Now that we have compared the ward population densities of Pittsfield's native and largest, European-born immigrant groups, let's analyze population trends by what this study calls 'Next Generation,' or individuals born in the continental U.S. in which their mother and father were either U.S. or foreign born. Throughout this section, groups with foreign-born parents are referred to by this 'Next Generation' title, followed by their parents' birthplace nationality. For example, individuals born in the United States with parents from Italy are referred to as 'Next Generation' Italians. Groups with U.S.-born parents are referred to as 'Next Generation' followed by their parents' birth location. For example, a U.S.-born individual with parents from Massachusetts is referred to as 'Second Generation' MA. Location is used for individuals with U.S.-born parents to distinguish from MA, NY and non-MA/NY U.S. parent birth locations.
Before getting started, it must be noted that a significant number of 'MBPL' (Mother's Birthplace) and 'FBPL' (Father's Birthplace) were not recorded on the the 1940 census. The graphs below showcase this aspect of the data.
The first graph presents the total population of Pittsfield for each group discussed within this study and is categorized by the 'MBPL.' The census years 1920 and 1940 (side-by-side) (top) and the 'MBPL' (bottom) are shown vertically. The total population for groups that are discussed within this study, based upon 'BPL' (Individual's Birthplace) have been placed horizontally. In order to correlate with studying the 'Next Generation' this graph has also been filtered to only include the 'MBPL' for individuals that were born within the United States. To make the graph more easily readable, groups not discussed in this study, with an exception of those that were 'N/A' (Not Available) out of the city's entire population, have been excluded. The second graph is structured the same way as the first, but replaces the 'MBPL' with the 'FBPL.'
The 'N/A' (Not Available) category for both 'MBPL' and 'FBPL' has no factor in skewing the data gathered from the 1920 census. Unfortunately, of the 49,787 residents of Pittsfield in 1940, 27,645 for the 'MBPL' and 29,943 for the "FBPL" were 'N/A.' This makes comparisons throughout the early twentieth century, on the total count of population numbers based upon each parent's place of birth, very difficult to create and study.
Moreover, both the 'MBPL' and 'FBPL' for U.S. born residents with Swedish parents, the Scottish 'MBPL", and the French 'FBPL' have under one hundred listings. These numbers get even smaller when analyzing Pittsfield residents, in which both of their parents were from the same foreign-born country. Still, for the 1940 census, the "MBPL' was filled out for 22,142 residents, and the 'FBPL' for 19,844. All remaining groups used within this study had over one hundred listings for both the 'MBPL' and 'FBPL' in 1940. Using these numbers as a sample size, comparing ward population percentages for each ethnic group throughout the early twentieth century is possible.
'Next Generation' population numbers for this section will be analyzed in two age groups: all ages, and eighteen and older. Underage, 'Next Generation' children would not have decided on their own which ward to live in. The purpose of this section is to analyze and highlight how language, religion and culture continued to have an impact on individuals of the 'Next Generation' after they were able to make their own decision on whether-or-not to cluster together within an ethnic community. This is why analyzing both age groups is important.
For this study, the analysis of 'Next Generation' ward population disbursement is of groups in which both parents were born in the same location. As a control group, let's start with U.S. born individuals with parents born in Massachusetts.
The graph below showcases the population within each of Pittsfield's seven wards of city residents that were born in the U.S. in which both the 'MBPL" and "FBPL" columns on the census, for that individual, indicate that their parents were both born in Massachusetts. Wards have been placed vertically. The census years for 1920 (top) and 1940 (bottom), the 'Count of Ward' and the '% of Group' have been placed horizontally. The 'Count of Ward' is a sum of the population of the above mentioned group within a specific ward, and the '% of Total Group' is the percentage of that group's total, city population living within that ward. Clicking on any of the individual bars will provide all of the graph's information for that specific bar. All of the ages for individuals within the population group have also been added as a filter, and can be accessed to the right of the graph. Click on the box to the left of each numerically listed age to add or subtract it from the chart. This filter will be used to analyze population densities of the two age groups mentioned above.
