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.
That shouldn't be surprising. Head counts are usually big in the US, regardless of ethnicity/origin. But that's mostly because the US has 300+ million population, which is disproportionately larger than any other first world countries, where people often migrate to.
Britons live permanently abroad
1st - Australia - 1,300,000
2nd - Spain - 761,000
3rd - United States - 678,000
German emigrants by country
1st - United States - 1.1m
2nd - Switzerland - 0.3m
3rd - United Kingdom - 0.2m
Russian diaspora
1st - Ukraine - 8,300,000
2nd - Kazakhstan - 3,619,002
3rd - United States - 3,100,000
Overseas Chinese population
1st - Indonesia - 8,360,000
2nd - Thailand - 7,000,000
3rd - Malaysia - 6,580,000
4th - United States - 4,550,000
5th - Singapore - 2,870,000
Nikkei (Japanese who've relocated overseas and their descendants) + Japanese who lives abroad by country
1st - Brazil - 1,900,000
2nd - United States - 1,304,286
3rd - Canada - 121,485
Koreans who've relocated overseas and their descendants + Koreans who lives abroad by country
1st - United States - 2,546,982
2nd - China - 2,461,386
3rd - Japan - 824,977
Canadian diaspora
1st - United States - 1,062,640
2nd - Hong Kong - 300,000
3rd - United Kingdom - 87,000
Mexican emigrants
1st - United States - 12.6m
2nd - Canada - 0.08m
3rd - Spain - 0.05m
Australia diaspora
1st - United Kingdom - 135,000
2nd - United States - 102,981
3rd - Greece - 100,000
In terms of share, the US doesn't stands out that much.
What repeatedly amazes me is how many different major ethnic groups and ancestral diasporas are present in the US, and with such large numbers for each one - the US has so many ancestral populations with estimates ranging into the millions and upward for so many of them, from Iranians to Vietnamese to Italians to English to German to Polish to French to Turkic to Korean to Croatian to Hungarian to Norwegian to Swedish to Greek to Spanish to Armenian to Arab, etc...
But most people are mixed with multiple ethnicities so they are just regular degular white americans , also big percent of Indonesians in USA are Chinese Indonesians if not most, also you go by population when you should use percentages,there is difference between some people making up 2% vs 20% , so yes usa is diverse but most diversity is in california , new york,texas,florida vs somewhere like Maine
That shouldn't be surprising. Head counts are usually big in the US, regardless of ethnicity/origin. But that's mostly because the US has 300+ million population, which is disproportionately larger than any other first world countries, where people often migrate to.
Britons live permanently abroad
1st - Australia - 1,300,000
2nd - Spain - 761,000
3rd - United States - 678,000
German emigrants by country
1st - United States - 1.1m
2nd - Switzerland - 0.3m
3rd - United Kingdom - 0.2m
Russian diaspora
1st - Ukraine - 8,300,000
2nd - Kazakhstan - 3,619,002
3rd - United States - 3,100,000
Overseas Chinese population
1st - Indonesia - 8,360,000
2nd - Thailand - 7,000,000
3rd - Malaysia - 6,580,000
4th - United States - 4,550,000
5th - Singapore - 2,870,000
Nikkei (Japanese who've relocated overseas and their descendants) + Japanese who lives abroad by country
1st - Brazil - 1,900,000
2nd - United States - 1,304,286
3rd - Canada - 121,485
Koreans who've relocated overseas and their descendants + Koreans who lives abroad by country
1st - United States - 2,546,982
2nd - China - 2,461,386
3rd - Japan - 824,977
Canadian diaspora
1st - United States - 1,062,640
2nd - Hong Kong - 300,000
3rd - United Kingdom - 87,000
Mexican emigrants
1st - United States - 12.6m
2nd - Canada - 0.08m
3rd - Spain - 0.05m
Australia diaspora
1st - United Kingdom - 135,000
2nd - United States - 102,981
3rd - Greece - 100,000
In terms of share, the US doesn't stands out that much.
