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.
Because the topic of the thread is which is most international and diverse. Immigration is the single biggest factor in determining what cities are the most international.
So a- why does it matter? and b- a lot of international people are not immigrants.
So a- why does it matter? and b- a lot of international people are not immigrants.
a) To some people it does and to others it doesn't. For me, I prefer have large immigrant communities around because I like having a diverse set of friends, cultures, religions (or lack thereof), and foods to enjoy. I would hate living in a place that lacks diversity. That's not the same for everyone and more power to you if you want to be around your own kind all the time. That also doesn't mean I don't love visiting cities that are not diverse. Perfect example is Cincinnati. Not international at all, but a lot of fun to visit. I love going to the OTR area.
And again, the topic of the thread is about diversity and how international these cities are.
b) That's true. But the immigrant population gives you a base line of how international a city is. If a city once was a magnet for immigrants but no longer is (like Cleveland) that means it once was international. However, because Cleveland gets a very tiny amount of immigrants relative to its size now, it is no longer international. That doesn't take away from the history or culture of the city, but it does take away from how diverse and international it is.
a) To some people it does and to others it doesn't. For me, I prefer have large immigrant communities around because I like having a diverse set of friends, cultures, religions (or lack thereof), and foods to enjoy. I would hate living in a place that lacks diversity. That's not the same for everyone and more power to you if you want to be around your own kind all the time. That also doesn't mean I don't love visiting cities that are not diverse. Perfect example is Cincinnati. Not international at all, but a lot of fun to visit. I love going to the OTR area.
And again, the topic of the thread is about diversity and how international these cities are.
b) That's true. But the immigrant population gives you a base line of how international a city is. If a city once was a magnet for immigrants but no longer is (like Cleveland) that means it once was international. However, because Cleveland gets a very tiny amount of immigrants relative to its size now, it is no longer international. That doesn't take away from the history or culture of the city, but it does take away from how diverse and international it is.
Honestly, there is very little point in discussing immigrants for a few reasons:
- immigrants do not really leave their neighborhoods. I don't think the average person is actually friends with an immigrant. Could be wrong, but I rarely ever see it. East Boston is dominated by South and Central Americans- how many of them are actually friends with anyone from Brookline? I'd wager not many. Food is just food, I don't know, never understood the nationalism behind culinary traditions. Besides, anyone is capable of making anything. You don't have to be Chinese to make good Chinese food (or any other type). Do you have to be Austrian to be able to compose good classical music? Of course not.
- Diversity in the superficial way that most people mean in this thread and similar threads (the warm and fuzzy feeling you get when you see a white person and a brown person standing next to each other, let's ignore the fact that they are both probably on Facebook at the same time) is pretty meaningless when you don't have intellectual diversity.
- Immigration is now just bureaucratically controlled. The fact that some immigrants go to some cities and not others isn't really a reflection of free will, but rather the result of who will fund them where. It's not really logical to say that since Pittsburgh doesn't attract immigrants now, it's on the way out. When Pittsburgh had a lot of immigrants, that was back when there wasn't a social safety net to rely on and you didn't have to get everyone's permission to move. This is not to suggest that Pittsburgh would have 1 million more residents or anything minus immigration laws, but rather my point is to suggest that we now have more or less social engineering when it comes to who is allowed to come into the country and where they go, much much much moreso than when places like the Rust Belt were thriving.
Also, like I said, so much of my career has involved international dealings, immigrants, travel, etc. But that really doesn't make Boston a better place than, say, Minneapolis or Baltimore or whatever. A dirty little secret is that a lot of immigrant groups really don't like each other very much. Immigrants that have been here longer routinely take advantage of newer immigrants too, who feel lost and uncomfortable in new surroundings and lack of English skills. But hey- international!!
