USA Metropolitanization by Race: White Ruralism Lives On

Recent posts and discussions by Jehu and Steve Sailer inspired me to look into the Census-2010 data on the level of “metropolitanization” by race in the USA (i.e., how rate at which each group lives in a metro area).

What I find: In 2010, 167 million people lived in one of the 51 ‘metropolitan statistical areas’ that had over one million residents. There was a total USA population of 309 million, meaning that ‘large metropolitan area dwellers’ (1-million+) were 54% of the USA population.

Racial Disparity
68.5% of Nonwhite residents of the USA live in metropolitan areas with over one million inhabitants. Only 45.7% of Whites live in such large metro areas.

Detailed tables with this information separately for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American-Indians follow. I extracted the data from Census 2010. (The final column shows what percentage of the given racial group’s national population lives in a metropolitan area of that size.) Analysis and commentary follows below. Comments are invited.

Whites . . .
Size of Metro
# of Metros # of Whites
% of Race’s Total Pop.
In This Size Metro
5-million+ 9 33.4 million 17.0%
2-million+ 29 70.0 million 35.6%
1-million+ 51 90.0 million 45.7%
500,000+ 102 112.7 million 57.3%
250,000+ 184 132.4 million 67.3%
50,000+ 366 152.4 million 77.4%
Rural (<50k) 44.4 million 22.6%
All 196.8 million 100%


Blacks . . .
Size of Metro
# of Metros .
# of Blacks
% of Race’s Total Pop.
In This Size Metro
5-million+ 9 13.5 million 34.6%
2-million+ 29 19.9 million 51.0%
1-million+ 51 25.2 million 64.8%
500,000+ 102 29.0 million 74.4%
250,000+ 184 32.0 million 82.3%
50,000+ 366 34.7 million 89.1%
Rural (<50k) 4.2 million 10.9%
All 38.9 million 100%

Data for Hispanics, Asians, and American-Indians follows, as does analysis and commentary .

Hispanics . . .
Size of Metro
# of Metros .
# of Hispanics
% of Group’s Total Pop.
In This Size Metro
5-million+ 9 19.9 million 39.5%
2-million+ 29 30.1 million 59.6%
1-million+ 51 33.7 million 66.7%
500,000+ 102 39.9 million 79.0%
250,000+ 184 43.9 million 87.0%
50,000+ 366 46.7 million 92.5%
Rural (<50k) 3.8 million 7.5%
All 50.5 million 100%


Asians . . .
Size of Metro
# of Metros .
# of Asians
% of Race’s Total Pop.
In This Size Metro
5-million+ 9 6.2 million 42.3%
2-million+ 29 10.0 million 68.2%
1-million+ 51 11.6 million 78.8%
500,000+ 102 13.0 million 88.3%
250,000+ 184 13.7 million 93.5%
50,000+ 366 14.2 million 96.7%
Rural (<50k) 0.5 million 3.2%
All 14.7 million 100%


Am.-Indian . . .
Size of Metro
# of Metros .
# Am-Indians
% of Race’s Total Pop.
In This Size Metro
5-million+ 9 0.4 million 12.8%
2-million+ 29 0.8 million 27.2%
1-million+ 51 1.0 million 33.9%
500,000+ 102 1.3 million 45.1%
250,000+ 184 1.6 million 53.3%
50,000+ 366 1.9 million 64.5%
Rural (<50k) 1.0 million 35.5%
All 2.9 million 100%

— Whites are the only major racial group that is not near-totally-urbanized. A respectable share of American-Whites (22.6%) live in communities of less than 50,000 people.

— Blacks and Hispanics are thoroughly urbanized groups in today’s USA. Hispanics, especially, have a negligble presence in Rural-America, with only 7.5% (3.8 million) of them living in communities of less-than-50,000. I’d presume that most of these are concentrated in the Southwest.

— There are now an equal number of Blacks/Hispanics as Whites in the USA’s nine 5-million+ ‘megalopolises‘ — NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Washington, Miami, Atlanta. Combined, these megalopolises are home to 33.4 million Blacks/Hispanics and 33.5 million Whites. Among young megalopolis-dwellers, Whites are certainly already a minority.

