Florida’s Demographic Transformation, 1960-2010

St. Augustine, Florida in the 1960s

St. Augustine, Florida in the 1960s

Florida

In 1960, there were only 4,951,560 people in Florida.

4,063,861 people in Florida, or 82 percent of the state’s population, were White. The remaining 887,679 people were non-White.

Of the non-Whites, 880,186 were black and 7,493 were Asian or other. Even in Miami-Dade County, non-Hispanic Whites were still around 80 percent of the population in 1960.

Outside of Miami-Dade County, which had 50,000 Hispanics in 1960, the largest foreign-born group in Florida in the Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa-St.Petersburg, and Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood metropolitan areas were Canadians.

florida-new-york

By 2013, there were around 19,317,568 people in Florida, which is poised to soon overtake New York as America’s third largest state.

11,011,013 people in Florida, or 57 percent of the state’s population, were White. The remaining 6,374,797 people were non-White. Of the non-Whites, 3,206,716 were black, 4,481,675 were Hispanic, and 521,574 were Asian. In Miami-Dade County, non-Hispanic Whites had fallen to 11.9 percent of the population.

Among the non-Whites and non-Christians in Florida, this includes:

- 655,000 Jews
- 720,000 to 825,000 Illegal Aliens
- 128,735 Asian Indians
- 13,224 Japanese
- 72,248 Chinese
- 90,223 Filipinos
- 26,205 Koreans
- 58,470 Vietnamese
- 65,716 “Other Asians”
- 60,000 African immigrants
- 376,000 Haitians
- 120,000 Jamaicans
- 300,000 Colombians
- 84,000 Mayan Indians
- 107,000 Hondurans
- 102,000 Venezuelans
- 101,000 Peruvians
- 624,718 Mexicans
- 847,550 Puerto Ricans
- 1,213,100 Cubans
- 1,533,100 “Other Hispanics”

In 2013, around 70.1 percent of the people who live in Florida were born out-of-state. From 1960 to 2010, the foreign born population in Florida has skyrocketed from 5.5 percent to 19.2 percent. Among this sea of foreigners and transplants, Southern Whites have been reduced to a minority outside of North Florida.

Florida represents the most extreme case of “Southern Demographic Displacement.” In the next few months, we will explore how this came about.

Note: These statistics are partially drawn from the chapter “Immigration and Ethnicity in Florida History” in Michael Gannon’s The History of Florida.

This entry was posted in American South, Diversity, Dixie, Florida, Hispanics, History, Immigration, Multiculturalism, Race Relations and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Florida’s Demographic Transformation, 1960-2010

  1. Sellout Avenger says:

    Looks pretty White to me. Streets clean, buildings well maintained, cars stylish, people well dressed.

    Anti-Whites like PGRT prefer their cities unWhite. Which means dirty, dysfunctional, busted and flat broke.

  2. Kramer says:

    Florida was one of the best place to live when it was mostly white. There are still many good white people here. But the number of non-whites here is disgusting! I remember when I was young I drove through Miami with my family on our way to vacation at Key West, and thinking wow there sure are alot of brown people here, good thing I live in Tampa. Well, unfortunately Tampa is now brown in most of the places.

  3. Fr. John+ says:

    I had no idea it was THAT bad.

    Truly, for a self-governing South, that need not worry about its southern border, Florida either needs to be ‘ethnically cleansed’ (let’s just take our example from the Israelis, as the [cough] ‘chosen people’ of God, shall we?) or ‘sunk back into the ocean’, a la West Side Story.

  4. DixieGirl says:

    I do really think it would be helpful to see the protestant versus catholic statistics (if you could ever even find them; it’s REALLY hard and they are really buried, it seems).

    Before 1960, I would bet those Whites were ALSO mostly northwest european prods. The influx (just like las vegas, or central nc, nova, etc) of northeast “immigrant” populations prefigured the “immigrants” from latin countries.

    To obscure this reality hides the Genocidal movement of “land clearings,” ethnic cleansing, and so on.

    To clear out EVEN the northwest euro protestants in a policy-oriented manner is Genocide. The “latinization” (even if white) is Genocide.

    So, why are such statistics so buried?

  5. Some of these Hispanics are actually White. However, I still don’t support replacing Southerners with any one – even other Whites (be they Northerners or White Hispanics). It is wrong to replace us.

    http://southernnationalist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/014.jpg

  6. Mighty says:

    I was born in Miami-Dade and in just my lifetime, the demographic shift has been rapid. My dad tells me that when he was a kid it was all “American;” of course, he uses that word as a euphemism for White. My parents just purchased property in N. Florida, about 45 min NE from Panama City Beach right off I-10, they’ve had enough of all the degeneracy diversity has wrought. The house I grew up in is now for sale, and from what I’ve been told, there has been not one White person to look at the property, mostly Mexicans and a couple Africans.

