TransCity

Parts of the metropolitan US are relying on hundreds of thousands of foreign immigrants to maintain population levels as native-born Americans move elsewhere, according to figures released today.

New York would lose around 100,000 residents a year if overseas immigrants were not filling the void, the census bureau figures for 2000 to 2006 show. Los Angeles and Boston would also shrink without immigrants, threatening their economies and property markets.

“A lot of cities rely on immigration to prop up their housing market and economies,” said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington thinktank.

Immigrants have long flocked to big US metropolitan areas, often stimulating growth. More recently, native-born Americans have moved from those regions, seeking a better life or better job prospects elsewhere.

Southern US cities, boosted by sunny climates, continue to grow fastest. Atlanta added more people than any other metropolitan area from 2000 to 2006, increasing its population by 890,000, to 5.1 million. The next biggest increases were Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, both in Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; and Riverside, California.

The figures also show that the population of New Orleans has dropped by nearly 290,000 people since 2005, as the city has struggled to recover from the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina.

More than half of all new immigrants to the US are from Latin America, with Mexico leading the way, although there are also substantial numbers of arrivals from India and China. About a quarter of the newcomers make their way to New York and Los Angeles, but demographers say they have also noted the new arrivals are moving out beyond the south-western states and major centres towards the midwest.

“New York would certainly be declining in population, same with Los Angeles, and so they really are kind of propping up the population in a lot of big cities,” said Mark Mather, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. “In some places, like in the rust belt around Pittsburgh, where they are having real substantial population loss, immigrants are playing a vital role. They are coming in and filling needed jobs, and providing some of the tax base that is needed to help the economy.”

Source: Guardian, Washington Post

If elected, would Barack Hussein Obama be the first black president of the United States? Not so, according to Diversity Inc. Research shows at least five U.S. presidents had black ancestors and Thomas Jefferson, the nation’s third president, was considered the first black president, according to historian Leroy Vaughn, author of Black People and Their Place in World History.

Vaughn’s research shows Jefferson was not the only former black U.S. president. Who were the others? Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. But why was this unknown? How were they elected president? All five of these presidents never acknowledged their black ancestry.

Jefferson, who served two terms between 1801 and 1809, was described as the “son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father,” as stated in Vaughn’s findings. Jefferson also was said to have destroyed all documentation attached to his mother, even going to extremes to seize letters written by his mother to other people.

President Andrew Jackson, the nation’s seventh president, was in office between 1829 and 1837. Vaughn cites an article written in The Virginia Magazine of History that Jackson was the son of an Irish woman who married a black man. The magazine also stated that Jackson’s oldest brother had been sold as a slave.

Lincoln, the nation’s 16th president, served between 1861 and 1865. Lincoln was said to have been the illegitimate son of an African man, according to Leroy’s findings. Lincoln had very dark skin and coarse hair and his mother allegedly came from an Ethiopian tribe. His heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed “Abraham Africanus the First” by his opponents.

President Warren Harding, the 29th president, in office between 1921 and 1923, apparently never denied his ancestry. According to Vaughn, William Chancellor, a professor of economics and politics at Wooster College in Ohio, wrote a book on the Harding family genealogy. Evidently, Harding had black ancestors between both sets of parents. Chancellor also said that Harding attended Iberia College, a school founded to educate fugitive slaves.

Coolidge, the nation’s 30th president, served between 1923 and 1929 and supposedly was proud of his heritage. He claimed his mother was dark because of mixed Indian ancestry. Coolidge’s mother’s maiden name was “Moor” and in Europe the name “Moor” was given to all blacks just as “Negro” was used in America. It later was concluded that Coolidge was part black.

The only difference between Obama and these former presidents is that none of their family histories were fully acknowledged by others. Even though Obama is half-white, he strongly resembles his Kenyan father. And not only is Obama open about his ancestry, most people acknowledge him as a black man, which is why people will identify Obama, if elected, as the first black president of the United States.

Source: DiversityInc

Did Channel 4 and Endemol approach Shilpa Shetty to participate in Celebrity Big Brother to reach a large Asian audience in the UK? Or did they invite the Indian Bollywood star because they expected her to clash with low-life Jade Goody, the unofficial winner of Big Brother 2002, and model Danielle Lloyd?

The answer to the second question is likely to be positive. The more conflicts arise in the Big Brother houses, the higher the viewing figures. Inviting opposite personalities is at the core of the Big Brother concept, it is the essence of the programme, it is the reason for the existence of the reality show. So it must have been a deliberate decision by Channel 4 and Endemol to approach both the highly cultivated and wealthy Shilpa Shetty and the uneducated former Big Brother participant Jade Goody.

Since the main reason for inviting Shetty and Goody must have been the expected (racist) confrontations between the two, leading to high viewing figures (almost 9 million people watched fridays eviction show), Channel 4 and Endemol probably should have informed their sponsors on this beforehand. In other words, they might have mislead their main sponsor, Carphone Warehouse, the company that has now withdrawn its £ 3 million sponsorship of the programme.

It might have been more clever of Channel 4 and Endemol to claim that their intention was to expose the existence in the UK - and no doubt all over multicultural Europe - of a bigoted mindset, to show that racist language and overt prejudice are still alive and kicking in the UK of the 21st century, to prove that prejudice persists across the social spectrum. Whether or not people would have agreed that a Celebrity Big Brother tv show is the right way to expose this, is another matter, but such an explanation - probably closer to the truth than the current claim that (racist) confrontations were not expected - would possibly not have taken a hit to their credibility as has happened now.

Remains the issue of the media abusing its power to make and break a person for the sake of high viewing figures, of which Jade Goody has now become the latest victim. As a consequence of the current international row, we might be watching the end of the Big Brother reality shows.

And did Celebrity Big Brother attract a large Asian audience? Likely so… but is this the way for mainstream media to integrate the growing cultural diversity in the UK?