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.
......... Brazilians are not Hispanics, Brazilians are Latin American and lusophone! This topic is about Hispanics and not about Latin Americans.
Here is a definition for you what Hispanic means:
"Hispanic America contrasts with Latin America, which includes not only Hispanic America, but also Brazil." Hispanic: "Relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, especially those of Central and South America."
"In short, “Hispanic” focuses on Spanish-speaking origin. This means Spain is included, but Brazil is excluded because Brazilians speak Portuguese. “Latino” refers to people of Latin American origin. This includes Brazil and excludes Spain. Taken from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0c5f0322c9e44 "
It was nice of you to take the time to search for numbers, but I declare your comparison null and void because you compare Latin Americans and not Hispanics.
Inserting Brazil, a country of over 200 Million inhabitants, is completely distorting a comparison that is supposed to be about Hispanics............
.
This topic is about both Hispanics and Latin Americans. Read the topic title, read the original post to this topic. Both Hispanics and Latin Americans are mentioned in the original post and people are responding accordingly.
To elaborate on the Wikipedia article that you (or was it Huffpo?) took your definition from, Brazil would apparently be considered to be included:
"...........Hispanic America (Spanish: Hispanoamérica, or América hispana), also known as Spanish America (Spanish: América española), is the region comprising the Spanish-speaking nations in the Americas.
Hispanic America is sometimes grouped together with Brazil under the term "Ibero-America", meaning those countries in the Americas with cultural roots in the Iberian Peninsula. Hispanic America also contrasts with Latin America, which includes not only Hispanic America, but also Brazil, as well as the former French colonies in the Western Hemisphere (areas that are now in either the United States or Canada are usually excluded) ........."
^^^
Good post Zoisite. It should be noted as well that if someone wants to cherry pick Brazil out of the equation - one could also get granular to the point of cherry picking the cultural differences between various Hispanic countries. I think most people would be fine with Latin America and including Brazil. On the topic of Brazil - i'm thinking and this is just a guess that the attraction of Toronto over Montreal and Vancouver may be linked to the sizable Portuguese diaspora (particularly Azorean) in Toronto.
One might not assume this at first glance but as I mentioned above Latinos and Québécois generally get along really well and when Latinos move here they quickly fit in fairly seamlessly.
If you polled the population of Quebec about which immigrants fit in the best here they'd probably be up there near the top of the list with the French.
Some of the comments you have made demonstrate to me at least (I don't want to speak as the English Canadian, I am but a voice of many of us). Anyway, before I ramble on, essentially what i'm getting at is a common thread in your commentary. It isn't 'wrong' but some of it doesn't sit well with me in terms of a 'natural inclination' to sort of be somewhat repelled by it. I'm sure that doesn't surprise you but your comment about all things being 'equal' Latin American or Hispanic American (just to make BK do more backflips) would be a favourable group to have more immigrants from than presumably say South Asian or East Indian as example!? Also the examples you cite about other groups like Lebanese etc - common thread they 'integrate' and 'fit in' seamlessly. You see where I am getting at here.
It seems to be a stark difference between Quebec and the R.O.C. You would probably admit to this and I think I know the root of it or at least a big part of the root. Protection of language and culture. In Toronto, even though there are more visible minorities in the CMA than White/Euro ancestry now and even though there is not a prevailing local culture as strong as in Montreal, the 'threat' just isn't perceived to be as great . Integration isn't impossible in this type of environment but the expectation to fit in seamlessly or integrate appears to not be as strong.
We could say well because English is a more dominant language in the world and we could also say that English is by far the most important language on our continent but there is something more there. It is a difference - one not better than the other but different yes.
Canada has lots of South Asian, and East Asian, but why not Latin Americans?
Is Canada trying to differentiate itself from America?
But with regards to the OP, our history is different. We don't border Latin America. Large swaths of the U.S. used to be Latin American and finally, the question is so US-centric as to make little sense. One might just as well ask if the U.S. is trying to differentiate itself from Canada by having a larger Latin American/Hispanic presence, or by not having a special Franco-American state. Canada is a different country with a different history - I'm not sure why that even has to be explained.
Some of the comments you have made demonstrate to me at least (I don't want to speak as the English Canadian, I am but a voice of many of us). Anyway, before I ramble on, essentially what i'm getting at is a common thread in your commentary. It isn't 'wrong' but some of it doesn't sit well with me in terms of a 'natural inclination' to sort of be somewhat repelled by it. I'm sure that doesn't surprise you but your comment about all things being 'equal' Latin American or Hispanic American (just to make BK do more backflips) would be a favourable group to have more immigrants from than presumably say South Asian or East Indian as example!? Also the examples you cite about other groups like Lebanese etc - common thread they 'integrate' and 'fit in' seamlessly. You see where I am getting at here.
It seems to be a stark difference between Quebec and the R.O.C. You would probably admit to this and I think I know the root of it or at least a big part of the root. Protection of language and culture. In Toronto, even though there are more visible minorities in the CMA than White/Euro ancestry now and even though there is not a prevailing local culture as strong as in Montreal, the 'threat' just isn't perceived to be as great . Integration isn't impossible in this type of environment but the expectation to fit in seamlessly or integrate appears to not be as strong.
We could say well because English is a more dominant language in the world and we could also say that English is by far the most important language on our continent but there is something more there. It is a difference - one not better than the other but different yes.
Again no judgements here - just observations.
I think you're onto something (though I already realized this as you can imagine ) but I think the fundamental difference between the ROC and Quebec is really how much currency there is in the ROC for the illusion that all groups will fit in as easily as any other. Even in Toronto and Vancouver there is an obvious difference in how smoothly some groups have settled in vs. how other groups have.