    I’m writing this from Miami-Dade and I can tell you this place is lost. It is the South’s future should current trends continue. I really don’t think it’d be productive to start a LOS chapter in Miami.

    Perhaps if the LOS wants to go on a safari, they can visit Miami-Dade with the intention of producing a propaganda video that shows Southerners what, exactly, the future has in store.

    Of the ~1.2 million Cubans, a lot of them are White and I can tell you from experience they have a revulsion toward Negros and other non-Whites. They definitely don’t want their daughters or sisters dating with them, especially blacks. Most White Cubans are far more racially conscious than their Anglo counterparts, though, admittedly, they have no cultural connection to the South or its history.

    I would have guessed Haitians were a larger demographic than Jamaicans, they certainly seem much more prevalent.

  7. Earl Butz says:

    Castro conquered Florida for Cuba without firing a shot. Long after Castro is dead & buried Florida will still be Cuban.

  8. Snowhitey says:

    I am beginning to believe the black population is much higher than the 13% that is being published. Whether you go north or south, east or west, urban or rural….. there they are. And, lots of em.

    I live in North Florida and it is going darker and darker each year. Another unforeseen consequence of the Obama election? Not unforeseen to us on OD. For me, going international is looker better and better with each passing each day.

    Doesn’t Argentina have an area that is mostly inhabited by the descendants of Confederates?

  9. Snowhitey says:

    Guess it was Brazil:

    www[dot]youtube[dot]com/watch?v=9l5ILYQAC1I

  10. Snowhitey says:

    You can’t get more real than this:

    www[dot]youtube[dot]com/watch?v=s6jSqt39vFM

  11. Mosin Nagant says:

    ‘Castro conquered Florida for Cuba without firing a shot. Long after Castro is dead & buried Florida will still be Cuban’

    Well said, Earl.

    Also: It began as multiracial ‘La’ Florida, and so it ends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Elena,_la_Florida

    But Fort ‘Matanzas’ (Slaughters) National Monument marks the slaughter of the very FIRST settlers, who were Protestant whites!

    Britain gave Havana, Cuba to Spain in exchange for La Florida, and then tried to give it back to Spain again after the American Revolution, but in the meantime MORE white Protestants had settled and taken control.

    Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

  12. Mosin Nagant says:

    If he were here, T. E. Watson would ‘get’ this:

    The ‘Consecration’ of La Florida: ‘I begged him to grant me the favor of sparing those whom we might find to be Christians. He granted it; and I made investigations, and found ten or twelve of the men Roman Catholics (…) All the others were executed, because they were Lutherans and enemies of our Holy Catholic faith’: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/spanishmassacre.htm

  13. Earl Butz says:

    @Snowhitey

    Yeah, the original Black Confederates. LOL. In reality the original mesrtizo-zambo Confederates. I actually knew one of the descendants of that group—-I wasn’t impressed. LOL. Like Hunter says, there probably were gay Confederates too.

    Yep. I thinks Blacks are undercounted. Not just in Florida.

  14. VA says:

    @Mosin Nagant -thanks for posting the link and the reference to the Matanzas massacre. The word ‘matanzas’ actually means massacre or bloodbath and those slaughtered were French Huguenots.

    As to the ‘White’ Cubans, there is more admixture there than many pro-Cubans want to admit. Castro himself is said to be a quadroon.

    Rubio and the other ‘conservative’ Cuban members of Congress (Ros-Lehtinen, Diaz-Balart, et al) are notoriously liberal on immigration, because they (White or not) tend to identify with other Spanish speakers much more than with old-stock Americans.
    -VA

  15. Mosin Nagant says:

    @’VA’ (Vanishing American): I just noticed this excellent article http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2013/12/skewed-morality.html on your linked blog (off topic here, but relevant to the ‘Why Women Reject’ thread that is currently active). In fact, I see many good posts. Very good blog, ‘VA’!

  16. Rudel says:

    “Looks pretty White to me. Streets clean, buildings well maintained, cars stylish, people well dressed.”

    Redneck stylish maybe. That ’55 Chevy station wagon has mismatched paint on the front left fender and rusted out rocker panels.

  17. Rudel says:

    “But Fort ‘Matanzas’ (Slaughters) National Monument marks the slaughter of the very FIRST settlers, who were Protestant whites!”

    No they weren’t. The first White settlement in Florida was by Spanish settlers in 1559 at Pensacola after its discovery by Ponce de Leon in 1513. Five years before the Huguenot settlement at Ft. Caroline in 1664.

    BTW, what is your religion Mosin. You say you are neither Catholic nor Protestant. For someone who goes on and on and on about the Christian religion you seem a bit ludicrous by not naming yours. If you deny being a Welsh Baptist then what? I think you are a Quaker.

