Minneapolis Demographics

[jimrtex]

While looking at the 2013 Minneapolis elections, I mapped the racial and ethnic composition of the population.  Minneapolis has some particularly interesting ethnic groups not found in great numbers in most of the USA, and would seemingly be out of place in the Upper Midwest: Somali, Hmong, and Ecuadoran.  The Somali and Hmong populations are concentrated enough to have each elected a city councilor at the last election.

Overall the population (based on 2008-2012 ACS):

62.2% White, Non-Hispanic
17.3% Black, Non-Hispanic
9.9% Hispanic, regardless of race
5.5% Asian, Non-Hispanic
3.5% Two or more races, Non-Hispanic, 3.4% of which are two races, not including other or 3 or more races.   So presumably most of these are Black/White, Asian/White and some AIAN/White
1.4% AIAN, Non-Hispanic

[Sol]

The Hmong are more concentrated in St. Paul, right though?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Hmong are more concentrated in St. Paul, right though?

Yes but mostly in areas that are pretty diverse all around and have double digit white, black and Hispanic populations as well. That's true of the Hispanic population as well too, there are no Hispanic majority precincts anywhere in the Twin Cities. There's a few I can see being Somali majority, but relatively small, plus many Somalis are not eligible to vote.

Generally these demographic patterns don't show up in voting patterns because everywhere votes Democratic anyway.

[jimrtex]

The Hmong are more concentrated in St. Paul, right though?

Yes.  There were also Hmong elected to the St. Paul school board and city council.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The Hmong are more concentrated in St. Paul, right though?

Yes.  There were also Hmong elected to the St. Paul school board and city council.

There was also a Hmong state legislator.. I'm not sure if she's still there, though.

There is actually a lot of racial tension building up in the city's high schools among the African American blacks and the African blacks.  I'm not sure if it's along cultural or religious lines... I suspect both.

The Somali community is becoming politically active and have become a major presence in the city by throwing out long-standing politicians and replacing them.

The DFL hasn't really known exactly what to do about it since they're torn between backing well known, entrenched progressives vs. relatively unknown, but potentially close allies in the Somali population.

Jimrtex:  What you'll find among ethnic groups in the Twin Cities and among immigrant communities in Minnesota and the upper midwest is that we don't tend to attract "traditional" immigrants.  To be sure, there is plenty of Hispanic immigration here... but we have traditionally been big in the refugee immigration side of things since many non-profit resettlement organizations are based here.

So there was an influx of Vietnamese and Hmong in the 70s and 80s (into the 90s) with increasing migrations from Africa since the 80s (Ethiopia during the famine, Liberia, and once again Ethiopia and Somalia)... and even a good amount of Eastern European and Russian migration during the 90s.

Once people are here, their families and even friends tend to come to the same place.

Most recently, the Karen people of Myanmar have been settling in Minnesota.  So we have a disproportionate amount of African and southeast Asian migration compared to the nation... and oddly also European migration.  We're below average in domestic and hispanic migration.

[jimrtex]

The Minneapolis population increased from 380,582 in 1920 to 521,718 in 1950, an increase of 37.1%, or 1.1% per year compounded.  Between 1950 and 1980, the population declined from 521,718 to 370,951, a decrease of 28.9%, or 1.1% per year compounded.

Alternatively from 1920 to 1980, Minneapolis declined by 2.5%, or 0.043% per year.  There was a small recovery, so that by 2010, Minneapolis had reached 382,578, or almost 1,996 more than its 1920 population.   Over 90 years, Minneapolis gained an average of 22 persons per year. Since 2010 there has been a sharp uptick in the population.

Census Tracts were first introduced for the 1910 Census (2010 was their centennial).  Originally, census tracts were a voluntary program, where groups such as chambers of commerce or other groups could delineate census tracts in their area, and the Census Bureau would tabulate the date for the enumeration districts within each tract.  As census tabulation was being automated around the turn of the century, it could produce detailed information for each township or other minor census divisions.  Use of census tracts permitted the same level of detail within small areas of larger cities.

In 1910, census tracts were defined for Boston, New York City, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, and St.Louis.  In 1920, Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and St.Louis were added.  At that time, all major league cities except Washington and Cincinnati were covered, plus the two cities that would receive the first franchise shifts, Milwaukee (Braves) and Baltimore (Browns-Orioles).

By 1930, Washington and Cincinnati were included, as was St.Paul.  In 1940, Minneapolis, along with immediate suburbs, were added, including the inner tier of Hennepin County suburbs from Brooklyn Center around through Richfield; Columbia Heights in Anoka; and South St.Paul and West St.Paul in Dakota.  No suburbs in Ramsey County had census tracts defined.

The census tracts established in 1940 in Minneapolis, with only minor adjustments were used through the 1990 census, so we can follow demographic changes over a 50 year period.

