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.
LOL, I used like for like data been the self reported ancestries taken by both censuses, - deal with it champ.
This is just sidestepping - you did what you did last time this debate came up, and cherry picked the lowest ancestry estimates for the US and the highest for Australia to manufacture a narrative
Last edited by Jefferson Airplane; 10-10-2022 at 04:54 PM..
This is just sidestepping - you did what you did last time this debate came up, and cherry picked the lowest ancestry estimates for the US and the highest for Australia to manufacture a narrative.
Its only cherry picking when the outcome does not perfectly align to your expectations.
Its only cherry picking when the outcome does not perfectly align to your expectations.
No, it’s that other data exists, and you’re ignoring it. When discussing ancestry, I look for the highest potential estimate.
Why do I need to keep repeating myself? You claimed, for example, the US only had 200,000 people of Turkish ancestry, which is is absurd - you would need to account for ancestry that’s underreported because of the geopolitical shifts in Europe that occurred since the US received a ton of Ottoman immigration…for example. So why would you cherry-pick the lowest estimate of Turkish ancestry in the US when others are estimating millions? It’s just dishonest. You either report both nation’s lowest estimates or both nation’s upper estimates, rather than cherry picking the lowest from one and the highest from the other to create a narrative of superior Australian immigration and diversity that isn’t remotely accurate.
Anyways, per Wikipedia:
Turkish Australians: over 320,000
Turkish Americans: over 3,000,000
No, it’s that other data exists, and you’re ignoring it. When discussing ancestry, I look for the highest potential estimate.
Why do I need to keep repeating myself? You claimed, for example, the US only had 200,000 people of Turkish ancestry, which is is absurd - you would need to account for ancestry that’s underreported because of the geopolitical shifts in Europe that occurred when the US received a ton of Ottoman immigration…for example. So why would you cherry-pick the lowest estimate of Turkish ancestry in the US when others are estimating millions? It’s just dishonest. You either report both nation’s lowest estimates or both nation’s upper estimates, rather than cherry picking the lowest from one and the highest from the other to create a narrative of superior Australian immigration and diversity that isn’t remotely accurate.
Anyways, per Wikipedia:
Turkish Australians: over 320,000
Turkish Americans: over 3,000,000
Italian Australians: ~1,000,000
Italian Americans: ~20,000,000
If you bother to read the sources, the upper estimates used for the US are things like statements from Commerce Secretaries, statements made in Bilateral Facts sheets etc, the census are far more reliable data as its self reported.
Most Yugoslavs in Australia tend to nominate ancestry to the part of Yugoslavia they were born in, be it Croatia Serbia etc, Fights between these two groups are very common in Australia, they hate each other, and you don't want to see the like for like statistics for those countries either. You would accuse me of lying again.
Anyway this was Sydney last week, just a regular Sunday football match really.
As I have explained....up until the end of WW2, Australia was a predominatly British Ancestory country. A huge landmass with a tiny population of Indigenous peoples and about 7.4 million in total. So any substantial immigration from anywhere other than the British Isles and their former ( ethically British )colonies was going to irrevocably change the demographics and broaden the diverse culture of the place.
and fair to say, Asian faces in the general population were not common in this country 50 years ago.
I can distincly remember the first and succeeding refugee boats from Vietnam arriving in Darwin harbour.
Those same 'reffos', well their kids etc today are now some of the most successful business people in Darwin, hardest working and all round assets to the country.
Agree with you, Australia has joined the ranks of diversity rather late re the civilized world, but I would suggest that with 30% of modern AU population being born overseas, the nation is making great strides in the diversity stakes.
Of course many new immigrants take the opportunities offered in the bigger cities on the coast. Inland and outback regions are way less diverse than say Sydney and Melbourne.
I recall the first Viet boats coming into Darwin Harbour as well. Not long after Australia commenced a policy that would allow some several thousand Viet refugees into Australia. (year 1977) This was announced while Mondale (I think he was Vice President was in Australia)
This was the beginning of breaking the back of The White Australia Policy. I recall a rather negative reception by many people at the time.
Australia is fast becoming more diverse. It needs to be careful though in ensuring the right people are being admitted as hasn't been the case to date.
If you bother to read the sources, the upper estimates used for the US are things like statements from Commerce Secretaries, statements made in Bilateral Facts sheets etc, the census are far more reliable data as its self reported
The upper estimates used are from organizations like the Department of State and Diaspora special interest groups, who are better at gauging ancestry, rather than self-reported surveys, which often produce massive undercounts - you can’t just ignore them.