"In terms of share"? How do you think the US population got that large? Why did so many people from so many different ethnicities settle in the US over other countries throughout the centuries? You're being kind of slow. In terms of share, the US stands out a lot.
Your list includes expat populations, not just ancestral populations, and you're using the fact that the US isn't the number 1 diaspora destination for a select number of ancestries to say it "doesn't stand out much". Ukraine is a former soviet state, it's going to have a large Russian diaspora, but it it isn't comparably diverse - similarly, Indonesia is adjacent to China, but it still isn't as diverse.
The point is, the US is the destination for the largest variety of ancestral groups over the years. And many migrated in such massive numbers to the US that weren't seen in other countries. By share, the US does stand out - relative to any other country, it comes at or near the top on every European ancestral diaspora, for example.
The US has 45 million of German ethnicity, for example - are you choosing a different definition to understate that?
The "because the US has a larger population" point is kind of stupid...um...yes. How do you think it got that large population? Hence my point. The US has more ancestry groups within it that amount to more than 1 million people than any other country has. That's how it stands out. That's how it's population got to 350 million, like...duh? Don't mean to be disrespectful but like...?
Last edited by magicinterest; 01-21-2021 at 04:39 PM..
But most people are mixed with multiple ethnicities so they are just regular degular white americans , also big percent of Indonesians in USA are Chinese Indonesians if not most, also you go by population when you should use percentages,there is difference between some people making up 2% vs 20% , so yes usa is diverse but most diversity is in california , new york,texas,florida vs somewhere like Maine
27.4% Indian
21.7% Maroon-Bushinengue
15.7% Creole-Mulatto[1]
13.7% Javanese
13.4% Other Mixed (incl. Douglas)
3.8% Indigenous Amerindian
1.5% Chinese[2][3]
1% European
1.8% Others[4][5][6]
their religion
48.4% Christian
22.3% Hindu
13.9% Muslim
1.8% Winti
0.8% Kejawèn
2.1% Other
(incl. Indigenous Amerindian beliefs, Afro-American beliefs, Jewish, Buddhist, BaháʼÃ)
7.5% None
3.2% Not stated[7]
You didn't read or comprehend my post properly, again.
Whether they're "mixed" or not doesn't matter, that only adds to the diversity of the populace. The only thing that matters to me when considering diversity is ancestry, whether they speak a different language or not is irrelevant - I think a more assimilationist society is more productive, and it's much more impressive for a society to assimilate certain ethnic groups than to do nothing.
You completely ignored what I pointed out - what is obvious - about only considering percentages. Almost every ancestral group in the US is represented by lower percentages in the US than many would be in, say, Australia, because there are far more people representing each ancestral group in the US, therefore comprising a larger whole - if you have millions from each European ethnicity, for example, adding up to 250,000,000, you're always going to have lower percentages/apparent proportions in the US. That just means the US is more diverse.
Suriname has negligible populations of most Asian and European ethnicities.
Last edited by magicinterest; 01-21-2021 at 04:41 PM..
I said Australia and Canada have a similar number of ethic groups, and they do, the numbers per group are just smaller . I would never dispute that that the total numbers in per group in the US are larger, or that the UK is far more a historical influence on Australian immigration than it is the USA, everyone knows that.
The trouble is how do you measure diversity? You talk about the 1 million Americans of Croatian Ancestry, for instance, by comparing it to about the 150,000 people Of Croatian Ancestry we have in Australia, however out of the USA pop (320 million) and Australia (26 million), in 2021 which country has more people who were actually born in Croatia and speak Croatian? - The answer is Australia.
I have said many times in this forum if you want a truly diverse nation - India would be at the top of my list.
India doesn't have multiethnic diversity on a global scale
Your point about Croatians in Australia is not what I'm getting at - I'm more impressed with societies who can and have assimilated multiple ethnic identities into a whole - I'm not specifically looking for countries where the most people speak Croatian, I'm considering how America became so successful at taking such large amounts of each ethnicity over the years and assimilating them into a highly productive whole - no other country has succeeded at that anywhere near as much.