All Age Groups: It is not surprising that the data for all individuals born in the U.S. with MA-born parents is similar to the trend seen when analyzing all MA-born individuals. There is a relatively even disbursement of 'Next Generation' individuals with MA-born parents. Not a single ward, from either census year, contains over 18.61% of this group's overall population. The percentage gap from an even 14.29% disbursement also narrows from 1920 to 1940, with the high and low for 1920, in terms of the wards with the highest and lowest population percentages, being 18.61% in Ward 4 and 11.55% in Ward 7 and the high and low for 1940 being 17% in Ward 7 and 11.9% in Ward 4.
18 and Older: Now, change the graph to only show persons that are eighteen and older. By doing so, this eliminates children from the data that would be living under the supervision of their parents, and would not have a choice in where they were residing within the city. Only looking at the adult population, we can see in 1920 that 'Next Generation' MA adults were clustering in Ward 4. This does correlate to the analysis of all 'Next Generation' MA individuals, in that Ward 4 held the highest population for all ages of this group, but the percentage of adults is even higher. Compared to 18.61% of all ages in Ward 4, the percentage of adults is 22.41%. Surprisingly, over one-fifth of the 'Next Generation' MA adults lived within a single ward. More analysis needs to be done with other primary sources, such as mill records to, discern why this occurs.
By 1940, the 'Next Generation' adult population returned to the same trends seen being carried out by all 'Next Generation' MA and all Massachusetts-born individuals in general. The population of adults in Ward 4 drops significantly to 16.74%. The high and low for 1940 were 17.89% in Ward 2 and 10.32% in Ward 3. Thus, beside the spike of adults in Ward 4, in 1920, the population trends of each age group are very similar to those seen when analyzing all MA-born individuals.
Now let's switch to analyzing 'Next Generation' groups in which their parents were born in the United States, but outside of Massachusetts. These individuals have been clumped into two groups: those in which both parents were born in New York and those in which both parents were non-MA/NY born, but were born in the continental U.S. (including D.C.).
All Age Groups: For 'Next Generation' individuals that were born in the U.S. and have parents that were either born in New York, or the non-MA/NY continental U.S., their ward populations were also similar to trends seen when analyzing the census data by individual birthplace of the same locations.
In 1920, individuals with New York-born parents were clustering into Ward 2, with 25.06% of the total group population living within that ward. Also, like NY-born individuals, 'Next Generation' NY lived least in Ward 1, making up 8.78% of the group's total population. Like Non-MA/NY U.S. born, 'Next Generation' non-MA/NY U.S were clustering into Ward 4, which contained 23.70% of the group's population. The populations for both 'Next Generation' groups also trended towards a more even disbursement by 1940.
18 and Older: While the overall disbursement trend for both 'Next Generation' groups with NY-born or non-MA/NY U.S.-born parents were similar to the trend toward a more even ward population disbursement by 1940, seen by groups born in the same locations, the 'Next Generation' adult populations appear to take longer to do so. For example, by 1940, Ward 5 contained the highest population of NY-born residents with 16.30%, and the high for all 'Next Generation' NY was Ward 1 with 17.06%. For 'Next Generation' adults, the highest population is still in Ward 2, with 20.28%.
This slower disbursement pattern is also seen with 'Next Generation' individuals with non-MA/NY U.S. parents. By 1940, 23.17% of these adults continued to live in Ward 4, compared to 20.58% of all 'Next Generation' individuals, and 17.89% of all non-MA/NY U.S. born.
Still, overall, all individuals with both parents born in the United States have populations that trended towards a more even disbursement from 1920 to 1940, whether you observe all 'Next Generation' persons, or only 'Next Generation' adults. It is not surprising, with Pittsfield being a city in Massachusetts (close to the NY border), that the percentage of disbursement of U.S. born persons occurred the greatest for individuals with MA-born parents, second with those who had NY-born parents, and slowest among those with non-MA/NY U.S. born parents.
Now that we have analyzed all 'Next Generation' groups with U.S. born parents, let's switch to studying 'Next Generation' groups with non-U.S. born parents from English-speaking countries. Again, for 'Part 3: Next Generation,' the data shows individuals in which both of their parents hailed from the same location. We will begin this section by looking at U.S. born individuals where both parents were from England, or both were from Ireland.