Don't read this as anything against you, just as someone who has been deep in this kind of thing for a long time, I've come to see it as quite overrated and just an easy ploy that people love to throw out there without really understanding it. I get your points, I just feel like my side is always left out.
a) To some people it does and to others it doesn't. For me, I prefer have large immigrant communities around because I like having a diverse set of friends, cultures, religions (or lack thereof), and foods to enjoy. I would hate living in a place that lacks diversity. That's not the same for everyone and more power to you if you want to be around your own kind all the time. That also doesn't mean I don't love visiting cities that are not diverse. Perfect example is Cincinnati. Not international at all, but a lot of fun to visit. I love going to the OTR area.
And again, the topic of the thread is about diversity and how international these cities are.
b) That's true. But the immigrant population gives you a base line of how international a city is. If a city once was a magnet for immigrants but no longer is (like Cleveland) that means it once was international. However, because Cleveland gets a very tiny amount of immigrants relative to its size now, it is no longer international. That doesn't take away from the history or culture of the city, but it does take away from how diverse and international it is.
Again, Minneapolis is not a magnet for immigrants. Refugees are placed there.
Honestly, there is very little point in discussing immigrants for a few reasons:
- immigrants do not really leave their neighborhoods. I don't think the average person is actually friends with an immigrant. Could be wrong, but I rarely ever see it. East Boston is dominated by South and Central Americans- how many of them are actually friends with anyone from Brookline? I'd wager not many. Food is just food, I don't know, never understood the nationalism behind culinary traditions. Besides, anyone is capable of making anything. You don't have to be Chinese to make good Chinese food (or any other type). Do you have to be Austrian to be able to compose good classical music? Of course not.
- Diversity in the superficial way that most people mean in this thread and similar threads (the warm and fuzzy feeling you get when you see a white person and a brown person standing next to each other, let's ignore the fact that they are both probably on Facebook at the same time) is pretty meaningless when you don't have intellectual diversity.
- Immigration is now just bureaucratically controlled. The fact that some immigrants go to some cities and not others isn't really a reflection of free will, but rather the result of who will fund them where. It's not really logical to say that since Pittsburgh doesn't attract immigrants now, it's on the way out. When Pittsburgh had a lot of immigrants, that was back when there wasn't a social safety net to rely on and you didn't have to get everyone's permission to move. This is not to suggest that Pittsburgh would have 1 million more residents or anything minus immigration laws, but rather my point is to suggest that we now have more or less social engineering when it comes to who is allowed to come into the country and where they go, much much much moreso than when places like the Rust Belt were thriving.
Also, like I said, so much of my career has involved international dealings, immigrants, travel, etc. But that really doesn't make Boston a better place than, say, Minneapolis or Baltimore or whatever. A dirty little secret is that a lot of immigrant groups really don't like each other very much. Immigrants that have been here longer routinely take advantage of newer immigrants too, who feel lost and uncomfortable in new surroundings and lack of English skills. But hey- international!!
Don't read this as anything against you, just as someone who has been deep in this kind of thing for a long time, I've come to see it as quite overrated and just an easy ploy that people love to throw out there without really understanding it. I get your points, I just feel like my side is always left out.
That's fine that you feel that way, but I disagree with almost everything you wrote. I wont say your wrong, but my perspective is just completely different.
Food definitely is not just food. I grew up in LA and Ive lived in Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and DC. Different cities have different things to offer and since all the cities Ive lived in have huge immigrant communities. You wont get Vietnamese food in a place like Pittsburgh that you get in a city like Houston. You wont get Korean food like you can in LA in a place like Cleveland. You wont get Ethiopian food like you can in DC in St. Louis. By that same token, Swensons in Cleveland is probably one of the best (cheap) hamburgers Ive ever had. I cant seem to find a great cheap hamburger like that in Houston. The reason being for most of this is ethnic culture and culinary traditions. Its not all the same. Its not even similar.
