Mr. Soto's Human ...
Follow
Find tag "USA"
1.6K views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Jose Soto from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

White? Black? A Murky Distinction Grows Still Murkier

White? Black? A Murky Distinction Grows Still Murkier | Mr. Soto's Human Geography | Scoop.it

"In the United States, there is a long tradition of trying to draw sharp lines between ethnic groups, but our ancestry is a fluid and complex matter. In recent years geneticists have been uncovering new evidence about our shared heritage, and last week a team of scientists published the biggest genetic profile of the United States to date, based on a study of 160,000 people."


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Kristin Mandsager San Bento's curator insight, January 27, 4:58 PM

I would think it would be hard to actually be one race.  With all the cross marriages that occurred through the generations, it would be very rare.  I agree with this article that it is a very murky distinction.  Yet we see many still try to stay within their cultural race with the biggest percentage in their blood line.  To defect is seen as going against "your people."  This is interesting that this still goes on today.  

Edgar Manasseh Jr.'s curator insight, January 28, 11:58 PM

Some people like to distant themselves form a certain ethnic background, when we are all one. Europeans came from one area same with latinos, blacks and natives we all are similar. Africans have a major influence to  who Europeans are and also who most of the americans did descend from so theres a possible connection somewhere.

Rachel Phillips's curator insight, January 29, 12:50 PM

This article was very intriguing, especially because there have been so many migrations and movements of people in the U.S.  When you think about it, people were already here, and then Europeans came, and then they brought over Africans.  But, since then, people from all over the world have continuously moved here and spread throughout the country. In this map, you can see each region, and it's almost just how you would imagine it to be.  The south has more people who think that have some amount of African ancestry, and with the amount of slavery that had occurred, that makes sense.  However, the line between the percentage of African decent you have that makes you to be considered white, and then one percent more and you are African-American, is a bit bizarre to me.  In reality, in today's society, we are just as focussed on who is what race as they were a hundred years ago, whereas it actually should not matter anymore.  But, we don't live in a perfect world, and people need to be willing to work to get to that point.

Rescooped by Jose Soto from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Changes in the U.S. Economic Geography

Changes in the U.S. Economic Geography | Mr. Soto's Human Geography | Scoop.it
In 1990, the manufacturing industry was the leading employer in most U.S. states, followed by retail trade. In 2003, retail trade was the leading employer in a majority of states. By 2013, health care and social assistance was the dominant industry in 34 states. This animated map shows the top industry in each state and the District of Columbia from 1990 to 2013.

Via Seth Dixon
more...
Alyssa Dorr's curator insight, December 14, 2014 6:42 PM

According to the map, in 1990, manufacturing had the highest employment rates. By the early 2000's, it appears that retail trade has then taken the top spot for employment rates. Finally in 2013, most of the US is covering in orange, which represents employment in the health care and social assistance work field. When I opened the article, all these facts were written above the map. However, I did not even notice the written facts because I was too busy playing with the map. This article tells us the facts but does not really elaborate on why things have changed. For one thing, I think  the manufacturing job market decreased because once the products were being made to be sold, retail took it from there. Of course manufacturers were still needed to supply items, but then retail takes it over. Health care and social assistance services were both in the top by 2013. This is probably because more people who were certified in medical fields were needed. Thus they were hired, which lead this job market to the top.

Danielle Lip's curator insight, January 26, 4:19 PM

I found it quite interesting to see that most of the world in 1990 had manufacturing jobs because working at factories was the only job that was accessible with not many health care service oppurtunities. While in 2013 health care takes up most of North America, when you might expect the majority of North America to be made up of retail trade because so many malls and building are being constructed throughout the world. One positive part of this map is that job opportunities were even there in the first place, without working the economy will go downhill.

Lora Tortolani's curator insight, February 2, 6:49 PM

It's amazing to see how priorities have shifted over time.  Also, this is a great display of how technology has taken over what once was human labor.  

Rescooped by Jose Soto from Mrs. Jennings AP Human Geography
Scoop.it!