121 census tracts were delineated in 1940.  Changes through 1990 are shown in red.  



Changes for 1950 were quite minor, with no apparent changes in Minneapolis, and only a few in the suburbs, probably reflecting annexations.

In 1960, census tracts were defined for a five county metropolitan area: Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, Washington, and Dakota (ie excluding Scott).  Census tracts in some cities were given prefixes (M for Minneapolis, SP for St.Paul, BC for Brooklyn Center, GV for Golden Valley, etc., but others had a prefix for the county (H for Hennepin, R for Ramsey, A for Anoka, W for Washington, and D for Dakota).   Suburban areas such as Golden Valley and St.Louis Park were subdivided into census tracts (4 and 11, respectively).

Tracts 1 and 6 on the northern edge of Minneapolis, tracts 117, 120, and 121 on the southern edge, and tract 46 downtown were divided into two tracts with a prefix of A or B (eg 117A and 117B).  Presumably this reflected the final build-out of Minneapolis in the post-WWII era, as growth shifted to the suburbs.  Otherwise, changes within Minneapolis were quite minor, likely related to changes in street alignments.

1970 saw minor changes in Minneapolis, along with standardization of tract IDs.  Census tracts are wholly nested within counties, with a six-digit ID, including a 4-digit base and 2-digit suffix.  Leading zeroes are conventionally suppressed, along with a suffix of .00.   That is if the ID is 000300, then it is displayed as "3".   If it is 000101 it is displayed as "1.01".  A suffix is used to indicate that a tract is derived from another census tract.  That is Census Tract 1, might be divided into Tracts 1.01 and 1.02.  If Census Tract 1.02 were later divided, the two parts might be numbered as 1.03 and 1.04, with "1.02" being retired.

In 1970, the tracts which had been given suffixes of "A" and "B" were converted to suffixes of .01 and .02 (eg 1A became 1.01, and 1B became 1.02).

Tract numbers are specific to each county (to distinguish tracts in different counties, the state and county IDs are included).  However, to avoid confusion, different ranges are used for adjacent counties.   For example, tracts in Minneapolis are in the 000s and 100 series, the remainder of Hennepin County 200s, St. Paul 300s, remainder of Ramsey 400s, Anoka 500s, Washington 600s, and Dakota 700s.

While changes in Minneapolis were minor, widespread redefinition was occurring in the suburbs (eg Coon Rapids went from 2 to 7 tracts, St.Louis Park from 11 to 15, and Plymouth from 2 to 4.)

In 1980, census tracts were extended to Scott, Wright, Sherbourne, and Chisago counties, as tracting was applied to all metropolitan areas.  Wyoming became the final state to have census tracts as they introduced in Laramie (Cheyenne) and Natrona (Casper) counties.  While changes in Minneapolis were quite minor, suburban areas had many tracts divided as the urban footprint spread.  Plymouth went from 4 to 12 tracts, while the first tier of Hennepin suburbs was unchanged.  While Coon Rapids went from 10 to 12 tracts, while neighboring Blaine went from 4 to 8.  Andover and Ramsey were divided for the first time.

The 1990 census was the first in which the entire United States had census tracts.  This provided a consistent statistical basis for which data from the long form could be presented.  It also provided a framework for defining census blocks, which were also used throughout the US.  Change in Minneapolis were quite extensive, but relatively minor, as boundaries were move a short amount.  Tracts 46.01 and 46.02 in downtown Minneapolis were reunified as tract 46.  It had been divided in 1960.  Tract 119 in the southeast corner became 117.98.  Usually, such a high-numbered suffix indicated a relatively minor modification to an existing tract.  There was a small sliver tract created on the St.Paul side of the line, so I suspect that the border along the Mississippi was adjusted a tiny bit, perhaps to account for a change in the river's course.  Continued expansion of the suburban footprint could be seen, for example in Maple Grove which expanded from 3 tracts to 8 tracts.

[jimrtex]

Changes in census tracts were quite extensive.  It appears that when census tracts were adopted nationwide in 1990, that the Minneapolis tracts were grandfathered in, but they were then found not to be the new national standards.

The target size for a census tract is 4,000 persons, with a range of 1,800 to 8,000.   The most detailed census data is collected from the long form (in 2000) and the American Community Survey (since 2006).  Both use a sample of households.  If census tracts are too small, then a higher sampling frequency is needed to provide statistically valid results, and their is some risk of exposing confidential information.  If census tracts are too large, then they may less homogeneous (demographic, economic, social), and less consistent size.  On the other hand, the fairly wide range (1800 to 8000) permits census tracts to have stable boundaries over time.

Areas that are losing population due to decreases in household size, or conversion of housing to commercial uses will continue to qualify against the lower standard.   Areas that are increasing in population due to in-fill and higher density housing will also still qualify.  A relatively large upper limit may permit division of census tracts in a natural way that recognizes actual land use.  For example, in a rural area that is being converted to suburban housing, an individual subdivision could be set off as a somewhat large census tract, while the remnant rural area becomes a somewhat small tract, until it is split.



