The 2010 Census numbers have been streaming out, and last week saw comprehensive race / ethnicity data released. The big news was that the Hispanic population grew 43 percent during George W. Bushâs decade of 2000-2010, to more than 50,000,000. Fifty million is a colossal number. That surpasses the population of the country of Spain and is about equal to England. But the Main Stream Media couldnât find much of interest to say about this phenomenon, other than to approvingly pass on the usual rote quotes of ethno-triumphalism from self-designated Latino Leaders. The MSMâs problem is that theyâve told us so many times before about the vibrantâif vagueâfuture ahead of us in a Hispanicized America that few outlets seemed able to even try to whip up much enthusiasm for this latest milestone. Nevertheless, there remains much to be said. For example: what is the impact on global carbon emissions of this vast transfer of population from low per capita emission Latin America to high emission USA? Of course, you arenât supposed to talk about stuff like that. But, then, what else is there left to talk about after all these years? The realization has slowly been sinking in that the long-heralded Latino cultural renaissance is turning out to be most evident in things like, oh, that Vin Diesel still has a career in Hollywood. Hispanic youths canât get enough of his Fast and Furious movies. Nevertheless, if even Latino young people arenât all that interested in Latinos, how can you expect the MSM to stay focused? Instead, they mostly wanted to talk about Census data on blacks. Granted, from a numerical standpoint, African-Americans are yesterdayâs news, but they are still vastly more fascinating per capita to opinion-moulders than are Latinos. For example, one piece of remarkable news is that the population of the Motor City dropped by 25 percent over the last ten years--the fastest collapse in American history of any major city not decimated by a natural disaster. In Detroit, which has had black mayors since 1974, the black population declined by 185,393 over the last ten years alone. In response, the New York Times ran an op-ed by Thomas J. Sugrue [Email him] on blaming the 2000-2010 catastrophe on, get this, white housing discrimination in the 1960s: âThe private sector played its part, too: loans and mortgages to minorities or for houses in racially mixed or black neighborhoods were deemed 'actuarially unsound,' too risky an investment for lenders and builders. Even after the antidiscrimination laws of the late 1960s, real estate brokers surreptitiously maintained the color line in housing through âsteeringâ â¦â Hey, Iâve got a great idea! Letâs have the federal government prod mortgage companies to lend more money to blacks in the Motor City. What could possibly go wrong? Meanwhile, a March 24 NY Times article, Many U.S. Blacks Moving to South, Reversing Trend by Sabrina Tavernise And Robert Gebeloff, reports on the main overall trend in black migration: heading South, back whence their forebears came. âThe five counties with the largest black populations in 2000 â Cook in Illinois, Los Angeles, Wayne in Michigan, Kings in New York and Philadelphia â all lost black population in the last decade. Among the 25 counties with the biggest increase in black population, three-quarters are in the South. â¦ " A few points are left vague in this article, naturally. The first is that the size of this black backwash isnât that really gigantic in an overall black population of 38.1 million: âThere are now more than one million black residents of the South who were born in the Northeast, a tenfold increase since 1970.â Yet you wouldnât expect black migration numbers to be immense because African-Americans donât move all that often. They tend to be homeboys, most comfortable on familiar turf. African cultures are frequently matrilocal, which works to keep people in one place. But the direction of the black migration is quite interesting.The second point left vague: black dominance of an urban area tends to eventually drive out not just whites, but blacks, too. Which, of course, is whatâs happening in Detroit. East St. Louis, Illinois is another, now almost-forgotten example. The population was 70,029 in the 1970 Census. By 1971, blacks had become numerous enough to elect a black mayor. The population is now 27,006. The third aspect glossed over in the article: blacks are leaving Blue State America for Red State America---at least in part because they prefer living in the kind of states dominated by Republicans. "Blacks who moved to the South were disproportionately young â 40 percent were adults ages 21 to 40, compared with 29 percent of the nonmigrant black population. One in four newcomers had a four-year college degree, compared to one in six of the black adults who had already lived in the South.â Tthe fundamental contradiction of contemporary Republican pro-business policiesâlow tax, low wage, low regulationâis that in places where they work well, they tend to draw in people who will vote against Republicans for racial reasons. This happens faster with Hispanics. But, as we can see here, it also happens with blacks, too. In contrast, the fundamental contradiction of Democratic policies is that they are too expensive to be affordable by populations that become highly black and/or Hispanic. For example, the fast-growing Atlanta region competes with the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex for the title of Capital of Red State America. Both have giant hub airports that are magnets for the kind of frequent flier homebuyers who are the backbone of Republican voters. In turn, both are highly attractive to minorities. The white population of Dallas County dropped 20 percent over the last ten years, while the black population grew 16 percent and the Hispanic population 37 percent. Nor is it a coincidence that portions of the suburban Atlanta area are also well on their way to becoming the Capital of Black America.