America's fastest shrinking cities

America's fastest shrinking cities | Mr. Soto's Human Geography | Scoop.it

"The U.S. population rose by just 0.72% in 2013, the lowest growth rate in more than 70 years. Not only has the country become less-attractive to immigrants than in years past, with net immigration down from nearly 1.2 million as of 2001 to 843,145 last year, but also the U.S.'s domestic birth rate has dropped to a multi-decade low.

While the population of most of the country's metro areas grew at a low pace in recent years, in a small number of metro areas the population actually shrank. Looking at the most recent years, the U.S. population rose by just 2.4% between April 2010 and July 2013, but in 30 metro areas the population shrank by at least 1%. The population in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, fell a nation-leading 4.4% in that time. Based on recently released U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 24/7 Wall St. examined the cities with shrinking populations."


Via Seth Dixon, Tracy Jennings
more...
Rescooped by Jose Soto from AP Human Geography Resources
Scoop.it!

Changes in Mortality: 1900 vs 2010

Changes in Mortality: 1900 vs 2010 | Mr. Soto's Human Geography | Scoop.it
How we die (in one chart)...

 

This infographic shows the main causes of death in 1900 in the United States and compares that with the 2010 figures.  The United States, during that time underwent what many call the epidemiological transition (in essence, in developed societies we now die for different reason and generally live longer) What are the geographic factors that influence these shifts in the mortality rates?  What is better about society?  Has anything worsened?  How come?  


Via Seth Dixon, Fortunato Navarro Sanz, Marc Crawford , Mankato East High School
more...
Kim Vignale's comment, July 9, 2012 10:33 PM
In the 1900s, there were more "natural" caused illnesses but not enough medicine or technology to alleviate these diseases, hence, the greater mortality rate. Presently, medicine and technology has changed for the greater good. Many of the diseases are cured and more people living longer due to this. However, mortality caused by heart disease and cancer have increased in 2010; this is probably due to higher calorie diets and exposure to preservatives and radiation.
Don Brown Jr's comment, July 10, 2012 7:17 PM
Looking back and comparing the 1900’s to 2010, I think it is becoming quite evident that our surrounding environment and what we consume impacts our health. Honestly what kind of cancer are you not at risk of getting today? Factors can vary from the genetically altered food we consume, radiation emitted from our cell phones or even prolonged exposure to the sun. While combating harmful pathogens and bacteria may have been a critical health concern and challenge of the early 20th century, finding remedies to an increasingly toxic environment may characterize the medical needs of the 21st century.
Justin McCullough's curator insight, December 12, 2013 12:50 PM

The thing that is positive about this infograph on how we die, is that our mortality rate has indeed gone down a whole lot since 1900. As the article states, we have become more aware of the bacteria taht surrounds us and have learned to be more clean because of it. This has surely cut down the rate in which people die by infectious diseases. However, it is interesting to see that heart diseases remains in one of the top ways that we die, even to this day. Accident deaths have also significantly dropped, probably due to the safety measures taken in the workplaces, or the technological advances that have made fighting wars, less deadly than during the 1900s. 

Rescooped by Jose Soto from Advance Placement Human Geography
Scoop.it!

The Invisible Borders That Define American Culture

The Invisible Borders That Define American Culture | Mr. Soto's Human Geography | Scoop.it
We can be connected (or disconnected) based on where we move, how we speak, and even what sports teams we root for.

 

This article is a great source for discussion material on regions (include the ever-famous "Soda/Pop/Coke" regions).  How do we divide up our world?  What are the criteria we use for doing so?


Via Seth Dixon, Dennis V Thomas
more...
Bella The Non-Vampire's curator insight, August 21, 2014 10:22 AM

i believe that these fifty states are divided into three different regions that define them by what those regions are made of. Those regions im talking about are the formal, functional, and vernacular regions. Some types of examples of those regions are common language, transportaion, and mental maps. I.C.

Rescooped by Jose Soto from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Dozens Of Countries Take In More Immigrants Per Capita Than The U.S.