In most of the city new tract numbers were introduced, by adding 1000 to the old tract number.  For example, census tract 4 was replaced by census tract 1004.   In previous census, a small change in boundaries would not warrant a change in number.  

In areas that are white, the new census tracts largely conform on a one-to-one basis with the old census tracts.  The new census tract number is shown in red.  New tract boundaries are also in red, obsolete boundaries are in gray, and unchanged boundaries in black.

There are around two dozen tracts that had unchanged boundaries, and retained their existing tract numbers, which are shown in black.  In a few instances, such as tracts 22 and 68 there were boundary changes.  I don't know why they weren't renumbered as 1022 and 1068.

In the extreme northern and southern edges of Minneapolis where the tracts had been divided in 1960, and assigned suffixes, a new suffix was assigned if the boundary of the tract changed.  For example in the northeast corner of the city, 6.03 replaced 6.02; while its neighbor, tract 12 became 1012, even though the change to the tracts was the realignment of the common border.

In the area that is green, tract boundaries were extensively modified, and in general it is difficult to say that a new tract is a successor to an old tract.   But the practice of adding 1000 to the tract number was used here as well.   In these cases, a tract of 10nn, can be thought of being in the area of tract nn.   Some numbers disappeared.  For example, tract 10 was on the west bank of the Mississippi in northern Minneapolis.  Tracts that were 9 and 16 were extended eastward, and numbered as 1009 and 1016.  There is no tract 1010.  Tracts numbered 10, 42,, 43, 45, 53, 58, 61, 63, and 103 disappeared in this process.

The new tract numbers in dark green, while the old tract numbers are in light blue.

In some areas, two new tracts were created which covered portions of an old tract.   Rather than assigning one a number of 10nn, both were given a number with a suffix, as if they were a split of an existing tract.  For example, tracts 35.01 and 35.02 northwest of downtown are both generally in the area of old tract 35.   If only a single tract had been created, it likely would have been numbered 1035.

An interesting feature of the new tract boundaries is the emergence of Hiawatha as a tract boundary in southeast Minneapolis.  This follows the old path of The Milwaukee Road railway on its south-southeast to north-northwest course into the city.  Because of the oblique angle, north south streets do not cross this area, and east west crossings are infrequent, and there is about a 4-block gap between the rectilinear street grid on either side.  The 1940 tract boundaries only partially recognized this discontinuity.  The 2000 tracts consistently use it for a boundary.

[jimrtex]

Changes for the 2010 Census were fairly minor, with 6 pairwise mergers, one division and one adjustment.  In addition, the entire map was rectified to satellite-based coordinates.  The original locations of streets was likely based on paper maps, which may have been inaccurate in the first place, or not updated to reflect changes in alignment, etc.  Before the 2010 Census, the census bureau made a major effort to update the coordinates of the census geography, including using handheld GPS devices to determine the actual location of residences (this would ensure that 123 Oak was really in block 27 and not across the street in block 28).



The tract numbers of the new tracts are not based on old tract numbers, and do not follow the old pattern of north-to-south numbering.  The new numbers begin with 1256.  The only rationale that I can figure out is that there is a tract 1255 in Bloomington, which was modified from 255.01 in 2000.   Starting with 1256 ensures a continuous sequence of numbers for tract numbering within Hennepin County.

22 tracts retain their original 1940 number, and are pretty much in the same location.

10 tracts are the result of the 1960 split of tracts on the northern and southern edge of the city, and have the 1940 tract number plus a suffix.

40 tracts are in much the same location as the 1940 tracts, and have a tract number that has 1000 added to the original 1940 tract number.  An additional tract, 119.98 is in much the same location as the 1940 tract 119.

31 tracts a generally in the same area as the 1940 tracts, but had major realignments in 2000.  They can't be considered 1-to-1 successors of the 1940 tracts, even though their numbering is based on adding 1000 to 1940 tract numbers.

An additional such tract, tract 1052, was divided in 2010 to create 1052.01 and 1052.02.

3 tracts are the result of pseudo-splits in 2000, where two new tracts were created in the same area as a 1940 tract.   8 of these tracts (4 pairs) were created in 2000, but 5 were eliminated in 2010.

7 tracts have numbers in the 1200 and were created in 2010 from 6 merges, and one adjustment.

19 tract numbers from 1940 are no longer in use.

[jimrtex]

First some information about the ethnic composition of Minnesota as a whole.