I don’t know how clearly I could’ve explained that when I pointed out that the Ottoman ancestry in the US is wildly underreported because that state no longer exists - ergo, the amount of Turkish and Greek ancestry in the US would look much higher than the lowest possible data from self-reported surveys today. There’s no other way of explaining why self-reported Italian ancestry peaked in 2010 and has continued to fall since…for example. The Department of State has estimated 20-23 million Italian Americans from 1973, over 1,000,000 Turks, 19 million Poles, etc, by weighing what Bilateral Facts sheets and historic census data, surveys, and sometimes genetic data has said. Spanish ancestry in the US is wildly underreported, for example, because of the Hispanic/Latino census category, and how old that ancestry tends to be - it includes a potentially significant amount of the more than 26.7 million “white Latinos” in the US, and/or the 50 million latinos of another reported race, and was identified at more than 10,000,000 Americans according to a 2006 genealogical study.
My guess is you’d also be one of the people to complain that “English ancestry in the US is underreported”. You people have this anti-American complex that has a huge insecure spot when it comes to recognizing the ethnic diversity of the US. It’s weird - if you can’t equate it to Australia or identify it as some ethnically English outpost, you get belligerent, because none of your insulting and presumptuous generalizations work.
Again: you are cherry-picking the most conservative American data, and the most liberal Australian data, to manufacture a narrative. Your continued opposition to recognizing the full estimates of various diaspora groups in the US is indicative of a bias, I don’t know why you’re trying to excuse it away - whether you think the lower estimates are more accurate or not, the upper estimates exist, and in many cases they are obviously more legitimate than the self-reported data.
As for your comment about Yugoslav ancestry, the US has more people from every Yugoslav nation than Australia has.
Last edited by Jefferson Airplane; 10-10-2022 at 05:57 PM..
The upper estimates used are from organizations like the Department of State and Diaspora special interest groups, who are better at gauging ancestry, rather than self-reported surveys, which often produce massive undercounts - you can’t just ignore them.
I don’t know how clearly I could’ve explained that when I pointed out that the Ottoman ancestry in the US is wildly underreported because that state no longer exists - ergo, the amount of Turkish and Greek ancestry in the US would look much higher than the lowest possible data from self-reported surveys today. There’s no other way of explaining why self-reported Italian ancestry peaked in 2010 and has continued to fall since…for example. The Department of State has estimated 20-23 million Italian Americans from 1973, over 1,000,000 Turks, 19 million Poles, etc, by weighing what Bilateral Facts sheets and historic census data, surveys, and sometimes genetic data has said. Spanish ancestry in the US is wildly underreported, for example, because of the Hispanic/Latino census category, and how old that ancestry tends to be - it includes a potentially significant amount of the more than 26.7 million “white Latinos” in the US, and/or the 50 million latinos of another reported race, and was identified at more than 10,000,000 Americans according to a 2006 genealogical study.
My guess is you’d also be one of the people to complain that “English ancestry in the US is underreported”. You people have this anti-American complex that has a huge insecure spot when it comes to recognizing the ethnic diversity of the US. It’s weird - if you can’t equate it to Australia or identify it as some ethnically English outpost, you get belligerent, because none of your insulting and presumptuous generalizations work.
Again: you are cherry-picking the most conservative American data, and the most liberal Australian data, to manufacture a narrative. Your continued opposition to recognizing the full estimates of various diaspora groups in the US is indicative of a bias, I don’t know why you’re trying to excuse it away - whether you think the lower estimates are more accurate or not, the upper estimates exist, and in many cases they are obviously more legitimate than the self-reported data.
As for your comment about Yugoslav ancestry, the US has more people from every Yugoslav nation than Australia has.
So state departments are better at reporting ancestry than the people themselves - hardly says much for the intelligence of your average American.
Do you not think that other sources in Australia have upper Estimates as well? Of course they do, they just don't stick it as a reliable source of the actual population in Wikipedia - because its not..
Their are way more people of English Ancestry in the US over Australia as well - if you ignore the differences in population between the two countries the logical conclusion will be that he US is far more English than Australia.
Besides what wrong with been English - Nothing I am of Direct English ancestry myself.
No American bashing, just posting facts which you don't like it, you just call it America bashing to increase your victim status.
Mate, again lets get to the bare bones...the land mass of CONUS is similar to that of AU, but the population of the US is more than 12 times that of Australia. And 7 times that of Canada.
Why is this do you think ?