Dozens Of Countries Take In More Immigrants Per Capita Than The U.S. | Mr. Soto's Human Geography | Scoop.it

"If you think the United States is every immigrant's dream, reconsider. Sure, in absolute numbers, the U.S. is home to the most foreign-born people — 45.7 million in 2013. But relatively, it's upper-mid-pack as an immigrant nation. It ranks 65th worldwide in terms of percentage of population that is foreign-born, according to the U.N. report 'Trends in International Migrant Stock.'  Whether tax havens and worker-hungry Gulf states, refugee sanctuaries or diverse, thriving economies, a host of nations are more immigrant-dense than the famed American melting pot.  Immigrants make up more than a fourth (27.7 percent) of the land Down Under; two other settler nations, New Zealand and Canada, weigh in with 25.1 and 20.7 percent foreign-born, respectively. That's compared to 14.3 percent in the United States." 

 

Tags: migration, population, USA, Australia, Oceania.


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Alyssa Dorr's curator insight, December 17, 2014 11:23 AM

Although the United States is home to the most foreign-born people, the percentage is not as high as you would think. In terms of the percentage of people that are foreign-born, the United States ranks only 65th worldwide. So, although there are many immigrants, there are even more non-immigrants. Immigrants make up 25.1% of new Zealand and 20.7% of Canada, compared to 14.3% in the United States. For Australia, the UK remains its largest immigrant source and its Asian population has also grown at a steady pace over the last several decades. As it stands, both Sweden and Ireland's populations comprise more foreign-born people than the United States too. There has also been a surge of Muslims into Ireland, now constituting 1.1% of the population. Nations are attracting immigrants by offering cash for citizenship and by offering lower taxes. The United States' largest attraction is that it is the land of the free where anybody can rise to power. This freedom makes it the best country in the world and that will continue to attract immigrants from all over the world no matter where they come from.

Alec Castagno's curator insight, December 17, 2014 11:41 PM

While the US is often thought of as a major immigrant destination, it is interesting to see the places that experience higher immigration rates. Places like Canada and New Zealand have surprising higher rates than the US, and it is still surprising to see that recent Australian policy was so openly racist.  

Jared Medeiros's curator insight, April 28, 5:46 PM

Would have never guessed it that there are this many more countries taking in more immigtrants than America.  When you turn on the news, immigration never really seems to sound like a problem for other countries around the world like it is in the U.S.  I know that America has a lot more people so it knocks the percentage down a bit, but 27.7% of Australia being foreign born is a large number.  The question is, does it bother them there like immigration bothers people here?

Rescooped by Jose Soto from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

High-School Dropouts and College Grads Are Moving to Very Different Places

High-School Dropouts and College Grads Are Moving to Very Different Places | Mr. Soto's Human Geography | Scoop.it
Cities like Washington and San Francisco are gaining the highly skilled but losing their less-educated workforce.

Via Seth Dixon
more...
Seth Dixon's curator insight, June 16, 2014 2:56 PM

This article, with its charts and interactive maps, is worth exploring to show some of the important spatial patterns of internal migration.  It's not hard to realize that larger, cosmopolitan metro areas will have an advantage in attracting and keeping prospective college graduates; the question that we should be asking our students is how will this impact neighborhoods, cities and regions?    


Tags: migration, USA, mappingcensus, education.

Kaylin Burleson's curator insight, June 19, 2014 8:47 AM

Good charts/grafts - worth looking at and using with the concept of migration.   

Rescooped by Jose Soto from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Migration in America - Forbes

Migration in America - Forbes | Mr. Soto's Human Geography | Scoop.it
More people left Phoenix in 2009 than came. The map above visualizes moves to and from Phoenix; counties that took more migrants than they sent are linked with red lines. Counties that sent more migrants than they took are linked with blue lines.

 

I've sent this link out before, but Forbes now has four articles attached to interactive mapping tool that analyze the data (including one by geographer Michael Conzen).  Also the new data has been added and the visualization has also been improved...very cool features with tremendous amounts of teaching applications. 