Yet, the US population % wise for Muslims is only 1%. Australia it is more than 1%. Yet the percent of Muslims in Australia is smaller than some European countries, and in Europe you see a more obvious Muslim presence there. In the US Muslims stick out like a sore thumb, Australia less so, but France and the UK it is less so.
With the British population, I only referring to the ones born in the UK that have immigrated to Australia. Anyway Indonesian culture in Australia is more noticable in Australia as Australia has only 25 million people. the US is approaching 350 million.
Yet Australia has the highest or second highest number percent of immigrants in the world today. At least 27% of people in Australia are immigrants. That is higher than the US where at least 14% are immigrants. So in Australia you are more likely to find people that are immigrants, than the US.
But that's a **** poor way to measure diversity - IE, crudely lump together the number of people who are immigrants - please refer back to what I said about proportions
Gauging the diversity of a country by looking at the proportion of immigrants is dumb, because the larger a population grows due to immigration, the smaller that proportion will naturally get - that doesn't mean the US is "less diverse" than Australia, it actually means the exact opposite - especially because a large proportion of that foreign born in Australia has historically been, and is largely still, British.
The US has massive amounts of people who have immigrated to it over the years from a larger array of ethnic groups, making a larger whole - which is why many demographics will always show a lower proportion or percentage in the US than in Australia. The US is approaching 350 million because it has received so much immigration from so many different places beyond what Australia has ever received - ergo, it's more diverse.
In many areas of the US, Muslims don't "stick out like a sore thumb" - they inhabit a diverse array of neighborhoods and environments across the country.
It's also notable that the US has such large amounts of a variety of different ethnic groups rather than the more scant representation you see in, for example, Canada, where numbers are comparatively minimal for an array of ethnic groups, and many of them are comparatively less visible in their society.
In regards to your first paragraph, yes it does? The US has near 50 ethnic groups numbering over 1 million, including large blocks of ethno-racial elements that simply aren't represented in Australia to anywhere near the same extent. That's what is meant. Just because Australia has Africans, for example, doesn't mean that it would be correct to attribute it to Australia being diverse - because it's African population is, in total and even proportionally, tiny, and not integrated to boot. Similarly Australia has Jews, but America's Jewish population is much more notable, and much more culturally integrated.
The fact I highlighted as impressive was how many different nationalities have their largest diaspora populations represented in the US. If not their largest, their near-largest. From Armenian to Mexican to Brazilian to South Korean to Hungarian to Swedish to Jewish to German to Dutch to French...
Diversity is how many different, and the US seems to be the country that has the most diversified ethnic makeup - including among it's European population, where it has tons of European ethnicities, many of them represented in the millions each, that Australia doesn't have to the same extent - ie, it's much more generalizably English.
In regards to your last sentence, that kind of seems immaterial when the US was at 100 million+ people by the 1910s.
A good sign of diversity is often seen through the existence or/and quality of ethnic restaurants. When I was in Sydney, there was one West African restaurant (African Feeling, I believe). The food was not authentic in the least, but it was something different than I was accustomed to eating in the city at the time, so that was good.
Good Mexican in Sydney? Non-existent.
Australia is diverse in its own ways--and more diverse than most countries in terms of racial diversity I'd wager--but it comes nowhere close to the diversity in the US in my humble opinion.
India doesn't have multiethnic diversity on a global scale
Your point about Croatians in Australia is not what I'm getting at - I'm more impressed with societies who can and have assimilated multiple ethnic identities into a whole - I'm not specifically looking for countries where the most people speak Croatian, I'm considering how America became so successful at taking such large amounts of each ethnicity over the years and assimilating them into a highly productive whole - no other country has succeeded at that anywhere near as much.
I think assimilation removes diversity. As such you assimilate into the new culture, and just become one new culture. Now if you travel from one side of the USA to the other, you will see lots of different groups of people, sure, however each state will still be majority Christian and the majority of the population in each state will also understand and speak English.