Asians are the most urbanized group in the USA, which follows what we would expect from the densities with which they seem to be comfortable in their own societies. A negligible 500,000 Asians (3.2% of their national population) live outside a 50,000-person metro area. I suspect that a large share of these 500,000 may be either foreign college students in smaller college towns or “GI-bridges”. The remainder may live in a smattering of communities in the far west. The actual ‘organized Asian’ presence in Rural-America, outside the west coast, is likely all-but Zero.

— American-Indians are the most rural racial group, with nearly half living in communities of less than 250,000. I presume this reflects the reservation system. Some Internet sources claim that 800,000 Indians now live on reservations, which would make sense given this data.

To live in an urbanized region teeming with millions of people can be psychologically distressing, in certain ways — especially when those millions are of diverse ethnic-cultural-linguistic-religious origins. (Thus, ‘Bowling Alone’). Trust declines, civic activity declines. The feeling of special connection and pride in the region from which you come, your ‘Heimat’ feeling (as the Germans say), is unable to properly develop. And how can anyone, or any group, know where it is going if it does not know from whence it comes?

From Yeoman to Metropolitan
The American, historically, had always set himself apart from his cousin in Europe, even from his closest of ethnoreligious kin back on the old continent, in large part because Europe was so long-settled, so densely-populated, often (and consequently) with few opportunities. North-America was different.

After brushing aside the Indian, the early American inherited a vast and empty domain, which he began to settle, and imbue with a rural-soul. There was so much land, good land, in North-America that the early American could never even imagine it ever becoming as densely-populated as Europe.

In the colonial days of the 1600s and 1700s, and in the ‘Westward March’ days of the 1800s, American population density was minimal. Those who so-desired could always move on, to the empty frontier, to settle the vast stretches of empty land. A place like Iowa saw its first permanent white settlers only in the 1820s. The solid majority of Americans still lived on farms when Lincoln was elected. (I suspect this knowledge is part of the drive behind Civil War interest, it is follk-nostalgia for the time when Americans were a rural-spirited, true nation [or nations, if you are a partisan of the CSA]).

To understand the USA — at least the historical USA, as well as the ‘Tea Party‘ and other implicitly-White social-political movements of today — one must understand the rural-nature of American Civilization. The frontier mentality is part of this, but not its entirety. For centuries, the American had been busy-at-work creating this rural civilization. The frontier ‘closed’ in the late 1800s, but lingered on in a sense through the WWI era or later (My own great-grandfather took Uncle Sam up on the offer of free land in the western USA still on offer in the 1910s, though ended up not staying out west very long). Echoes of frontierism were able to be seen in the Dust Bowl migrations of the 1930s. It’s true that urbanization started to weaken the rural character of the USA in the early 20th century, but on through the mid to late 1900s, most non-Ellis-Islander Whites still had at least some kind of memory or folk-memory of living ‘on the farm’, even if vicariously-so through parents or grandparents.

If you accept my premises, we can say that the USA was a rural-based society. The fact is, though, that most Americans now live in a metro area of over one million people. Does this imply that the USA, as we knew it or as we imagine(d) it, has passed away?

Most children coming of age in the USA today — the vast majority of Nonwhites, and a good share of the Whites — have lost the folk-connection to the land that is so important to traditional American culture. Most now live in large metropolitan areas, in whose schools they are trained to idolize Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, and so on. Few schoolchildren today know Nathaniel Greene, Daniel Morgan, John Paul Jones, John Dickinson, Richard Henry Lee, John Rutledge, or other early-American patriots. Instead, they perform skits about a truly marginal figure named Harriet Tubman.

Thus, the USA has morphed from its original Rural-Folk-Democracy (we could even say ‘Rural Voelkisch Democracy’) into an ugly mutant creature we could call Metropolitan-Multicultacracy. Perhaps, too, the USA has become another Europe: a densely-populated, pessmistic place burdened by internal problems.