    Stop posting if you refuse to ‘fess up.

  18. Mosin Nagant says:

    Thanks, Rudel. Instead of ‘the first settlers’, I should have written: ‘the first white settlers on the Atlantic coast of Florida’. Spanish Pensacola, on other (Gulf) coast, which lasted two years from 1559 to 1561, is called ‘the forgotten settlement’.

    Rudel, it is NOT impossible to be neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. Many churches and denominations remain outside those camps. Not only Quakers but also Mennonites, and even Independent Baptists say: ‘Independent Baptists are neither Catholic nor Protestant’. Nor is it a position of compromise or neutrality.

    Biblical churches/congregations don’t need to take or make proud, special names (Genesis 11:4: ‘come let us make a name for ourselves’) to be conformed to the world for which ‘Christian’ is just too simple! Distinguishing names are generally applied by outsiders, and many finally ‘stick’, but the churches themselves didn’t originate them.

  19. Mosin Nagant says:

    I forgot to add to the list: The Orthodox, who are neither RC nor Protestant, and came BEFORE the RC and Protestants.

  20. Rudel says:

    “I forgot to add to the list: The Orthodox, who are neither RC nor Protestant, and came BEFORE the RC and Protestants.”

    That’s simply not true. Constantine became the sole and undisputed ruler of the entire Roman Empire in 325 and convened the First Council of Nicaea the same year. I would call the Church before this the “early” Church and afterwards the Roman Church. Just because Constantine preferred to rule from his new city he was still the ruler of the entire Roman Empire. It was officially named the state religion of the Empire in 380.

    The Orthodox Church really didn’t come into its own until the 11th century. Fr. John can now proceed to go batshit over my statements.

  21. Mosin Nagant says:

    I stand by my assertion, Rudel. The popes or bishops of Rome were not superiours but only the equals of the popes or bishops of other great cities such as Carthage, Antioch and Alexandria, until LONG AFTER the time of Constantine. The church in Britain was orthodox before it became Roman, and orthodoxy was not extinguished in Wales until the ninth century. Fr John could inform us more fully.

  22. Stephen E Dalton says:

    This is nonsense, concerning the so-called presence the Eastern Orthodox Church in Britain. The history of the British church shows no trace of the Eastern church there. All of the contacts the ancient British (and later, the Anglo-Saxons) had with Christianity were Roman. Since Britain was a part of the Roman Empire, it makes sense that any missionary work would come from Roman sources. To claim ancient Britain was an Orthodox country fly’s in the face of all known British history. For some real history, go to http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/celtic-coptic-anglicans-a-modern-myth-to-dodge-the-authority-of-rome The archeological and historical accounts completely demolishes the Britain was Orthodox idea.

  23. Rudel says:

    Then your just playing semantic games Mosin if you want to characterize the Church in Western Europe during the middle ages as not Roman Catholic. Call it what you will, but the theory of the primacy of the bishop of Rome through apostolic succession was politically formalized starting in 380 but Papal infallibility was not formally declared until the 19th Century! As for Orthodoxy, it was the eastern sees that were always hotbeds of the Arian heresy.

    If the folks who built Notre Dame and Chartres were not Roman Catholic then call the Flying Spaghetti Monsters if you’d like but nobody else does.

    BTW, jus what exactly is the name and especially the theology of your church Mosin? Until you come clean your credibility is nil. You go on and on and on and on about how only a full scale return to Christianity can save the West but you always weasel out of defining what you mean. Given your statements about belonging to some ur-Christian sect that is neither fish nor fowl I still believe you are a member of some tiny schismatic cult of Welsh Baptists or are even a Quaker.

    Do you honor the Nicene Creed? Do your preachers even study at divinity school? Are they even ordained? Quit hiding behind generalities.

  24. Mosin Nagant says:

    Rudel, your own position is not credible, since you deny the resurrection and Deity of Jesus, calling it ‘an Iron Age myth’.

    Re: ‘if you want to characterize the Church in Western Europe during the middle ages as not Roman Catholic’:

    The dates I gave in my preceeding comment (orthodoxy lingering in parts of Britain up to the ninth century) were not Middle Ages but Dark Ages! I did not use the term ‘EASTERN orthodoxy’ either. Only ‘orthodoxy’. You are playing semantic games.

    The cited RC propaganda article in another comment ridicules the theory that ancient Britain could have been evangelised by other than by emissaries of the church/es in Rome itself.

    The cited RC propaganda article also ridicules ‘eccentric forms of Christianity’ (technically, they are NOT Christianity at all, according to strictest RC dogma) such as ‘Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism’. Quote: ‘A brief search reveals over seventy-five independent Anglican churches and innumerable Eastern Orthodox derivations. They all have their eparchs and archbishops, their patriarchs and bishops and archdeacons, their synods and their councils. They rarely have more than a handful of congregations’! Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are not like the TRUE (Roman) church that is dominant WORLDWIDE, and boasts greater numbers and wealth than ALL the ‘eccentric forms’ combined!