In 1940, Minnesota ranked in the Top 10 as follows:

(1) Norway.
(2) Sweden
(5) Denmark
(4) Iceland
(8) Netherlands
(2) Luxembourg
(9) Germany
(10) Austria
(8) Yugoslavia
(2) Finland
(10) Romania
(10) Bulgaria
(9) Canada-Other (ie non-French)

Within Minnesota, the rankings were:

(1) Sweden 67K (-26% from 1930 to 1940)
(2) Norway 52K (-27%)
(3) German 42K (-30%)
(4) Finland 20K (-17%)
(5) Canada-Other 17K (-14%)
(6) Poland 11K (-28%)
(7) Russia 11K (-10%)
(8) Denmark 11K (-23%)
(9) Yugoslavia 7K (-17%)
(10) Austria 7K (-1%)
(11) Czechoslovakia 7K (-37%)

Note, there appears to be some variation in how those born in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire were reported.

While Minnesota is thought of as being more Swedish than Norwegian, they are actually pretty close, with the Norwegian population being more rural, so that Minnesota can be thought as the transition area from Swedish dominance to Norwegian dominance.  Swedish-born did not outnumber Norwegian-born until 1900, or German-born until 1910.

The Top 10 Swedish-born states in 1940 were: IL, MN, NY, CA, MA, WA, MI, CT, WI, PA; while the Top 10 Norwegian-born states were: MN, NY, WA, WI, ND, IL, CA, SD, IA, and MT.

Swedish tended to be more urban, with Chicago at one time having the largest Swedish population other than Stockholm.  Places like Worcestor and Rockford had large Swedish concentrations.  In Minnesota, the Norwegian population appears to be slightly older than the Swedish population, based on the rate of die-off (with the cutoff of immigration during and after WWI, the immigrant population would be well into miiddle age by 1940); and the ratio of 2nd generation to 1st generation population.   This increases as the foreign born have more time to have US-born children; and also to begin to die. 

The ratio might also increase if Norwegian's had higher fertility; or more mixed marriages.  If a Norwegian-born man and woman marry, their offspring are counted once in the foreign stock.  If they marry US natives, or persons from other countries, there is the potential for twice as many children to be counted in the foreign stock.  In rural areas, a suitable Norwegian mate might not be available, and a German Lutheran might be acceptable, or even an English Methodist.

German-immigration has been the longest sustained immigration to the US, and so overall tends to have a higher die-off.  Someone who immigrated at age 25 in 1880, would be, if they were still living, 85 in 1940.   The German population is much more rural, particularly rural-non farm than the Swedish or Norwegian population.

Finnish migration was later than Swedish or Norwegian migration, and was particular concentrated in Duluth and the Iron Range.

The largest foreign-born group in cities over 10,000 is interesting:

Germany: Faribault; Mankato; Rochester; St. Cloud; South St. Paul; and Winona.
Sweden: Brainerd; Duluth; Minneapolis; and St. Paul.
Norway: Austin; and Fergus Falls.
Finland: Hibbing; and Virginia.
Denmark: Albert Lea

So while Swedish-born are dominant statewide, this is particularly because of their concentration in the three big cities.

[ilikeverin]

Personally, I've always associated Minnesota more with Norway than Sweden, though of course they're both culturally dominant.  But lutefisk and lefse are both Minnesotan dishes brought from Norway.

[muon2]

As a kid in the 70's I compared the phonebooks of Chicago (where I was born) and Minneapolis/St Paul (where I lived), looking at name frequencies. Chicago had Smith at number 1 as one might expect, but it was down to 4th place in Minneapolis behind Johnson, Peterson and Anderson, and that's not including the Petersens and Andersens who were plentiful as well.

[jimrtex]

As a kid in the 70's I compared the phonebooks of Chicago (where I was born) and Minneapolis/St Paul (where I lived), looking at name frequencies. Chicago had Smith at number 1 as one might expect, but it was down to 4th place in Minneapolis behind Johnson, Peterson and Anderson, and that's not including the Petersens and Andersens who were plentiful as well.

In 1940, New York was Top 10 in all foreign-born groups,

(1) England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, France, Germany, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Russia, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Greece, Italy, Spain, Palestine, Syria (would include Lebanon), Turkey in Asia, Cuba, Other West Indies, South America,
(2) Wales, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Switzerland, Other Asia, Newfoundland, Central America, Australia
(3) Sweden, Belgium, Lithuania, Finland, Bulgaria, Portugal, Canada-Other, Other Atlantic Islands
(4) Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, Turkey in Europe,
(5) Iceland
(6) Yugoslavia, Canada-French, Azores,
(9) Mexico

If you were describing New York immigrants, you might mention these groups in passing, but if you were describing emigration from any country, skipping New York as a destination would be a significant omission.

The same is true to a slightly lesser extent for Illinois (Chicago).