All Age Groups: In 1920, both U.S. born individuals with English parents and U.S. born with Irish parents follow similar trends to individuals from each respective country. Both English-born and 'Next Generation' English clustered in Ward 4, with 21.04% and 21.52% living within the ward. They share similar low ward percentages, with English born at 9.72% in Ward 3 and 'Next Generation' at 9.09% in Ward 1.
With Irish-born and 'Next Generation' Irish, both groups are relatively well disbursed throughout Pittsfield in 1920. Irish-born had a high and low of 19.15% in Ward 1 and 9.23% in Ward 7 and 'Next Generation' Irish had a high and low of 17.94% in Ward 6 and 9.60% in Ward 4. Thus, each group deviated from a 14.29% even disbursement by only +/- 5% within each ward.
The interesting difference between English and Irish-born populations and their 'Next Generation' counterparts, is that the 'Next Generations' continued to cluster by 1940. 20.69% of 'Next Generation' English lived in Ward 1, and 20.18% of the 'Next Generation' Irish lived in Ward 3. With an exception of Ward 6 (5.17%) for the 'Next Generation' English and Ward 5 (8.26%) for the 'Next Generation' Irish, neither group has a ward population percentage under 11.93%, though.
18 and Older: In 1920, the adult 'Next Generation' English and 'Next Generation' Irish trends nearly matched that of the entire 'Next Generation' for both groups. The high and lows were 22.22% in Ward 4 and 7.41% in Ward 1 for 'Next Generation' English and 17.77% in Ward 6 and 10% in Ward 4 for 'Next Generation Irish. Adult 'Next Generation' English clustered into a different ward by 1940, compared to the entire 'Next Generation,' but maintain similar percentages. These include highs and lows of 22.58% in Ward 2 and 9.68% in Wards 1, 4, 6, and 7. Adult 'Next Generation' Irish had a greater disbursement compared to all 'Next Generation' Irish with 18.29% in Ward 1 and 8.57% in Ward 5.
These numbers indicate that the population disbursement for 'Next Generation' English and Irish was similar in percentage to the 'Next Generation' NY and non-MA/NY U.S. groups. The difference is that all age groups with NY and non-MA/NY U.S. born parents slightly trended towards a more even disbursement, while U.S. born individuals with English or Irish parents were either unchanged, or slightly increased in clustering together. By 1940, the ward with the highest population percentage for the English 'Next Generation' matched that of the English-born (Ward 1). The ward with the highest percentage of 'Next Generation' Irish, adult or total, did not match those of their foreign born counterparts. There were high percentages of Irish-born and 'Next Generation' Irish living within the same wards, though, so they integrated together. Thus, total disbursement for all foreign-born and 'Next Generation' Irish combined was well spread out throughout the city.
Now let's analyze the U.S. born population with Scottish-born parents.
All Age Groups: Just as the Scottish-born were the largest group of English-speaking immigrants to trend towards clustering by 1940, so were the 'Next Generation' Scottish compared to other 'Next Generation' groups with parents from foreign, English-speaking countries. In 1920, 22.78% of 'Next Generation' Scottish lived in Ward 5, which also housed the third largest percentage of Scottish-born immigrants at 15.18% (highest was 19.46% in Ward 1). Both shared Ward 7 with having the lowest population percentage of either group, being 5.06% of the 'Next Generation' and 6.61% of the Scottish-born.
By 1940, 35.48% of the 'Next Generation' Scottish lived in Ward 1, compared to 27.75% of the Scottish-born immigrants. This shows that not only was the 'Next Generation' trending towards clustering together, but that they were also in the same location as the Scottish-born. Again, this was due to the fact that the population numbers of Scottish-born and 'Next Generation' Scottish were considerably smaller than that of the English and Irish.
18 and Older: Disclosure: With 'Next Generation' Scottish, this study ran into a problem concerning total population numbers. Again, for the 1940 census the 'MBPL' and 'FBPL' for many individuals was marked with 'N/A.' As a result, there are only fourteen figures to draw information from in 1940.
In 1920, the adult 'Next Generation' shared a similar disbursement percentage with all 'Next Generation' Scottish. The highs were 20.83% in Ward 4 and 19.17% in Ward 5 and the low was 5% in Ward 7. By 1940, 50% of the adult population clustered in Ward 5. Again, it could be accurate that the 'Next Generation' adults were clustering in a ward other than the Scottish-born population, or the sample size might not be large enough due to a lack of information.