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Rachael Johns's curator insight, September 10, 2014 9:21 AM

In this day and age we see more people migrating then staying. People move for numerous things, a trend that causes a lot of migration is when people retire they move to southern Florida. They get tons of sun rays and meet a lot of people their age there. Another reason people migrate is for jobs. If their job tells them they have to move across state they do which causes more migration. ~R.J~

AmandaWilhiteee's curator insight, September 10, 2014 9:25 AM

The map is what originally attracted me to this article, but I must admit that the actual article was very interesting. Lots of the moves were from Phoenix, Arizona. Why people moved from Phoenix was not information that was disclosed in the article, but because of that, it made me wonder and want to learn more about this topic. AW :)

Nolan Walters's curator insight, September 10, 2014 9:30 AM

I've seen something like this before.  More people leaving a location than entering it.  Something may have caused them to move, Push and Pull factors are both in this.  Job opportunities or the extreme heat of Phoenix may have caused them to leave.  It shows that most people went to the Northeast, where it is cooler and has more people.

Rescooped by Jose Soto from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Immigration to U.S. From Mexico in Decline Amid Tough Economy

Immigration to U.S. From Mexico in Decline Amid Tough Economy | Mr. Soto's Human Geography | Scoop.it
The number of Mexicans leaving for the United States is just about cancelled out by the number returning, according to statistics provided by the Mexican government.

 

Besides being an important (underreported) political fact, this new migratory pattern can lead to a good discussion of push and pull factors that lead to the geography of migration. 


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Max Minard's curator insight, March 23, 8:57 PM

Back in 2012, the number of Mexican immigrants coming to America had declined due to several push factors, mainly involving the rough economy "north of the border". Despite the fact that many Mexican immigrants are still migrating to America, many have decided against this decision based off factors such as the risk of the making the trek and the more evident reason being that America's economy is going through a rough time. They don't want to show up in America unable to find employment which is the reason they had left their previous country. I personally think this is an accurate outlook considering 2012 experienced many rough patches in the economy which can further result in the decrease in incoming immigrants. Overall, this tough and amid economy in America along with the long, risky trek can both be classified as push factors, pushing away Mexican immigrants from wanting to settle in The United States.

Rescooped by Jose Soto from AP Human Geography Resources
Scoop.it!

Changes in Mortality: 1900 vs 2010

Changes in Mortality: 1900 vs 2010 | Mr. Soto's Human Geography | Scoop.it
How we die (in one chart)...

 

This infographic shows the main causes of death in 1900 in the United States and compares that with the 2010 figures.  The United States, during that time underwent what many call the epidemiological transition (in essence, in developed societies we now die for different reason and generally live longer) What are the geographic factors that influence these shifts in the mortality rates?  What is better about society?  Has anything worsened?  How come?  


Via Seth Dixon, Fortunato Navarro Sanz, Marc Crawford , Mankato East High School
more...
Kim Vignale's comment, July 9, 2012 10:33 PM
In the 1900s, there were more "natural" caused illnesses but not enough medicine or technology to alleviate these diseases, hence, the greater mortality rate. Presently, medicine and technology has changed for the greater good. Many of the diseases are cured and more people living longer due to this. However, mortality caused by heart disease and cancer have increased in 2010; this is probably due to higher calorie diets and exposure to preservatives and radiation.
Don Brown Jr's comment, July 10, 2012 7:17 PM
Looking back and comparing the 1900’s to 2010, I think it is becoming quite evident that our surrounding environment and what we consume impacts our health. Honestly what kind of cancer are you not at risk of getting today? Factors can vary from the genetically altered food we consume, radiation emitted from our cell phones or even prolonged exposure to the sun. While combating harmful pathogens and bacteria may have been a critical health concern and challenge of the early 20th century, finding remedies to an increasingly toxic environment may characterize the medical needs of the 21st century.
Justin McCullough's curator insight, December 12, 2013 12:50 PM

The thing that is positive about this infograph on how we die, is that our mortality rate has indeed gone down a whole lot since 1900. As the article states, we have become more aware of the bacteria taht surrounds us and have learned to be more clean because of it. This has surely cut down the rate in which people die by infectious diseases. However, it is interesting to see that heart diseases remains in one of the top ways that we die, even to this day. Accident deaths have also significantly dropped, probably due to the safety measures taken in the workplaces, or the technological advances that have made fighting wars, less deadly than during the 1900s.