(1) Sweden, Luxembourg, Lithuania,
(2) Belgium, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Greece, 
(3) Denmark, Austria, Yugoslavia, Russia, Palestine, Australia,
(4) Ireland, Netherlands, France, Romania, Bulgaria, Other Asia, Mexico
(5) Wales, Switzerland, Hungary, Central America,
(6) Northern Ireland, Norway, Estonia, Italy, Turkey in Asia, Cuba, South America,
(7) England, Scotland, Iceland, Canada-Other, Other Atlantic Islands
(8) Newfoundland, Other West Indies,
(9) Turkey in Europe
(10) Finland, Canada-French,
(Not Top 10) Spain, Portugal, Syria, Azores,

Though Illinois was first among Swedish-born, Swedish-born were 4th behind Poland (139K), Germany (138K), Italy (98K), Sweden (80K).

Among Sweden-born, Illinois led Minnesota 80K to 67K, among Norway-born it was Minnesota 52K to Illinois 22K.

So I suspect there are more columns of Peterson's in the Chicagoland phone book than in the Twin Cities, even if the percentage is fewer.

Incidentally, in Wisconsin Norway-born 23K outnumber the Sweden-born 14K, though both are vastly outnumbered by the German-born.

Minneapolis appears to be the western limit of Swedish Americam which includes Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania among the Top 10 states, while the Top 10 for Norway-born include both Dakotas and Montana as Top 10 states.

[jimrtex]

Personally, I've always associated Minnesota more with Norway than Sweden, though of course they're both culturally dominant.  But lutefisk and lefse are both Minnesotan dishes brought from Norway.

Perhaps it is a matter of Twin City dominance.



More counties have a largest foreign-born population from Norway (29), with Germany (26) 2nd, Sweden (23) 3rd, and Finland (4), a distant 4th.  The distribution is not unexpected, with the Norwegian dominance extending eastward from the Red River valley, the German area a continuation from Wisconsin and Iowa, and the Swedish in the Twin Cities.  The most extreme Swedish dominance was in the areas north of the Twin Cities, particularly Chisago and Isanti, which were among the most dominant single-country foreign-born in the state.  St.Paul was traditionally more German and English than Minneapolis.  It is close enough, that the German-born population dropped below that from Sweden in Ramsey County during the decade (1930s).  The Norwegian counties in the southeast are surprising to me.  I would have thought the Germans would have occupied that area before the Norwegians started arriving in large numbers.

The 5 other counties (4 countries) are left as an exercise for the reader.  Murray and Le Sueur narrowly missed this category, with two additional countries ending up a strong second.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Minnesota is definitely associated more with Norwegian influence than Swedish.  When people refer to the "home country" that means Norway. 

Norwegians and Swedes are referred to as Scandihoovians while people of Finnish descent are called Finlanders.

Sven, Ole, Lena, and family are all Norwegian.  That should settle this.

[jimrtex]

Minnesota is definitely associated more with Norwegian influence than Swedish.  When people refer to the "home country" that means Norway.  

Norwegians and Swedes are referred to as Scandihoovians while people of Finnish descent are called Finlanders.

Sven, Ole, Lena, and family are all Norwegian.  That should settle this.

PIONEER NORWEGIAN SETTLEMENT IN MINNESOTA (PDF) See page 21 of 35(PDF) for distribution of Norwegian settlement.   According to the monograph, Norwegians skipped the areas east of the Mississippi as less fertile (and more trees).

In 1940, the foreign stock (foreign born and children with at least one foreign-born parent) was:

Germany: 266,707
Sweden: 229,121
Norway: 228,965

Given this reality, why is there a perception (among some) that Minnesota is Norwegian?

Possible theories:

(1) German nationalism was discouraged after the two WW, and Germans are so ubiquitous that to be of German descent is almost the same as being of British descent as far as making one a non-hyphnenated-American;

(2) The Swedish-born were concentrated in the more cosmopolitan Twin Cities, and developed more of a Twin Cities identity, than a Swedish one;

(3) The Norwegian-born and descendants had a stronger (nationalist) identification with the dissolution of the Swedish-Norwegian monarchy in 1905.  Though Norway had its own parliament and government, foreign policy was under greater influence of the King, and Norway was denied its own diplomatic corps, which might be of significance among those who were not US citizens.

Ole: Hey Sven, why do the Hmong and Somali refer to Norway as the "home country".

Isn't Sven Swedish?  Or is there some other explanation of he being the less bright of the two?

[muon2]

Minnesota is definitely associated more with Norwegian influence than Swedish.  When people refer to the "home country" that means Norway. 

Norwegians and Swedes are referred to as Scandihoovians while people of Finnish descent are called Finlanders.

Sven, Ole, Lena, and family are all Norwegian.  That should settle this.

PIONEER NORWEGIAN SETTLEMENT IN MINNESOTA (PDF) See page 21 of 35(PDF) for distribution of Norwegian settlement.   According to the monograph, Norwegians skipped the areas east of the Mississippi as less fertile (and more trees).