Completing 'Next Generation' populations with parents from English-speaking countries, let's continue on by discussing 'Next Generation' groups with parents from non-English, Protestant countries. The two focused on in this study are groups in which both parents' birthplace was Germany, or both were from Sweden.
All Age Groups: In 1920, both 'Next Generation' Germans and Swedes followed a similar location pattern in the city to that of their foreign-born counterparts. For 'Next Generation' Germans, the high and low, for ward population percentages, was 22.17% in Ward 6 and 9.55% in Wards 4 and 7. For 'Next Generation' Swedes these figures were 25.66% in Ward 4, 21.24% in Ward 5 and 3.54% in Ward 7. These matched the highest and lowest population percentages for German-born and Swedish-born populations. Thus, foreign-born and 'Next Generation' were living together.
By 1940, 'Next Generation' Germans began clustering together at a higher percentage than German-born immigrants, but were still living with their foreign-born counterparts. 29.76% were living in Ward 5, which contained the second highest percentage of German-born immigrants (16.72%). 'Next Generation' Swedes continued to follow similar patterns to Swedish-born immigrants, with higher ward population percentages in wards 1, 3, 4, 5.
18 and Older: For adult 'Next Generation' populations in 1920 and 1940, the numbers were also very similar to those of German-born and Swedish-born immigrants. This indicates that even though culturally non-English speaking Protestant groups were more disbursed throughout Pittsfield than non-English speaking Catholics, where you see a spike in population percentage living in a specific ward, it occurs within both generations. As Dr. Bon Tempo pointed out in the introduction, many of these groups came to the U.S. via chain migration.  These similar population trends occurred due to foreign-born immigrants moving to where 'Next Generation' family members were already living within the city, and/or the 'Next Generation' were living close to their parents.
General Discussion/Recap: After observing the population disbursement trends of 'Next Generation' Germans and Swedes, we can see that the overall trend in which the further groups differed from the cultural norms of the native population, the more they tended to cluster together. Just as a quick recap, before moving on to our last group in this study, individuals in which their parents were both from Massachusetts were the most evenly disbursed 'Next Generation' group by 1940. 'Next Generation' NY and non-MA/NY U.S. born trended, from 1920 to 1940, towards a more even disbursement, but at a slower rate for 'Next Generation' adults compared to 'Next Generation' Massachusetts adults. 'Next Generation' English and Irish continued to cluster together, but with the highest percentage of the total population in a single ward reaching the high teens to low twenties in percentage. For 'Next Generation' Scottish, Germans, and Swedes clustering, by 1940, either remained high, or even increased to the mid-twenties to mid-thirties in percentage of the total population within a single ward. The overarching theme of a correlation between near-even population disbursement among MA-natives to larger clustering the further a group's cultural, religious and linguistic norms differed from the natives continued, and for some groups became even more apparent, by the 'Next Generation.'
Now let's look at the ward population disbursement for 'Next Generation' culturally non-English speaking, Catholics. Let's begin this section by looking at 'Next Generation' Italians and Poles.
All Age Groups: Like other immigrant and 'Next Generation' groups within Pittsfield, the 'Next Generation' of culturally non-English speaking Catholics lived together. These groups, like their foreign-born counterparts were clustering together at a much higher percentage, though. For both Italian-born immigrants and 'Next Generation' Italians, in 1920 and 1940, Ward 3 contained the highest percentage of the total group population at roughly 40%. Both groups, for both census years, also had the lowest population in Ward 4 (1.27-2.44%). Both the Polish-born and 'Next Generation' Polish followed a similar trend, in living together. Over 50% of both foreign born and 'Next Generation' Poles lived in Ward 1 in 1920 and moved to Ward 7 by 1940.
18 and Older: Here is where this study becomes most interesting in studying cultural, religious and linguistic differences. Changing the graphs to showcase only 'Next Generation' adults reveals a remarkable trend. In 1920, both 'Next Generation' Italian and Polish adults were further disbursed throughout Pittsfield's seven wards, and were integrating more into the city's mainstream society than their foreign-born counterparts. For 'Next Generation' Italians, 32.11% lived in Ward 3 and they had a population low of 8.26% in Wards 2 and 5. 38.46% of 'Next Generation' Polish adults lived in Ward 1, 30.77% lived in Ward 7, and 17.95% in Ward 6.