    What else would we expect the RC to say about ancient orthodoxy in Britain? RC lies must never be allowed to go unchallenged. Romanism was imposed by force on our British ancestors.

  25. Mosin Nagant says:

    ‘the theory of the primacy of the bishop of Rome through apostolic succession was politically formalized starting in 380′

    But it took centuries of violence and corruption to make the idea ‘accepted’ elsewhere. There is no evidence that Peter ever visited Rome, and the words of Jesus are twisted, extremely, by that interpretation. Might, and greater numbers and wealth, do not make RIGHT.

  26. Rudel says:

    “But it took centuries of violence and corruption to make the idea ‘accepted’ elsewhere.”

    The Roman Empire at the time was pretty much “everywhere.”

    And who said anything about all of this being “right?” LOL!

  27. This article has nothing to do with theology.

  28. Rudel says:

    “Rudel, your own position is not credible, since you deny the resurrection and Deity of Jesus, calling it ‘an Iron Age myth’.”

    I don’t deal in myths but in generally accepted historical facts. And I’m fully cognizant of the fact that Roman Legions subdued most of the Island of Great Britain by force of arms. And also that the first evangelists in Britain were probably sent there by Pope Eleuterus circa 180 AD. They were suppressed by the Romans until the age of Constantine. I think a single artifact from Roman times with a Christian symbol on it has been found by archeologists in Wales but I don’t think it stems from that early on.

    And AGAIN – the Roman Church was the more orthodox of the different Christian sees.

    BTW, the term “Dark Ages” has fallen out of use. The middle ages (n.b. plural) are generally considered to have lasted from the fall of Rome until the Renaissance. The Roman agricultural farms gradually transformed themselves into feudal estates under the control of the local immunes and milites who gradually transformed into sheriffs and knights.

    Your claim that one can not know European history without accepting the Resurrection as literally true is laughingly absurd. Stop posting drivel.

  29. Rudel says:

    And quit confusing my comments with Dalton’s.

  30. Stephen E Dalton says:

    “This article has nothing to do with theology”. Yeah, but unfortunately it doesn’t take long for a certain hobby horse rider to gallop through, and deposit some road apples.

    About 22 years ago, I went to Florida to visit a former friend of mine who has been active in the various racialist movements since his teens. He was just put on disability because of bad health. He was from Missouri, but the welfare people gave him housing in, get this, a black hood in Tampa, Florida. That place was really bad, but at least there wasn’t any shooting like there is today. In three days, I took him home to St. Louis, and, in spite of really pissing off the public aid folks, he got an apartment there, and only had to go back to Hell, er pardon, Tampa, to get his stuff. I’m willing to bet if he did that today, the minorityphiles that run the assistance programs today would throw him in jail.

  31. Rudel says:

    “This article has nothing to do with theology.”

    Then stop Mosin and Fr.John from posting historical falshoods. I never bring up religion unless it is germane to the subject at hand (which it occasionally is.) After all our White ancestors were apt to refer to Europe as Christendom and religious differences between the unlettered Scotch-Irish and the Cavalier planter class of Virginia were profound and strongly influenced the politics of the Colonial period as well as the early Republic and the Confederacy.

  32. I know.

    We’re not going to allow hobby horse riding anymore here.

  33. Lew says:

    I lived in Miami-Dade for years mostly near the Gables and Coconut Grove. I admire white Cubans, the older generations at least. Interesting enough, I was mistaken for Cuban pretty often, and my skin is as pale as snow.

  34. Captain John Charity Spring MA says:

    Constantinople and the Vikings.

    I think that Edgar Aetheling was brought up in the Hungarian Court. At that time you have a heavy Greek influence there. Hardrada was a Norwegian in Imperial service.

    The English refugees after 1066 seem to have landed in Constantinople in significant numbers. The Aetheling was last mentioned commandeering a mixed Genoese/English supply fleet at the Jaffa seige during the first crusade.

    Culturally these folk were in awe of Constantinople.

  35. Kramer says:

    @Lew…..I’m no expert on all that scientific racial stuff like DNA. However I agree there are “white” Cubans and I think they already know they are not considered a problem. The white Cubans I have met have adapted to the ways of the south and I would prefer to be around them than most of today’s so-called “americans”. I think the problem with Florida is the puerto ricans,blacks, and probably the biggest problem and most hideous danger is the white race traitors.

  36. Rudel says:

    “I was mistaken for Cuban pretty often, and my skin is as pale as snow.”

    It was that stingy brim straw hat they you wore at the all-night Cafe Cubana stand that fooled everyone Lew. ;-)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>