In 1940, the foreign stock (foreign born and children with at least one foreign-born parent) was:

Germany: 266,707
Sweden: 229,121
Norway: 228,965

Given this reality, why is there a perception (among some) that Minnesota is Norwegian?

Possible theories:

(1) German nationalism was discouraged after the two WW, and Germans are so ubiquitous that to be of German descent is almost the same as being of British descent as far as making one a non-hyphnenated-American;

(2) The Swedish-born were concentrated in the more cosmopolitan Twin Cities, and developed more of a Twin Cities identity, than a Swedish one;

(3) The Norwegian-born and descendants had a stronger (nationalist) identification with the dissolution of the Swedish-Norwegian monarchy in 1905.  Though Norway had its own parliament and government, foreign policy was under greater influence of the King, and Norway was denied its own diplomatic corps, which might be of significance among those who were not US citizens.

Ole: Hey Sven, why do the Hmong and Somali refer to Norway as the "home country".

Isn't Sven Swedish?  Or is there some other explanation of he being the less bright of the two?

The last quip reminds of a bit of doggerel from my youth in MN:

Ten tousand Svedes come tru de veeds, chased by vun Finlander.

[Linus Van Pelt]

PIONEER NORWEGIAN SETTLEMENT IN MINNESOTA (PDF) See page 21 of 35(PDF) for distribution of Norwegian settlement.   According to the monograph, Norwegians skipped the areas east of the Mississippi as less fertile (and more trees).

In 1940, the foreign stock (foreign born and children with at least one foreign-born parent) was:

Germany: 266,707
Sweden: 229,121
Norway: 228,965

Given this reality, why is there a perception (among some) that Minnesota is Norwegian?

I think the link is wrong; it appears to be some community paper in Texas.

Interesting thread, btw.

[jimrtex]

PIONEER NORWEGIAN SETTLEMENT IN MINNESOTA (PDF) See page 21 of 35(PDF) for distribution of Norwegian settlement.   According to the monograph, Norwegians skipped the areas east of the Mississippi as less fertile (and more trees).

In 1940, the foreign stock (foreign born and children with at least one foreign-born parent) was:

Germany: 266,707
Sweden: 229,121
Norway: 228,965

Given this reality, why is there a perception (among some) that Minnesota is Norwegian?

I think the link is wrong; it appears to be some community paper in Texas.

Thanks.

Try the updated message for the correct link (or also use the one in this reply)

[Linus Van Pelt]

Yeah, that works; thanks.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Minnesota is definitely associated more with Norwegian influence than Swedish.  When people refer to the "home country" that means Norway. 

Norwegians and Swedes are referred to as Scandihoovians while people of Finnish descent are called Finlanders.

Sven, Ole, Lena, and family are all Norwegian.  That should settle this.

PIONEER NORWEGIAN SETTLEMENT IN MINNESOTA (PDF) See page 21 of 35(PDF) for distribution of Norwegian settlement.   According to the monograph, Norwegians skipped the areas east of the Mississippi as less fertile (and more trees).

In 1940, the foreign stock (foreign born and children with at least one foreign-born parent) was:

Germany: 266,707
Sweden: 229,121
Norway: 228,965

Given this reality, why is there a perception (among some) that Minnesota is Norwegian?

Possible theories:

(1) German nationalism was discouraged after the two WW, and Germans are so ubiquitous that to be of German descent is almost the same as being of British descent as far as making one a non-hyphnenated-American;

(2) The Swedish-born were concentrated in the more cosmopolitan Twin Cities, and developed more of a Twin Cities identity, than a Swedish one;

(3) The Norwegian-born and descendants had a stronger (nationalist) identification with the dissolution of the Swedish-Norwegian monarchy in 1905.  Though Norway had its own parliament and government, foreign policy was under greater influence of the King, and Norway was denied its own diplomatic corps, which might be of significance among those who were not US citizens.

Ole: Hey Sven, why do the Hmong and Somali refer to Norway as the "home country".

Isn't Sven Swedish?  Or is there some other explanation of he being the less bright of the two?

The point is that none of them are particularly bright.

For example:

Ole finally kicked the bucket, so Lena went down to the newspaper to put an obituary in the Sunday paper.  The newspaper receptionist asked Lena what she'd like to put in the obituary, and Lena replied "Ole died."

The newspaper receptionist was a bit flummoxed and says to Lena "you know you can have up to 20 words for no extra charge!"

Lena ponders this for a good while and then writes on a piece of paper "Ole died.  Boat for sale."

But yeah:  Any German nationalism was stifled during WWI and the German speaking schools were forcibly anglicized while German speaking churches were frowned upon.  Meanwhile the Swedes assimilated better being in the urban areas.  That left the Norwegians... with some churches offering services in Norwegian into the 1950s.

