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.
There is no "BS" in what I said. NYC is more ethnically diverse than Los Angeles, plain and simple. Only when you reduce everything to terms like "white" "black" and "latino" can LA even compete. Nearly 50% of your population is comprised of indio-mestizos from Mexico and central-america(not counting all the illegals). So not only does NYC have a much more varied European, not "anglo", population but also a much more diverse and vibrant LATINO population.
NYC is more heavily white but there is incredible diversity in that white population as well. We're talking about Italians, Ashkenazi Jews, Irish Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Greeks, Germans, WASPs just to name a few. There might be some cultural melding of all these groups into simply "white" but the diversity is still there. Compare that to a city like Atlanta where the vast majority of whites are simply of "American" ancestry, basically white people so far removed from scots-irish or english colonial ancestors that they just say that their background is American. There's no ethnic pride or diversity among whites anywhere else in the US like there is in New York.
LA is VERY diverse but there's not the same amount of diversity among its largest ethnic group, Hispanics. Most are simply Mexican and mestizo. Among its smaller minority and ethnic groups there is incredible diversity that rivals NYC- you have Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Iranians, Jews, African Americans and the same patchwork of white ancestries. It beats New York in the sense that its largest ethnic group is actually a minority almost everywhere else in America, so that's cool. But within that ethnic group, there is not much diversity.
Well put, I agree. Overall I'd say NYC is more diverse but... who cares? Los Angeles is also extremely diverse. Both cities blow most other US cities away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
So basically what your saying is that NYC is more diverse city but when it comes to MSA/CSA, LA is more racially diverse?
Well put, I agree. Overall I'd say NYC is more diverse but... who cares? Los Angeles is also extremely diverse. Both cities blow most other US cities away.
That sounds about right.
Probably the best perspective for this comparison.
Also to me another interesting aspect is they are both very diverse but in different ways making the diversity of the places different and making for greater diversity among our two largest cities, to me a good and interesting thing
Being able to experience little Tehran or a large Orthodox Jewish population in either respectively makes visiting either different
There is no "BS" in what I said. NYC is more ethnically diverse than Los Angeles, plain and simple. Only when you reduce everything to terms like "white" "black" and "latino" can LA even compete. Nearly 50% of your population is comprised of indio-mestizos from Mexico and central-america(not counting all the illegals). So not only does NYC have a much more varied European, not "anglo", population but also a much more diverse and vibrant LATINO population.
Translation: NYC is less RACIALLY diverse. And it is, which makes your statement BS. "Mestizo" is a essentially a mixed race, and the single largest group in Los Angeles.
Speaking of competing--a massive chunk of New York's white diversity comes from ethnic groups that migrated and assimilated eons ago. You have to pretend there's hundreds of thousands of Germans, French, and Englishman running around on Long Island and in Connecticut to make the Tri-State area appear more diverse than it actually is.
Speaking of competing--a massive chunk of New York's white diversity comes from ethnic groups that migrated and assimilated eons ago. You have to pretend there's hundreds of thousands of Germans, French, and Englishman running around on Long Island and in Connecticut to make the Tri-State area appear more diverse than it actually is.
But Italians do contribute a lot to New York's ethnic flavor. As Eddie Muprhy said, "Italians are the only people who grab their d***s more than we do."
Translation: NYC is less RACIALLY diverse. And it is, which makes your statement BS. "Mestizo" is a essentially a mixed race, and the single largest group in Los Angeles.
Having a large admixed population doesn't make you diverse, neither does having a large "minority" group. When it comes to Mexicans in LA "mestizo" really means a homogenous mixture of spanish and indian, usually of the darker variety. We are not talking about Brazilians or something here, dude. The Mexicans who live in LA are not very diverse in a phenotypical/physical sense.
This doesn't look like diversity to me, sorry.
Quote:
Speaking of competing--a massive chunk of New York's white diversity comes from ethnic groups that migrated and assimilated eons ago.You have to pretend there's hundreds of thousands of Germans, French, and Englishman running around on Long Island and in Connecticut to make the Tri-State area appear more diverse than it actually is.
No, I really don't. NYC doesn't need to have hundreds of thousands of European nationals to compete with LA in that front. Are you serious? How many Europeans are there living in LA compared to NYC? You can't even "compete" with Boston, Chicago, or Miami when it comes to Europeans on a per-capita basis. I think the Euros prefer San Fran over LA in the west coast anyway.
"New York white" doesn't strike me as particularly diverse either and it dominates the Tri-State area to an even greater extent than Latinos in Los Angeles. Long Island, for example, is over 65% white. How that makes New York more racially diverse, Lord knows. Ethnically I could see the argument, but you drastically underestimate L.A.'s own ethnic diversity. The number of groups L.A. comes first or second in is substantial.
Well put, I agree. Overall I'd say NYC is more diverse but... who cares? Los Angeles is also extremely diverse. Both cities blow most other US cities away.
Basically. This is like arguing about who's fatter between Shamu and Rosie O'Donnell. Bottom line is that it's a close call.
Having a large admixed population doesn't make you diverse, neither does having a large "minority" group. When it comes to Mexicans in LA "mestizo" really means a homogenous mixture of spanish and indian, usually of the darker variety. We are not talking about Brazilians or something here, dude. The Mexicans who live in LA are not very diverse in a phenotypical/physical sense.
This doesn't look like diversity to me, sorry.
No, I really don't. NYC doesn't need to have hundreds of thousands of European nationals to compete with LA in that front. Are you serious? How many Europeans are there living in LA compared to NYC? You can't even "compete" with Boston, Chicago, or Miami when it comes to Europeans on a per-capita basis. I think the Euros prefer San Fran over LA in the west coast anyway.
There are a few neighborhoods like that, Boyle Heights, Pacoima, etc. I agree a neighborhood that is 90% Hispanic (and 100 percent of that Mexican) is not very diverse. Also remember there are large and growing Central American populations aside from the Mexicans.
However that isn't really the norm for most neighborhoods. Most places in Los Angeles have a pretty decent split between Asians / Black / White / Hispanic (which some regional segregation).
I think the reason you are getting so much flak is that it seems like you are insinuating LA is not a very diverse place. Anyone with common sense can see that is not the case.
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.