Diversity CAN be a code word for "few white people" and yes some hipsters love to get that warm fuzzy feeling when they interact with a brown person. However, for me personally, its a way of life. I travel internationally almost constantly. Ive been to China, the Philippines, and Canada in the last month. I would personally be miserable without those interactions. That's why Cleveland or Pittsburgh simply wouldn't be for me. That does make a city that's chalk full of immigrants like Houston better than Cleveland or Pittsburgh. Its just more my taste. For others, its different. Neither approach is right or wrong, just different.
As for immigrants being placed in cities, sometimes yes and sometimes no. If you look at cities on the Plains like OKC or Wichita, you will find very sizable Vietnamese communities. The reason for that is that churches would sponsor families to relocate there after the war. Right now, Dallas is receiving the most Burmese immigrants of any city in the US. The reason is the same. However, if youre talking about (for example) the Koreans in LA, the Chinese in NYC, the Indians in Dallas, the Iraqis in Detroit, the Ethiopians in DC, and the Vietnamese in Houston, the Cape Verdeans in Boston, etc. those groups move there because they very much want to be there. That is the rule rather than the exception. Refugees are placed, immigrants go where they wish.
Again, your perspective is your perspective. I don't tell people they are wrong unless it can be statistically proven. Saying one city is better than another is not something that is statistical. My perspective is simply different.
Honestly, there is very little point in discussing immigrants for a few reasons:
- immigrants do not really leave their neighborhoods. I don't think the average person is actually friends with an immigrant. Could be wrong, but I rarely ever see it. East Boston is dominated by South and Central Americans- how many of them are actually friends with anyone from Brookline? I'd wager not many. Food is just food, I don't know, never understood the nationalism behind culinary traditions. Besides, anyone is capable of making anything. You don't have to be Chinese to make good Chinese food (or any other type). Do you have to be Austrian to be able to compose good classical music? Of course not.
- Diversity in the superficial way that most people mean in this thread and similar threads (the warm and fuzzy feeling you get when you see a white person and a brown person standing next to each other, let's ignore the fact that they are both probably on Facebook at the same time) is pretty meaningless when you don't have intellectual diversity.
- Immigration is now just bureaucratically controlled. The fact that some immigrants go to some cities and not others isn't really a reflection of free will, but rather the result of who will fund them where. It's not really logical to say that since Pittsburgh doesn't attract immigrants now, it's on the way out. When Pittsburgh had a lot of immigrants, that was back when there wasn't a social safety net to rely on and you didn't have to get everyone's permission to move. This is not to suggest that Pittsburgh would have 1 million more residents or anything minus immigration laws, but rather my point is to suggest that we now have more or less social engineering when it comes to who is allowed to come into the country and where they go, much much much moreso than when places like the Rust Belt were thriving.
Also, like I said, so much of my career has involved international dealings, immigrants, travel, etc. But that really doesn't make Boston a better place than, say, Minneapolis or Baltimore or whatever. A dirty little secret is that a lot of immigrant groups really don't like each other very much. Immigrants that have been here longer routinely take advantage of newer immigrants too, who feel lost and uncomfortable in new surroundings and lack of English skills. But hey- international!!
Don't read this as anything against you, just as someone who has been deep in this kind of thing for a long time, I've come to see it as quite overrated and just an easy ploy that people love to throw out there without really understanding it. I get your points, I just feel like my side is always left out.
In Columbus I was good friends with people from Japan, the Philippines, China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia and Sweden. I don't mean for a bbq once a year, either, but every single week. I was at least acquaintences or worked with people from several other nations, including Somalia, Bangladesh, France, Mexico and Egypt. And we all seemed to get along just fine. I don't know how typical this is or isn't for most people, but it was not a situation I sought for. It was just something that happened organically. So I don't think it is fair to say that immigrants don't leave their neighborhoods or all hate each other. I think maybe in the past, that was more true. That is why historic immigrant populations formed Chinatowns and Little Italys. Now, modern immigrants are far more spread out across cities, so it is more likely that you will encounter them on a day to day basis than perhaps you used to be.