The USA, with its proximity to the populous nations to the south and the old world in Europe, is always going to be a sought after immigration location.
If we must mention the 19th century, well remember the six British colonies that are todays modern Australia were located at the far ends of the Earth, and a dangerous 3 or 4 month sea voyage from the Old World. Comparitively speaking, North America was/is a hop skip and jump away for potential immigrants 150 years ago. ( and today )
Climatically, Australia ( and Canada ) are a far harder 'sell' for potential migrants, with Australia lacking in abundant reliable rainfall, a cycle of droughts and flooding rains, and mostly older and poorer soils than those found in North America.
Inland from the coasts and west of the Great Dividing Ranges, AU is a tough place to make living, with population demographics showing a huge disparity of people living on the coasts compared to inland locations.
An interesting stat; the population of the island of Java to our north ( Indonesia ) is approx 145 million
The population of Northern Australia ( above 26*N and 40% of the land mass of the Continent ) is approx 1.4 million.
So no, raw figures that you insist on using are meaningless, percentages are valid in this instance methinks.
So state departments are better at reporting ancestry than the people themselves - hardly says much for the intelligence of your average American.
Do you not think that other sources in Australia have upper Estimates as well? Of course they do, they just don't stick it as a reliable source of the actual population in Wikipedia - because its not..
What a disgusting, dumb comment, and quite typical anti-Americanism. You were wrong, you have no argument, so you’re resorting to insults.
Not everyone is educated on their genealogy - that has nothing to do with “intelligence”. You didn’t understand it - again: self-reported ancestry, especially as it pertains to waves of immigration that are old, as well as waves of immigration from countries that don’t exist anymore, or have changed their borders, will not be accurate. Hence, why self-reported ancestry has decreased in various cases - see Spanish, Italian, British, French, Dutch, German, and more ancestry in the US. Australia wasn’t seeing significant immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries like the US was. That has ZERO to do with intelligence, but you people are obsessed with insulting Americans. Says a lot about the insecurity of Australians in their own sense of nationality.
Self-reported ancestry is never seen as accurate - it’s certainly no more accurate than the balanced estimates that special interest groups and the department of state might give. And I gave all the upper estimates that were listed for Australian populations that were listed on Wikipedia. Every single piece of data I reported was aggregated from various sources and was posted on Wikipedia.
You haven’t explained why what I’m saying is wrong, and you can’t, because it’s not - the upper estimates are the upper estimates, whether you want to attack their accuracy or not - I can do the same to the lower self-reported data, with much more reason on my side. I’ve explained why self-reported ancestry isn’t accurate and why, regardless, you can’t just ignore the upper estimates of ancestry. You’ve done nothing to properly refute this obvious fact, other than call Americans dumb for not identifying 19th century Ottoman Turkish ancestry that they might have, and repeat over and over again that “self-reported data is better “. It’s not.
What a disgusting, dumb comment, and quite typical anti-Americanism. You were wrong, you have no argument, so you’re resorting to insults.
Not everyone is educated on their genealogy - that has nothing to do with “intelligence”. You didn’t understand it - again: self-reported ancestry, especially as it pertains to waves of immigration that are old, as well as waves of immigration from countries that don’t exist anymore, or have changed their borders, will not be accurate. Hence, why self-reported ancestry has decreased in various cases - see Spanish, Italian, British, French, Dutch, German, and more ancestry in the US. Australia wasn’t seeing significant immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries like the US was. That has ZERO to do with intelligence, but you people are obsessed with insulting Americans. Says a lot about the insecurity of Australians in their own sense of nationality.
Self-reported ancestry is never seen as accurate - it’s certainly no more accurate than the balanced estimates that special interest groups and the department of state might give. And I gave all the upper estimates that were listed for Australian populations that were listed on Wikipedia. Every single piece of data I reported was aggregated from various sources and was posted on Wikipedia.
You haven’t explained why what I’m saying is wrong, and you can’t, because it’s not - the upper estimates are the upper estimates, whether you want to attack their accuracy or not - I can do the same to the lower self-reported data, with much more reason on my side. I’ve explained why self-reported ancestry isn’t accurate and why, regardless, you can’t just ignore the upper estimates of ancestry. You’ve done nothing to properly refute this obvious fact, other than call Americans dumb for not identifying 19th century Ottoman Turkish ancestry that they might have, and repeat over and over again that “self-reported data is better “. It’s not.
Some times insults are required to bring a person into line, take it personally, very personally - Please
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.
“. It’s not.
