island any time soon.
ReplyDeleteStill the sight of Paisley and McGuinness workign together has been a major surprise - a welcome surprise though!
The legal hispanic population is probably running around 15-17% in the US.
ReplyDeleteThe catholics emigrate and disenfranchise from the church, keeping the numbers low.
If the Hispanics keep growing in the States then they will no longer be a visible minority and lots of the current goodies enjoyed by same will disappear, like special treatment and scholarships at universities as one example.
ReplyDeleteStill don't know what to conclude but in the meantime, here's some salsa:
ReplyDeleteGreat finishing line, James.
Are you for real JMB? scholarships are usually based on merit not ethnicity. As for goodies, I am sure they woudl prefer the ultimate goodie- to be treated as equals by your ilk.
I have known latinos and they have a rich and proud culture.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry,JMB but I find that so offensive to seemingly imply that they get a free ride and benefit more if they keep their numbers down. That almost suggests that their 'breeding' should be kept in check through - what- little goodie incentives?
ReplyDeleteAren't you a Canadian from a 'multicultural society' that preaches a tolerance of all?
ubermouth: you have no idea about this stuff do you?
ReplyDeletejmb's point is that 'minorities' get the goodies; from affirmative action, to being the victim-class. If the Hispanic population keeps rising, they will be on the wrong side of AA and will leave their protected status.
"I am sure they woudl prefer the ultimate goodie- to be treated as equals by your ilk."
If that were true, you'd think they would start by following the f2cking law eh?
So immigrant minorities do create heat it seems. What's the solution then? Must they assimilate into the majority way of life or try to become the majority and how should that be approached?
ReplyDeleteE.g. the Indian population and the Chinese in certain SE Asian countries.
Lord - I got exactly what JMB was saying . IT seems that you missed the point, although you regurgitated it miraculously without actually reading what you were writing.
ReplyDeleteThey do not want to be seen as 'victims or inferiopr' nor should their 'minimized status' based on their non white status be the only way they can get 'goodies'.
Have you seen the film Deliverance?
Lord- What a redneck racist thing to suggest that all Latinos are law breakers!
ReplyDeleteScratch the last comment- were you IN the film Deliverance?
Are you KKK, Lord?
You're a fucking idiot uber. I (not once) suggested that ALL were lawbreakers. Way to just put shit in someone's mouth.
ReplyDeleteHow's that crush working out?
Lord.... Get real. You made a racial comment the pre supposes that the minorities are law breakers.
ReplyDelete"I am sure they woudl prefer the ultimate goodie- to be treated as equals by your ilk."
'If that were true, you'd think they would start by following the f2cking law eh?'
Recall that rr do you type during a Tourettes episode?
I am not sure what 'crush' you are referring to, but why should you be concerned about my love life?
I'm a WASP- my breeding program would meet your criteria- I'm sure, Burt.
Well it seems I started a forest fire and didn't come back to check until I saw Miss Uber's new post.
ReplyDeleteAs I commented at her site, my remark was a bit facetious perhaps but not meant in the way that she took it.
I don't believe I ever suggested that Hispanics should keep their numbers down to continue enjoying any "goodies" which might be available.
These are facts of life, that there are special scholarships for Hispanics and AfroAmericans and probably Native Americans too.
Just as the First Nations people in Canada have preferential treatment at university, with free education for all of them, plus different admission standards into Law and Education for they are trying to encourage them to enter those two professions especially.
I don't want to comment on whether this affermative action, preferential treatment or what ever should be so or not. It just is but I can certainly agree with her comment:
We would not need preferential treatment if everyone was treated as equals and given opportunities based on pure merit..
Naturally I would have to add with no discrimination based on either gender or ethnicity.
Jmb- Thanks for clarifying that. I think preferential treatment is like U.S.A foreign 'aid'..it gives the 'benevolent' party power over and makes the receiving party a depedant victim, doomed to be resented.
ReplyDeleteIt speaks more that we have to legislate fairness and opportunity that are too generally denied based on colour etc.
That's wrong.
The parties who are encouraged ( much like women being encouraged with incentives to enter the sciences) still have to do the work and probably moreso, PROVE their worthiness for such opportunities.
They don't get stand ins during exams. :)
What is interesting btw ( which I shall point out ) is the difference in HOW my comments were reacted to by an American commenter as opposed to a Canadian one.
Point proven, in that alone! :)
You are quite right Uber. The parties once given the opportunity still have to perform.
ReplyDeleteYou can be accepted into Law as a First Nations person without an undergraduate degree, but you had better work and keep up else you are out.
As I said I don't want to comment on the right or wrong of the policies but sadly I did see my future son-in-law have great trouble after he finished his PhD in Engineering. Stanford University, the second best, if not the best, engineering school in the USA, that year had 84 graduates in the program with 21 of them women. All the women got academic jobs in a flash and all the fellows had great difficulty. My SIL was lucky to find a post doctoral fellowship with IBM which turned into a job. But at the time it was affirmative action for women in engineering and they were chosen first.
The sooner we have no real need for these policies the better.
Sorry James, we are highjacking your comment section.
"The sooner we have no real need for these policies the better."
ReplyDeleteOne wonders, of course, if they were ever necessary. :)