And yes... Norwegian independence and the rural agricultural nature of Norwegian settlement in the upper midwest kind of entrenched Norway as the standard bearer for "Scandihoovian culture" as people call it.

Getting back to Minneapolis more specifically, there was a good amount of both Norwegian and Swedish immigration to the city.  St. Paul, meanwhile, was always home to the largest concentration of Irish in the state... hence their early and unique affinity to the Democratic party.  Eventually Humphrey was able to marry those Irish Democrats to the Scandinavian socialists and create the DFL.

On the other hand the majority of Republicans are "out-of-staters" who came from the Dakotas or other midwestern locales friendly to the GOP who have pushed the MNGOP rightward and kind of into oblivion.  This rightward push has alienated the more moderate establishment GOP types that long dominated the party up until the 1990s.  The last minute nomination and overwhelming popularity (in Minnesota terms, at least) of Arne Carlson (a good Swede) was the capstone on the moderate/liberal Republican dominance.

After what could eventually be called the MNGOP's Great Big F**k-Up  (GBFU), they're still recovering and are trying to re-establish their more moderate roots along with a new libertarian flair.  And the MNGOP once again takes its place as the occasional reality check for when the DFL gets tangled up in its own web of well-intentioned bullsh**t.

[TDAS04]

Demographics contributed to Minnesota being a solidly Republican state initially.  It never voted Democratic in a presidential election before 1932.  A major reason was that Scandinavian immigrants tended to be as staunchly Republican as New England Yankees (many of whom were also among the state's early settlers).

[jimrtex]

The 5 other counties (4 countries) are left as an exercise for the reader.  Murray and Le Sueur narrowly missed this category, with two additional countries ending up a strong second.

The outlier counties are:

Red Lake (Green)
Lincoln (Gold)
Lyon (Lime)
Cottonwood (Blue)
Freeborn (Gold)
The near-outliers areL
Murray
Le Seuer.

[jimrtex]

In 1900, Minneapolis had a population of 202,718; which represented 88.8% of Hennepin County.  Over the next few decades, this percentage increased as the city grew and the rural farming area remained stagnant.  As the first suburban growth began with increased access to automobiles, the percentage began to decline.

Minneapolis was the 19th largest US city, having dropped one place after being surpassed by Jersey City and Louisville, but gaining a place due to the merging of Brooklyn into New York.  Minneapolis had 11.6% of the state population.  Minneapolis and St.Paul were closer to being twins, with Minneapolis having only 24% more population.  Had the two cities merged, as Pittsburgh and Allegheny were about to be, Minneapaulis would have been the 8th largest city after New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, St.Louis, Boston, Baltimore, and Cleveland.

Minneapolis population was distributed as:

Foreign born: 30.2%
Native of foreign parentage: 38.9%
Native of native parentage: 30.2%
Black 0.76%
Indian 0.02%
Chinese 0.01%

Of the native population, born in state:

Minnesota 58.6%
Wisconsin 8.6%
New York 5.8%
Iowa 4.2%
Illinois 3.7%
Ohio 2.5%
Maine 2.4%
Pennsylvania 2.2%
Michigan 2.0%
Massachusetts 1.3%

Those born in Minnesota and Wisconsin were more likely to be of foreign parents, while from the other states, native parents.

Of the foreign born, country of birth:

Sweden 33%
Norway 19%
Germany 12%
Canada (English) 9%
Ireland 5%
England 4%
Russia 3%
Canada (French) 3%
Denmark 2%
Austria 2%

For countries like Germany and Ireland, their share of the foreign born will decrease over the the following decades as they arrived earlier, and will die earlier.  Some eastern European countries will increase their share, leaving those from Sweden and Norway with about the same share, even as their numbers begin to decline.

[jimrtex]

By 1910, the population of Minneapolis had increased to 301,408, a 49% increase since 1900.  The 14.5% of the state population.  Minneapolis now had 90.4% of the Hennepin county population, with 99,000 of the 105,000 growth in the county population occurring within the city.  Villages such as Edina, West Minneapolis (now Hopkins), Richfield, and Crystal had begun to incorporate, with just a thousand or two, each.

Minneapolis was the 18th largest city, regaining two spots from Louisville and Jersey City, but falling behind Los Angeles.  Minneapolis grew faster than St.Paul, and was becoming decisively larger, 40% more in 1910.  If the two cities were merged, they would have been 9th largest, losing a spot to the amalgamation of Pittsburgh+Allegheny.

Minneapolis population was distributed as:

Foreign born: 28.5%
Native of foreign parentage: 38.7%
Native of native parentage: 31.9%
Black 0.86%
Chinese 0.03%
Japanese 0.01%

There was a small decrease in the foreign-born share of the population, though it increased by 41% during the decade.  The number of Swedish-born increased by 32%, while the number of Norwegian-born increased by 42%.  This may include both immigrants from Europe, as well as secondary migration.  A child who was born in Sweden, who immigrated with his or her parent at age 3, would still be counted as "foreign-born" when they moved to Minneapolis.

