Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you don't like that we are comparing foreign born populations and diversity then it is time for you to get out of this thread because that is all this thread is and will remain to be. That wont be changing, period. It is not for you and you're better suited to making your own topic.
Nobody ever said it was a bad thing. The point is that you can't put a blanket statement on a place because it has 2000 less ____ people than another place. Now, if one place has 20,000 more than another, then that is another story. The foreign born population stuff is great, but there are some categories there where pretty much every city for a category has barely anybody from the country, or the top 2 or 3 are all very close.
I suggest you actually listen to others, instead of trying to act like an authoritarian just because you started a thread. It doesn't mean you can tell anybody to get out of your thread just because you don't agree with their opinion. Everyone has their own viewpoints, which is funny in this case - because part of being cosmopolitan is actually being open minded to other peoples' opinions and ways, in which you are demonstrating here you aren't because someone wanted to discuss how something you brought up isn't the end-all-be-all of the measuring for the topic at hand.
Exposure is important and not just in the community but in the workplace.. I wouldn't have gone to Portugal, Sri Lanka and soon Indonesia if not for my coworkers! They have actually brought in their native food when we have lunch and also inspired me to travel to their homeland so I can take it up a notch and eat the food in the motherland and compare how good we do it here
Another good way to increase exposure in this day and age is technology. I've met many friends in Toronto over the years (lovers too lol) from all kinds of different cultures and ethnicies online! I don't know, maybe i'm more friendly and open than most people haha.
Very much agree here too. I've been lucky enough to be apart of work places in both Chicago and NYC where there are a lot of foreign born people in the office that you interact with but also get to know - big portion of that is their culture. It's been great, but not everyone is so lucky even in either city. It helps a lot though!
While I agree that Toronto is definitely cosmopolitan in its own way, its diversity is only a small part of that. I think the cultural institutions in Toronto are very underrated along with the educational institutions. Plus being the main economic engine of the country and the international business connections that come along with that also gives it that claim.
I lived in Toronto for many years as you know and honestly while growing up around a nice variety of races and nationalities is a nice thing, your average Torontonian does not really take full advantage of being around all these ethnic enclaves. For the most part people stick to themselves due to language barriers and people from outside that circle cant truly get in if they dont learn a new language and we all know that is not the case for most people. I never really learned about other cultures intimately until I started traveling. Living within Toronto did not afford me any unique cosmopolitan experience that I could not have experienced elsewhere.
Just my personal opinion.
Good post and agree with most of what you're saying.
Does same hold true, for SFO, Chicago, and DC ...or do they "mingle" more than T.O. ?
I added commentary on top of it on how there's many factors in how each of these groups may affect its respective city.
As long as the topic stays to diversity and foreign born populations, I'm fine with it.
The conversation about how people interact is fine. Integration and assimilation to culture goes hand in hand with diversity and foreign borns. The conversation on the sort of amenities and entertainment and stuff fostered by diversity is also fine.
What I am not fine with is people complaining about how we're focussing on foreign borns and diversity in a thread exclusively about it. They sort of missed the boat on the topic right from the start. It tells me those people don't understand the topic at hand and if they don't, it is best they make a new topic that they'd like to see instead.
Good post and agree with most of what you're saying.
Does same hold true, for SFO, Chicago, and DC ...or do they "mingle" more than T.O. ?
This is basically off of second hand experience as I have never directly lived in any of the three, but I suspect the same holds true for those cities as well. Human beings by nature stick to what is comfortable and chances are people in those cities dont get past the surface with their friends of other nationalities. All of us are pretty much guilty of this in one way or another.
As long as the topic stays to diversity and foreign born populations, I'm fine with it.
What I am not fine with is people complaining about how we're focussing on foreign borns and diversity in a thread exclusively about it. Tells me those people don't understand the topic at hand and if they don't, it is best they make a new topic that they'd like to see.
Your thread is about cosmopolitanism, which means you are making a case, by posting the numbers, that foreign born population leads to cosmopolitanism which can be true. My point was that there's many factors in these groups exposing the rest of the population and having influence in their communities. I am not "complaining" - I was adding that if city A has 2000 people born in country X while city B has 3000 people born in country X that it doesn't automatically mean that city B's residents have more exposure to this. Even if we are talking about diversity, it's a completely valid point. If a group is segregated or segregates itself from the rest of the population and doesn't have much influence on or to the rest of the population, then the perceived diversity of the rest of the community because of that reality becomes different. Each of these cities are huge. In NYC for example, you could have a community of Uzbeks in Rego Park (Queens) but they stay very much only in Rego Park and not a lot of people outside visit them, nor do they try and educate others about their culture. Is someone who lives in Manhattan who only stays in Manhattan affected by their culture in this case? Chances are no, or not that much.