‘Middle-American’ Revival and Dr. Sam Francis
Census-2010’s data on metropolitanization by race, outlined above, shows us that Whites are still the only group of importance in Rural-America. If we discount reservations and certain border areas, the Rural-USA (defined here as all communities of under 50,000 outside metropolitan areas) is well over 90%-white.

This reminds me of the political theories of Dr. Sam Francis (d.2005). He was an American syndicated columnist whose radical-voelkisch sympathies lost him his job at the Washington-Times, and gradually lost him all his patrons in the 1990s and early 2000s, as pro-Multicultacracy enforcer groups pressured paper after paper to drop him. I believe his column was dropped by the last newspaper that was still running it in 2004, when he criticized a Superbowl ad in which a Black athlete embraced a White woman with obvious sexual overtones. He published receptive audience at until his death.

In any case, Dr.Francis’ grand idea was that an American ‘voelkisch revival’ would inevitably occur through the agent of what he called the ‘Middle-American Radical’, by which he meant persons drawn from the bottom rows of the ‘White’ table above, either in fact or in spirit (i.e., [a] those living outside metropolises, and [b] To a certain extent, those who think of themselves as rural-in-spirit, regardless of the size of their present community of residence). Middle-American Whites’ racialist sympathies would lead them to eventually reject the USA’s current ruling system, the Multicultacracy (and its de rigueur anti-white discrimination), itself, in Dr.Francis’ estimation. I see that Pat Buchanan has apropriated the term in his article from 2009: ‘Middle American Radicals’, and prominent conservative commentator Lawrence Auster has similar ideas as myself, in his piece “MARS Rising?“, pointing to the Tea Party.

What would Middle-American Radicalism look like, politically? Is the Tea Party a true ‘MARS’ phenomenon? The Ron Paul candidacy?


Data is from the Census Bureau’s 2010 “Table 23: Metropolitan Statistical Areas–Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin”. There is no data for Black non-Hispanics, with Black-Hispanics being counted as part of the Black group, so there is marginal overlap between the Black and Hispanic categories.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to USA Metropolitanization by Race: White Ruralism Lives On

  1. Justin says:

    Thank you for this analysis, very informative. I was surprised by the low rural number for hispanics. I assumed they would have a greater representation among America’s farming communities. Perhaps that is only the case in California.

    • Hail says:

      You may be right that it is a California-centric phenomenon.

      There are two other points that come to my mind:
      (1) When we think of Hispanics and farming in the USA, we think of illegal fruit pickers, right? How many of them are there, actually? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 2.14 million Americans employed in “Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting” in 2010. Even if we say 9-in-10 of them are Hispanics, a very generous estimate, that’s not much over 5% of the US-Hispanic labor pool.

      (2) Some farming communities are counted as parts of certain metro areas. For example Metropolitan Fresno includes Madera County, which includes some farming areas. Madera has been known to actively attract illegal farm workers from Mexico for decades, now. Fresno has been home to large numbers of Hispanics for a long time, so it was easy for them to come in. It is a lot harder for illegal Mexicans to set up in a place like, say, rural Idaho, to do illegal farmwork there.

  2. Pingback: Randoms of the day « Foseti

  3. Fr. John+ says:

    Clearly, the call of preppers to be living rural, agriculturally-minded, self-sufficient, owing your own acreage, and all of it as far away from the ‘horde,’ is totally justified by this article.

    Thank God I already have my ‘retreat’ in a 94% white, small-town area in my state, in a county that is also over 95% white, far from the megacrapolopolis of diversity.

    Come the day the EBT dies, it is people like us who will outlive the rest. Deo Volente.
    And I long for that day.

  4. uh says:

    “Clearly, the call of preppers to be living rural, agriculturally-minded, self-sufficient, owing your own acreage, and all of it as far away from the ‘horde,’ is totally justified by this article.”

    Well said.

    Cut off their tacos and grape Swishers for a week, they’ll consume each other in the next.