The only large group to decline in numbers was the Irish, as they declined by 11%.  By 1910, foreign-born Irish represented only 21% of the Irish foreign-stock (1st and 2nd generation Irish-Minneapolitans).  The comparable shares for Sweden and Norway are 50% and 48%, respectively.

There was a substantial increase in the number of foreign-born from eastern Europe, particularly Poland and Russia.  Unfortunately, the 1910 Census did not report numbers from Poland, other than among language speakers.  This likely resulted in a sharp increase of "Austrian-born", and helped maintained the "German-born" population.

The distribution of the Foreign Born by place of birth:

Sweden 31%
Norway 19%
Germany 10% (likely includes Poles)
Austria 7% (includes Poles and Czechs)
Canada (Other) 7%
Russia 7% (likely includes Poles)
Ireland 3%
England 3%
Denmark 2%
Canada (French) 2%

Among native born with both parents born in the same foreign country:

Sweden 26%
Germany 17%
Norway 17%
Ireland 8%
Austria 5%
Russia 4%
Canada-Other 3%
Canada-French 2%
England 2%
Denmark 2%

Minnesota had 8 cities with more than 10,000 persons, with the following distribution of the foreign born among the others:

St. Paul (20.3% foreign born): Germany 25%, Sweden 20%, Russia 8%, Ireland 7%, Norway 7%, Austria 7%, Canada-Other 6%.

Duluth (39.1%): Sweden 24%, Norway 16%, Canada-Other 14%, Finland 9%, Germany 8%, Russia 6%.

Winona (20.8%): Germany 71%, no other country exceeded 5%.

St.Cloud (19.1%): Germany 43%, Sweden 21%, Canada-Other 6%.

Mankato (20.0%): Germany 47%, Sweden 17%, Norway 9%, Austria 5%.

Stillwater (27.2%): Sweden 30%, Germany 26%, Norway 6%,

Virginia (51.0%): Finland 36%, Sweden 13%, Austria 12%, Norway 9%, Canada-Other 6%, Italy 6%.

[jimrtex]

1910, the state of birth of the native born population was as follows:

Minneapolis

(1) Minnesota 60.7%
(2) Wisconsin 9.3%
(3) Iowa 4.7%
(4) Illinois 3.9%
(5) New York 3.9%
(6) Ohio 2.1%
(7) Michigan 2.0%
(8) Pennsylvania 1.7%
(9) Maine 1.3%
(10) Indiana 1.1%
Massachusetts 0.9%
North Dakota 0.8%
Missouri 0.8%
South Dakota 0.8%

The percentage of Minnesotans increased from 58.6% to 60.7%.  Neighboring states saw an increase, while states from Ohio eastward showed a drop, particularly in the Northeast.  Maine dropped from 2.4% to 1.3%, New York 5.8% to 3.9%, Massachusetts 1.3% to 0.9%.  Indiana entered the top 10 as Massachusetts dropped.

Comparable numbers for St. Paul:

(1) Minnesota 67.9%
(2) Wisconsin 7.8%
(3) Iowa 3.7%
(4) Illinois 3.4%
(5) New York 3.3%
(6) Ohio 1.9%
(7) Michigan 1.5%
(8) Pennsylvania 1.4%
(9) Indiana 1.0%
(10) Missouri 0.9%
Massachusetts 0.8%
North Dakota 0.6%
South Dakota 0.5%
Maine 0.5%

Slower growing St.Paul saw more of its growth from internal births (in Minnesota), and fewer persons migrating to the city.  The slightly higher relative contribution from places like Wisconsin and Missouri likely reflects the stronger German and Irish element in St.Paul,

For Minnesota as a whole:

(1) Minnesota 73.%
(2) Wisconsin 6.3%
(3) Iowa 4.4%
(4) Illinois 3.0%
(5) New York 2.3%
(6) Michigan 1.7%
(7) Ohio 1.2%
(8) Pennsylvania 1.1%
(9) North Dakota 0.8%
(10) Indiana 0.8%
South Dakota 0.7%
Maine 0.5%
Missouri 0.4%
Massachusetts 0.5%

The rural areas were largely developed 50 years after the frontier reached Minnesota, and 20 years since the northwest became 6 new states from the Dakota's to Washington.  There was simply no reason to migrate to rural Minnesota (in 1910, Winona with 18,000 persons was the 4th most populous city after Minneapolis, St.Paul, and Duluth).  The relative strength of Michigan to Ohio, compared to that in Twin Cities is because the highest growth in Minnesota outside the Twin Cities was in the northeast, which were relatively easy to reach via the Great Lakes, and whose winters were not that much worse than those in Michigan.