On the whole I do not associate "I'm considering how America became so successful at taking such large amounts of each ethnicity over the years and assimilating them into a highly productive whole" as an example of diversity. I would consider India diverse because the main language, dress, religion, traditional food and dress etc, can vary greatly from state to state.
I would also consider most of those "Croatians" and "Germans" etc you talk about to be just American, as they speak mostly speak English only, and are also mostly Christian/non religious. My kids for instance have a Korean born Mother (my wife), an English born Grandmother (my Mother), and German born Great Grandmother (Dads Mum). Come census time is just mark myself and my kids as been of Australian ancestry, as we were all born here and speak English as a first language.
Last edited by danielsa1775; 01-21-2021 at 07:05 PM..
You didn't read or comprehend my post properly, again.
Whether they're "mixed" or not doesn't matter, that only adds to the diversity of the populace. The only thing that matters to me when considering diversity is ancestry, whether they speak a different language or not is irrelevant - I think a more assimilationist society is more productive, and it's much more impressive for a society to assimilate certain ethnic groups than to do nothing.
You completely ignored what I pointed out - what is obvious - about only considering percentages. Almost every ancestral group in the US is represented by lower percentages in the US than many would be in, say, Australia, because there are far more people representing each ancestral group in the US, therefore comprising a larger whole - if you have millions from each European ethnicity, for example, adding up to 250,000,000, you're always going to have lower percentages/apparent proportions in the US. That just means the US is more diverse.
Suriname has negligible populations of most Asian and European ethnicities.
If the only thing that matters to you when considering diversity is how many different ancestries the population is made from, and the total numbers of people from each of those ancestries, then the US is almost certainly the most diverse country. What other posters are telling you though, is that your measure of diversity is NOT the only way to measure it. In fact, some of what you say is the opposite of what most people say when they mean diversity - such as saying linguistic diversity is irrelevant.
Also just looking at total population figures without considering percentages is not how many people measure diversity. Another poster mentioned Suriname which most people would consider an extremely diverse country. If you just look at the overall numbers of people of different ethnic backgrounds, then Japan (known as one of the most homogenous countries in the world) is actually more diverse than Suriname. I don't know anyone (other than you) who would say Japan is more diverse than Suriname.
Residents of Japan (populations over ten thousand)
Japan approx. 124,000,000
China 813,675
South Korea 446,364
Vietnam 411,968
Philippines 282,798
Brazil 211,677
Nepal 96,824
Indonesia 66,860
Taiwan 64,773
United States 59,172
Thailand 54,809
Peru 48,669
India 40,202
Myanmar 32,049
North Korea 28,096
Sri Lanka 27,367
United Kingdom 18,631
Pakistan 17,766
Bangladesh 16,632
Cambodia 15,020
France 14,106
Mongolia 12,797
Australia 12,024
Canada 11,118
Malaysia 10,862
Residents of Suriname (populations over ten thousand)
East Indian 148,443
Maroons 117,567 21.7
Creole 84,933 15.7
Javanese 73,975 1
Mixed 72,340 13.4
Amerindian 20,344 3.8
Well the diversity is different with the US and the rest of the world. I live in Australia and the diversity is different. While Australia has more British, Indonesians, New Zealanders and Malaysians compared to the USA. Even the Aborigines are diverse and at one time there were at least 300 different Aboriginal languages spoken. In addition the proportion of Muslims is larger in Australia with at least 2.5% compared to the USA at 1%.
In the US, most of the immigrants from Arab countries are Christian. Yet in Australia at least half of the immigrants from Arab countries are Christian, and the other half Muslim.
Obviously Australia has a much smaller number of Hispanics and Blacks compared to the USA. Yet with the US a large majority of hispanics are originally from Mexico.
Because they're not Arab. They're Assyrians, who are an indigenous ethnic group in the Arab countries.
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.
