Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

census.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

#21

Post by dimitar »

I'm probably missing something, but the points c. 1850 seem way too south for me. The Confederates had around half of of the population of the Union (http://www.mrnussbaum.com/civil_war/unionconfederacy.htm) and yet the population center is just south from the Mason-Dixon line (but north of the initial front).

Was the population concentrated around the border between North and South? The West didn't matter - California had less than a million inhabitants in 1860.

Edit: All southern states on the border with the exception of Virginia (except West Virginia, of course) fought for the Union, so they are probably included in the statistics for the North. Still, the North was more populous even if the border states had joined the South.

Re: Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

#22

Post by RichardFord »

esom wrote: post #7

This doesn't seem to take into account the non-European population^1...? I guess that's fine if you state it -- just people the census was counting (not even all white people in US territories all the time). So this annoyingly helps sustain the myth that North America was an unpopulated forest until being 'settled' by 'settlers'. 1 ( http://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census... ): "Prior to 1900, f…

So this annoyingly helps sustain the myth that North America was an unpopulated forest until being 'settled' by 'settlers'.

Who believes in this myth?

Re: Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

#23

Post by dimitar »

esom wrote: post #7

This doesn't seem to take into account the non-European population^1...? I guess that's fine if you state it -- just people the census was counting (not even all white people in US territories all the time). So this annoyingly helps sustain the myth that North America was an unpopulated forest until being 'settled' by 'settlers'. 1 ( http://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census... ): "Prior to 1900, f…

There is a small map that shows the "approximate Area Enumerated" in each date. This doesn't undercount only Native Americans and they weren't numerous in that period. The west was sparsely populated by the standards of Europe and even the incorporated states where the many of the new immigrants came from.

Re: Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

#24

Post by esom »

IvyMike wrote: post #17
esom wrote: post #7

This doesn't seem to take into account the non-European population^1...? I guess that's fine if you state it -- just people the census was counting (not even all white people in US territories all the time). So this annoyingly helps sustain the myth that North America was an unpopulated forest until being 'settled' by 'settlers'. 1 ( http://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census... ): "Prior to 1900, f…

Hm: is "non-European" the word you wanted? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm really not sure. Even quickly skimming http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/cenpop2010/COP2010_... , it's not clear to me whether slaves were excluded from this tally.

You're right, wasn't thinking of Africans. But I think you knew what I meant.

Re: Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

#25

Post by esom »

jessaustin wrote: post #15
esom wrote: post #7

This doesn't seem to take into account the non-European population^1...? I guess that's fine if you state it -- just people the census was counting (not even all white people in US territories all the time). So this annoyingly helps sustain the myth that North America was an unpopulated forest until being 'settled' by 'settlers'. 1 ( http://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census... ): "Prior to 1900, f…

Insofar as that myth exists, it's certainly unwise to sustain it. However, it's my impression that Native American populations in "settled" areas have always been a small fraction of European-descended population, at least since smallpox and other diseases swept across the continent (which happened before 1790). That is to say, including the native populations or not including them would have little effect on this pa…

According to this paper* there were estimates of ~600k remaining in 1800. 3.9million citizens in 1790 USA -> nontrivial number and effect on the mean centroid, especially considering they are not uniformly spread.

As for no discontinuity between 1840-1860, it does say 'living in the general population'. So maybe that excludes the remainder.

The 'settled' areas being only a small fraction native of course depends on the time you measure it relative to the disease onset... which often comes after the first settler. I think at first the ratio is the other way.

*: AMERICAN INDIAN MORTALITY IN THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY: THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL ASSIMILATION POLICIES ON A VULNERABLE POPULATION. http://cid.bcrp.gob.pe/biblio/Papers/NBER/2006/Octubre/w1257...

Re: Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

#26

Post by esom »

dimitar wrote: post #23
esom wrote: post #7

This doesn't seem to take into account the non-European population^1...? I guess that's fine if you state it -- just people the census was counting (not even all white people in US territories all the time). So this annoyingly helps sustain the myth that North America was an unpopulated forest until being 'settled' by 'settlers'. 1 ( http://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census... ): "Prior to 1900, f…

There is a small map that shows the "approximate Area Enumerated" in each date. This doesn't undercount only Native Americans and they weren't numerous in that period. The west was sparsely populated by the standards of Europe and even the incorporated states where the many of the new immigrants came from.

The data and presentation taken literally are not misleading I suppose -- US population centroid.

It is a graph of manifest destiny, like another comment said - the spread of the US population and not talking about how it spread or what receded to make way.

You shouldn't tell yourself this stuff about there not being many other people there, and how even if you bothered to add them in it wouldn't change. It would - it would change quite a bit. This is not a median centroid.

I see the 'area enumerated' indicator. I see how it includes the west coast as of 1850.

We could go find some population estimates but there isn't good agreement before certain dates.

I'd like to see this kind of map, but with a more complete data set about people. This is just a political map and you could make it look a lot of ways with political choices...

Re: Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

#27

Post by tokenadult »

dimitar wrote: post #21

I'm probably missing something, but the points c. 1850 seem way too south for me. The Confederates had around half of of the population of the Union ( http://www.mrnussbaum.com/civil_war/unionconfederacy.htm ) and yet the population center is just south from the Mason-Dixon line (but north of the initial front). Was the population concentrated around the border between North and South? The West didn't matter - Califo…

Settlement in the west skewed farther south than north during that period. Minnesota and Wisconsin were very sparsely populated when they were federal territories. To this day, most of the population concentration of Minnesota is almost four degrees of latitude from Minnesota's northern border.

Re: Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

#28

Post by raldi »

hollerith wrote: post #11
mpyne wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another notable result of the 1980 census was that it was the first one where the majority of Americans lived west of the Mississippi River.

Not true[1]. Perhaps the "population center of mass" is west of the Mississippi, but that is a different statistic. [1] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_it_the_population_west_of_the...

As an example of how this could be possible, imagine the population of the USA were 3: two people living in East St. Louis, and one person living in Hawaii.

Re: Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

#29

Post by parennoob »

matthucke wrote: post #4

If you interpolate between the 1970 and 1980 points, mid-1972 would be fairly close to Belleville, Illinois - where, in mid-1972, I was born. ...thus confirming my long-held belief that I am the center of the universe.

The fact that you so naturally extrapolate "being the center of the United States" to "being the center of the Universe" also confirms a long-held belief of mine about the average American.

Re: Animated Mean Center of Population for the United States: 1790 to 2010

#30

Post by inportb »

hollerith wrote: post #11
mpyne wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another notable result of the 1980 census was that it was the first one where the majority of Americans lived west of the Mississippi River.

Not true[1]. Perhaps the "population center of mass" is west of the Mississippi, but that is a different statistic. [1] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_it_the_population_west_of_the...

It would be fun to actually compute the center of mass, knowing that people are not uniformly massive.
Post reply on HN