By 1940, a sharp change occurred, in which 'Next Generation' adults moved back into the same wards and communities as their foreign-born counterparts. By this time, 42.55% of 'Next Generation' Italian adults lived in Ward 3, and 59.26% of 'Next Generation' Poles lived in Ward 7.
Now let's compare these numbers to those of 'Next Generation' Austrians and French.
All Age Groups: In 1920, the Austrians followed a similar population disbursement trend to Austrian-born immigrants, but clustered even more within a specific ward. 52.69% of "Next Generation' Austrians resided in Ward 1 compared to 42.47% of the Austrian-born population. By 1940, as both groups moved into Ward 7, these numbers increased to 61.01% of the Austrian-born population and 78.13% of the 'Next Generation' Austrians.
Of all the 'Next Generation' culturally non-English, Catholic groups the French were the most disbursed throughout Pittsfield in 1920. 32.68% of "Next Generation' French lived in Ward 1, 25.98% in Ward 6, and 6.3-13.39% in each of Wards 2-5. Compared to other non-English, Catholic immigrant groups, the French had a larger population within Pittsfield during the late 19th century. (Look to '1880-1940 Population Records' from the drop-down menu as a reference) With a longer presence within the city, the 'Next Generation' French showed a greater level of disbursement in 1920. This trend changed by 1940, though. Suddenly, 58.06% of 'Next Generation' French lived in Ward 7 and only 3.23% in Wards 1 and 5.
18 and Older: 'Next Generation' Austrian adults were only slightly more disbursed in 1920 than the entire 'Next Generation' population. 36.84% lived in Ward 2 and 31.58% in Ward 6. By 1940, 85.25% were living in Ward 7, alone.
In 1920, the 'Next Generation' French adults were even more disbursed than the entire 'Next Generation' whole. 26.14% were in Ward 6, 24.84% in Ward 1 and 17.65% in Ward 2. There is a low of 4.58% in Ward 7, which was similar to the 3.94% of the 'Next Generation' entirety. By 1940, 59.26% of 'Next Generation' adults were living in Ward 7, and Wards 1,2 and 5 each contained only 3.7% of the group's total population.
General Discussion: For all four of the 'Next Generation' culturally non-English, Catholic, adult groups, they went from being more disbursed throughout Pittsfield in 1920 to clustering among themselves and their foreign-born counterparts by 1940. This is most evident among 'Next Generation' French adults, because the French community had a longer presence, stretching into the 19th century, than other non-English Catholic groups. The fact that the 'Next Generation' French were moving into Ward 7, like other groups that differ in both language and religion from the city's native population, shows that the amount of time in which a group is within a location is not the only factor when it comes to group population disbursement.
There is also an increase in clustering among 'Next Generation' Scottish, the smallest English-speaking 'Next Generation' group, and 'Next Generation' Germans and Swedes.
This calls to question, why did these changes in population disbursement occur between 1920 and 1940? During this period of U.S. history the country became more isolationist and the state imposed greater restrictions on immigration.  Even U.S.-born 'Next Generation' groups that were small in numbers and/or had a cultural identity that differed the most from that of the native population clustered together, in order to avoid anti-immigration discrimination. A future goal of this project is to study the print culture within Pittsfield from this time period to discover to what extent anti-immigration had an impact on the population disbursement of these groups. Again, as Dr. Bon Tempo discusses in the introduction videos, both internal and external reasons can cause certain groups to cluster together. 
Another future goal is to discover whether or not there is a correlation between the clustering of certain foreign-born immigrant and 'Next Generation' groups, anti-immigration sentiment, and the fact that so many individuals left out where their parents were born in the 1940 census. The lack of information in the 'MBPL' and 'FBPL' columns might actually be quite revealing of the anti-immigration sentiment that permeated throughout society in 1940 America.
1.) Dr. Carl Bon Tempo, Associate Professor of History at University at Albany, SUNY.
2.) Marouf A. Hasian, Jr. Conserving the Nation's Germplasm: Nativist Discourse and the Passage of the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act in 24 Legal Stud. F. 157 (2000) / Legal Studies Forum, Vol. 24, Issue 1 (2000), p. 166.