The thread is also 20 pages long. Not everyone comes into a thread having read every single post in every single page. Excuse me if I came in at page 18 having read post #1 and some around page 17 and 18 and responded to what I thought this thread was about - cosmopolitanism (which is the title of both the thread and the poll).
Your thread is about cosmopolitanism, which means you are making a case, by posting the numbers, that foreign born population leads to cosmopolitanism which can be true. My point was that there's many factors in these groups exposing the rest of the population and having influence in their communities.
It is not that I disagree with what you are saying.
In fact when I made this thread about cosmopolitanism I wanted to make it a full pledged comparison more than just the diversity factors. Somewhere between writing the title of the thread and writing and filling out the opening post, the idea changed radically.
I suppose what it was is that I want to steer this thread topic and discussion more into a factual realm. What I mean is, things that we will be able to quickly verify. You know, facts.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against personal experiences or opinions nor do I actually see a harm in the social, cultural, economical factors of a comparison and how it relates to the topic.
My issue is that I don't find this forum to be truthful enough to have a comparison like that at all. I don't have an "authoritarian" stance to most of my thread topics, in fact most of them delve off topic after the first page and I don't mind that.
I do for this one though and want to keep it strictly to the outline. This is a comparison I've wanted to make for 4 years while on this forum but couldn't because I couldn't navigate Statscan soon enough. So this topic is much more important to me (this is my personal favorite thread I've made yet on this forum). If you want to discuss the cultural influences and social impact of those diversity and foreign born components in this thread, very okay to do that.
I just don't want to see any advocation against diversity or foreign borns, at least in this thread because those are the central pillars to this thread topic, because I don't want the outline changed at all. I want the comparison to stay closer to what we can measure objectively, not subjectively. If that makes any sense.
Not really feeling this.. Some institutions sure.. Others no. As I said, each side can cherry pick but until a full institutional comparison is done by a party familiar with each and doing so with complete objectivity and open mindedness I'll hold back on a 'win' - All said, by and large I think in terms of institutional amenities both cities have their laundry list that check of requisite boxes.
You can try it yourself, but it's pretty much a lost cause if what we're talking about was what I mentioned: museums, universities, performing arts groups. This doesn't really beggar an in-depth comparison when you're talking about Toronto vs Chicago specifically because it's obvious and across the board, however, you can give it a shot. In the end, it makes a lot more sense for someone trying to make a case for Toronto to refer to its large foreign-born population and subsequent diversity as its marker for being more "cosmopolitan" rather than to delve into definitions where Toronto is a bit lacking in comparison.
I suppose what it was is that I want to steer this thread topic and discussion more into a factual realm. What I mean if, things that we will be able to quickly verify. You know, facts.
I am the first person for facts, and real data. That's what I used in many of my posts and anybody who reads enough of my stuff knows that. However, at the same time there is more than the story than just those numbers - there are other numbers, but also theory. There is a story to be told and I don't think that because of what I said doesn't have data that it doesn't carry any weight.
It is not an advocation against foreign born either. Not at all. My point is that having a difference between two cities in a group of 2000 is not much. Having a difference of like 10,000 or 20,000 or more means a lot though. But there are also many factors to it but I get the data part. I am the first person to bring up how data needs to be brought up, but "diversity" is also more than just "this is how many X people are here" - there are many other factors to determining how they affect a city.
It is just that this thread is literally the thread I envisioned making before I even joined this forum. I didn't get around to making it earlier because I didn't know how to navigate Statscan efficiently earlier on (only got a hold of it 2 years ago). This topic is literally my thing.
My favorite topics on City-Data happen to be the demographical and food ones, as most here know. My favorite cities to compare on City-Data? Speaks for itself, check it (below).
I was on a project for 5 years dealing with only government data like this - trust me, I'm the first person for it. The numbers you posted are great, and I have absolutely nothing against them, but with anything in science there's analysis of the numbers but also theory with the analysis. Without some of this theoretical discussion, we wouldn't have some of the demographic, economic, etc measures that we have right now (discussion sometimes leads to research, experimentation, etc). Some of what I brought up is definitely measurable (i.e. segregation vs. integration of various groups). It is just as valid as anything to bring it up - and trust me again, I 100% get what you are doing and am the same type of mind. I used to do this stuff for 5 years every single day as part of my job, but every single day there was always an analysis and theoretical discussion behind the numbers like with any science to see how we could progress the thinking and uncover new patterns in the data (and possibly lead to collecting new data for governments).
Diversity and cosmopolitanism can also be measured (especially diversity), as you've set out to do, but there's also a subjectiveness to it. For example - I grew up going to LA a lot because half of my family is from there. They have a higher foreign born population than NYC, but I actually feel a lot more affected by it in NYC whereas if I didn't have the numbers, I'd think the rankings were the other way around. This is a little of what I have been talking about - it's the segregation/integration, exposure, etc - these are sometimes hard to measure but just as valid in the discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
