ALL THREE MAPS SHOW DATA FROM THE 2000 US CENSUS
PCT = PERCENTAGE
The Asian-American population during the year 2000 was mainly clustered in California and Washington. This is reasonable because these states are in the West Coast, which is obviously closer to mainland Asia than the East Coast. According to the map above, many Asian-Americans lived around the big cities of the West Coast, namely Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. In Washington, Seattle and the surrounding regions seem to be the only places in Washington where Asian-Americans significantly contributed to the population. However, California was the state where most Asian-Americans decided to live in. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and their surrounding regions were not the only ones with significant population numbers. Central California also had many Asian-Americans living in its cities. Across the country, there were not many Asian-American population centers. Most of them were scattered; there were some major communities within the central part of the country. After the West Coast, the East Coast, as a whole, had the next highest number of Asian-American population centers, namely around New York City and Boston.
During the year 2000, African-Americans clustered deep within the American South. This is not surprising because the South has a deep history with African-Americans. The map above clearly shows that the majority of them lived in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. There were some other highly populated counties in the US that were predominantly African-America; in the map, they can be found in states that border the Great Lakes and/or the Mississipi River. With that said, the map above shows an absence of predominantly African-American counties around the western US. There were significant percentages around important cities, such as Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. The same is true for the East Coast; the map shows that significant percentages were present around New York City and Orlando. In other parts of the country, namely the Midwest, the 2000 African-American population generally was consistent at around 1-3%.
During the Census 2000, the government obviously asked Americans what race they were for statistical purposes. It provided the option of "some other race," which signifies that the person filling out the forms did not perfectly fit in the other given race categories. People who filled in "some other race" were mutiracial or Hispanic/Latino, which did not have its own category. In fact, 97% of the people who reported "some other race" were either Hispanic or Latino.* That statement alone tells a lot about the map above. States that border Mexico - California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas - had a great percentage of "some other race." There were a few "some other race" counties near the northwestern US that had high percentages. The rest of the nation did not have many counties that had people who claimed to be another race that was not listed on the Census forms. With respect to Hispanics/Latinos, it can be inferred from the map that the majority of them decided to stay around southwestern America and to not go too far out into the country, particularly the Midwest or the Eastern Seaboard. There are some darker shades of green around the Eastern Seaboard, but that could probably be explained by the presence of white multiracial people.
My census map series provides a lot of racial information about the continental US during the year 2000. Asian-Americans tended to have greater populations around the West Coast, and African-Americans tended to have greater populations around the South. These facts are not surprising at all. With respect to the entirety of the continental US, the West Coast is the closest to Asia. Black people have had a long history with the South, especially in terms of slavery and civil rights. They have not migrated en masse out of the area. It would not be surprising to find descendants of former slaves and black civil rights protesters in the South. Many people who responded to "some other race" were Hispanics/Latinos; it was also not surprising to find high county percentages of "some other race" in the states that border Mexico. In all three maps, there are a few counties that are white. It is interesting to see how there are a few counties in the entire nation that do not have people of a certain race. On the other hand, people in that county may not have filled in the forms correctly or even at all.
Doing this assignment was not easy at first, but I eventually got used to it. I am amazed at what I was able to produce using the GIS software. A GIS professional can definitely make a plethora of useful maps that tell a lot about the US and its people. While the GIS software can be frustrating at times, it is rewarding at the end. There is a lot a user can do with GIS with respect to data and cartography. GIS's ability to connect with Microsoft Excel is invaluable because Excel is usually associated with creating and storing data - GIS puts that data in map and visual form. I could have tweaked my three maps in many different ways. With respect to this assignment and the various details it brought along with it, GIS allows the user to change the color scheme, add a bar scale, add additional information to the side, and much more. GIS is also very detailed, and this assignment proved it. The software enabled me to see every county in the continental US and its percentage of a certain group of people. Even though I was able to guess what my maps were going to look like, GIS can undoubtedly display detailed data that were not even expected in the first place. GIS is an example of a piece of technology designed for the person who thinks intellectually and creatively.
No comments:
Post a Comment