We have the historic ethnic breakdown from the regions to the voting district level. There is a definite pattern of ethnic breakdown consistency in these areas. If there is a population increase in a particular area, it will be unlikely that it will be an increase other than the breakdown of the ethnic groups who historically lived there.
Most mixed population do not self identify as Indian. They do not because historically they are not accepted and treated as "other" by the Indian community. Since the mixing will be predominantly Indian/Black the ethnic self identification will also most likely map to black voting patterns.
So if Region 3 increased does that mean that the Indian population increased, or that more non Indians have moved there from G/town.
What of Region 4. Those leaving Region 6 are going some where, and not all are leaving Guyana. The previous census showed indications that many moved to Region 4.
With the exception of Regions 8, 9, and 10, and to some degree Regions1, and 6, these regions are too ethnically diverse and the populations too mobile to use this as indications of anything.
Indeed some one mentioned that the African population is now 28%. Whereas in Guyana there is a specific notion of what an Indian, or even an Amerindian is, the same doesn't apply to Africans. Raphael Trotman will be seen as most as African, and yet he identifies as mixed. One might argue that Granger is more mixed than Trotman, and yet might consider himself to be black.
This is why I usually refer to the African/mixed voting blocs, and not attempting to separate the two. But having said that the mixed population is now much more internally diverse in attitudes about itself, towards Indians and Africans, and in terms of its political behavior than ever before.
The other issue which is emerging is that greater degree of cultural diversity within the Indian population. It is not predominantly the rural peasant based "Hindu", Bollywood identified population that it once was.
It now exists to an increasing degree on a cultural continuum and, face it, has now evolved into a creole population, albeit one with strong Indian roots, but also incorporating Afro creole, and "western" influences. So are douglas necessarily as excluded as they once were? I suspect that it depends on the particular family involved.
I did not see this. There is no evidence of massive variability of population demographics in guyana. If I see such I would worry as to data collecting error rather than an existing fact.
Cultural self identification is also very stable. They young may inter marry but their self concept is not mutable. It has to be stable for personal identity and a sense of being in the world.
Indians will always self identify and adopting the mores of others or even specific cultural drift does not abrade such self identification.
The records for the last election indicate very few failing to list an ethnic designation or to be not sure. The listing of mixed may be an imprecise category as to where on the ethnic divide these people self identity but there is no category in the nation that lists creole as a self concept. Most mixed people will self identify as black if given the choice between "Indian" or "black" if that is their gene pool.