Now, this does not mean I am in favour of tinkering with immigration policies in favour of or away from certain groups, as I fundamentally believe we're all individuals, but there are definitely some obvious takeaways on this issue if you bother to open your eyes.
Also, "fitting in" is a two-way street and involves outcomes for not just the host society but also the minority people themselves. This can also be judged on a wide range of metrics.
If you look at Montreal vs. Toronto, the rate of violent death among young black males is much higher in Toronto than in Montreal. Both cities have comparably sized demographics of this type and a large number of them are of Caribbean origin in both cities. (Though the specific source countries are often different - but the main source country for Montreal is probably the least favoured one socio-economically.)
So this is definitely an outcome that matters greatly to the minority group that can be said to be related to "fitting in" in a way, or at least to the success of the group's settlement into the wider city and society. (And it is more complex than simply looking at statistical data on employment or income - though admittedly the job numbers for black youth in both Montreal and Toronto are likely worse than for the general population. I'd still rather have my kid be unemployed for a while than have him get shot.)
I kind of alluded to this earlier in terms of bloodlines but it's also true that the ancestors Latin Americans (sorry to get away from the strict "Hispanic" term) and French Canadians mixed () a lot more with the native population than the WASP population did when they colonized the Americas. I think this had to do with religion more than anything and was a typical Catholic behaviour for some reason. Protestants (be they WASP here or Down Under or even the Dutch in South Africa) kept much more to themselves and did not massively *consort* in this way with indigenous populations where they settled.
^^^
I'm not really feeling the illusion part AJ. It isn't some sort of denial or even dismissal of some practical realities of it being more tough for some groups to integrate into our society than others. It may be harder but that simply comes with the territory. Toronto is really a good example - yes there certainly are integration issues with some groups more than others. Having said that, you could say the same about other cities of comparable diversity globally.
Where the illusion is I think is more outside of Canada that portrays a city like Toronto as the most multicultural place in the universe and most harmonious and integrated as well. That stuff while in theory seems wonderful, is in practice and on the ground something most Torontonians wouldn't agree with.
We can examine the pros and cons -of integration in cities like Montreal and Toronto but at the end of the day - the question that Torontonians and really the R.O.C need to reconcile is is it all worth it. I think the answer lies in the direction and policies we have in place so you have your answer and you also have your 'distinction' that my friend goes both ways!
On the topic of Black crime in Toronto vs Montreal I do think overall size of the black community comes into play. The bigger any city gets the more apt you are to have higher crime rates. Toronto has double the number of blacks in its CMA than Montreal. Sometimes things just snowball. If I rammed 2 million more people into Greater Montreal, even over the next 50 years i'm pretty sure Montreal wouldn't escape similar levels of crime as Toronto has now. In any event - Toronto is still an objectively very safe city. You'd have to be afraid of your own shadow to feel 'unsafe' in practically any part of the city.
On the topic of Black crime in Toronto vs Montreal I do think overall size of the black community comes into play. The bigger any city gets the more apt you are to have higher crime rates. Toronto has double the number of blacks in its CMA than Montreal. Sometimes things just snowball. If I rammed 2 million more people into Greater Montreal, even over the next 50 years i'm pretty sure Montreal wouldn't escape similar levels of crime as Toronto has now. In any event - Toronto is still an objectively very safe city. You'd have to be afraid of your own shadow to feel 'unsafe' in practically any part of the city.
I have to disagree. The East Asian and South Asian communities in Toronto are much larger than the black community and their youth crime numbers are extremely low.
I don't think that population sizes or city sizes or even diversity correlate directly with crime rates.
Quebec City is non-diverse but has extremely low crime. Winnipeg is the same size, is more diverse but has way more crime. More than Toronto in terms of per capita rates.
There are places that are non-diverse in Canada that are 100% aboriginal that have high crime rates.
NYC is the most diverse city in the U.S. and has just about the lowest crime rate of all the major cities down there.
Nope. Rushton, Jensen, and Arthur Murray are practitioners of what's called "scientific racism" or academic racism, using dubious and questionable methodologies to arrive at a conclusion. And there is a very long history of this type of junk science to justify and support racism in policy.
The so-called Alt-Right does get a lot of inspiration from these guys... mainly because these guys address some unresolved societal issues. In that rarefied world of academia, professionals are pretty smug on the belief that all races are created equally, in all things. It is a tenet of multiculturalism, which finds its greatest support in U.S. and Canada's universities. Academia has a lock down on the debate -- so of course these guys would find audiences. All one has to do is open their eyes and look around to see that there are indeed racial differences. And a lot of people are tired of hearing that it is all whitey's fault that non-whites aren't on parity with whites in all things (especially if you haven't seen your standard of living improve in the last 10 years).
People from the high plains of East Africa are excellent long distance runners. They have long slender limbs (the average white guy carries around an added 10lbs around the calves -- you try to run with that!) and different lung capacities. Around 20% of African American bodies reject organ transplants from white organ donors. If we can begin to acknowledge that there are real biological differences among the races, why cannot we even consider that just maybe there are different mental abilities.
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.
) but I think the fundamental difference between the ROC and Quebec is really how much currency there is in the ROC for the illusion that all groups will fit in as easily as any other. Even in Toronto and Vancouver there is an obvious difference in how smoothly some groups have settled in vs. how other groups have. 
) a lot more with the native population than the WASP population did when they colonized the Americas. I think this had to do with religion more than anything and was a typical Catholic behaviour for some reason. Protestants (be they WASP here or Down Under or even the Dutch in South Africa) kept much more to themselves and did not massively *consort* in this way with indigenous populations where they settled.