  5. Pingback: The USA’s Large Metro Areas, by Level of ‘Whiteness’ | Hail To You

  6. Pingback: Blackest Metro Areas (USA) | Hail To You

  7. Hail says:

    At Steve Sailer, I posted the following — with reference to the information in this post — in response to the assertion that only 64% of the USA population is now “White non-Hispanic”.

    Hail wrote:
    It is only the large metro areas that are becoming multiracial. Rural areas are still heavily white.
    — Cumulatively, in the USA’s communities of <50,000 people ("rural"), for every 10 Whites there are only one or two Blacks+Hispanics+Asians.
    — In metro areas of 5-million-plus, for every 10 Whites there are 12 B+H+A's.

    — 67% of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians live in a metro of 1-million+
    — 45% of Whites live in a metro area of 1-million+.

    • Hail says:

      A commenter named S.Anonyia replies, and claims that his non-urban area is becoming “envibrancy-ied”.

      When I was a child my home county was something like 90 percent white, 10 percent black with a few Asians scattered around, maybe 1 kid in every kindergarten class. Now…I go to wal-mart and it’s like being in a world market bazaar because 20 something percent of the people there aren’t even speaking English

      I suspect that this person may be in a metro area, albeit an outlying area of one. Metro areas are large, and do include areas that can be seen as semi-rural, and as the multicultural-sprawl expands, it imposes diverse-vibrancy upon those areas. Especially his comment about “a few Asians”: The statistics bear out the fact that only 3% of all Asians in the USA live in rural non-metropolitan communities of under 50,000… vs. 22.6% of Whites.

    • John M. says:

      One other thing we should note is that “Hispanic” is a catch-all that can refer to hugely disparate groups of people. Many Hispanic Americans are culturally, for all intents and purposes, white. Intermarriage between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics is quite high and while the children of such marriages are theoretically “minorities,” they are generally perfectly white in culture.

  8. Pingback: How Many U.S. Whites Live Around Blacks? (Or, Why Obama Won in ’08) | Hail To You

  9. Hail says:

    Some discussion of the MARS phenomenon is at the blog Chariot of Reaction, whose quality of commentary never ceases to impress me:

    Sam Francis called the political element of the rural or rural-minded White population “MARs”, Middle-American Radicals. Francis predicted they would rise up, and — in a kind of political revolution — reject the Multicultacracy. Francis was partly borne out by the emergence of the Tea Party, I’d say, and what’s in store for the 2010s none of us can yet say.

    One problem is that ‘Middle America’ suffered a serious brain drain in the 20th century. The more-talented tended to leave their home-regions to resettle in metropolitan areas. The less-talented and less-dynamic stayed home. They are certainly still (in my experience) good people, but do they have the wherewithal to be initiative-taking political leaders, much less revolutionaries (or ‘reactionaries’, as it were)? We saw the radical edge of the early Tea Party fall apart, be coopted, and essentially turn into a shocktoop for FoxNews.

    Spandrell wrote:
    It’s a bad strategy you got when you have to ally yourselves with the left half of the Bell Curve. It can’t work. The Left is way more used to us to using mobs for their purposes.

    Jehu wrote:
    To paraphrase a recent Secretary of Defense, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. …

    The MARS strategy can work—efforts like the Tea Party aren’t valuable so much in terms of what they accomplish but in terms of how much they stoke the anger of the MARS. When boiling temperature is reached you’ve got a bonafide prerevolutionary condition and all sorts of things unthinkable get placed on the table. When some public official (probably someone in the TSA or the like) gets beaten or shot by an angry man (or men), and the jury acquits with obvious nullification, you’re almost there. When the MARS consider who…whom on every political question, you are there.

    nydwracu wrote:
    One problem: revolutions take time, and MARs are dying out. Their offspring are becoming either SWPLs, thanks to the power of the internet to detach culture from place and thereby facilitate the expansion of the culture in power, or drug-addicted losers of the sort Jim Goad wrote about. Take Carroll County: they openly refuse, on demographic grounds, to allow public transportation to be run out there from Baltimore, but two of the high schools in Westminster got into a fight over which one could claim the title of Meth High.

  10. Pingback: Ron Paul Remembers | Hail To You

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s