And it isn't just about food or specific culture that these people bring, but an exchange of ideas and perspectives. If I had only just known native Americans, I truly feel like my life would have been less fulfilling. I recognize a lot of people might disagree with that. Certainly, you seem to disagree.
But speaking as someone who loves international cuisine, sorry, but it is usually better when it made by the people who grew up eating it. I've found that most American versions of international cuisine is really unauthentic. That doesn't mean it can't be good, but that something gets lost in the translation. I've had good Mexican food in the US, but it wasn't until I lived in Mexico that I got to really understand what it is and all its complex flavors.
In Columbus I was good friends with people from Japan, the Philippines, China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia and Sweden. I don't mean for a bbq once a year, either, but every single week. I was at least acquaintences or worked with people from several other nations, including Somalia, Bangladesh, France, Mexico and Egypt. And we all seemed to get along just fine. I don't know how typical this is or isn't for most people, but it was not a situation I sought for. It was just something that happened organically. So I don't think it is fair to say that immigrants don't leave their neighborhoods or all hate each other. I think maybe in the past, that was more true. That is why historic immigrant populations formed Chinatowns and Little Italys. Now, modern immigrants are far more spread out across cities, so it is more likely that you will encounter them on a day to day basis than perhaps you used to be.
And it isn't just about food or specific culture that these people bring, but an exchange of ideas and perspectives. If I had only just known native Americans, I truly feel like my life would have been less fulfilling. I recognize a lot of people might disagree with that. Certainly, you seem to disagree.
I just talked about how I am in the international arena. Of course I like it. Also overrated. I do like hanging out with my Russian friends and I have been watching all the Cavs games with a Brazillian dude. It's fun. But it's not the only good people to chill with in the city.
You live in Mexico City too,this is likely selection bias. I lived in Russia. This doesn't mean that it's not unusual for Americans to live in Russia. It's extremely uncommon. I would bet anything that the average person I stop on the street near my house in Brighton would not have an actual friend from, say, El Salvador, and lives in East Boston.
That's fine that you feel that way, but I disagree with almost everything you wrote. I wont say your wrong, but my perspective is just completely different.
Food definitely is not just food. I grew up in LA and Ive lived in Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and DC. Different cities have different things to offer and since all the cities Ive lived in have huge immigrant communities. You wont get Vietnamese food in a place like Pittsburgh that you get in a city like Houston. You wont get Korean food like you can in LA in a place like Cleveland. You wont get Ethiopian food like you can in DC in St. Louis. By that same token, Swensons in Cleveland is probably one of the best (cheap) hamburgers Ive ever had. I cant seem to find a great cheap hamburger like that in Houston. The reason being for most of this is ethnic culture and culinary traditions. Its not all the same. Its not even similar.
Diversity CAN be a code word for "few white people" and yes some hipsters love to get that warm fuzzy feeling when they interact with a brown person. However, for me personally, its a way of life. I travel internationally almost constantly. Ive been to China, the Philippines, and Canada in the last month. I would personally be miserable without those interactions. That's why Cleveland or Pittsburgh simply wouldn't be for me. That does make a city that's chalk full of immigrants like Houston better than Cleveland or Pittsburgh. Its just more my taste. For others, its different. Neither approach is right or wrong, just different.
As for immigrants being placed in cities, sometimes yes and sometimes no. If you look at cities on the Plains like OKC or Wichita, you will find very sizable Vietnamese communities. The reason for that is that churches would sponsor families to relocate there after the war. Right now, Dallas is receiving the most Burmese immigrants of any city in the US. The reason is the same. However, if youre talking about (for example) the Koreans in LA, the Chinese in NYC, the Indians in Dallas, the Iraqis in Detroit, the Ethiopians in DC, and the Vietnamese in Houston, the Cape Verdeans in Boston, etc. those groups move there because they very much want to be there. That is the rule rather than the exception. Refugees are placed, immigrants go where they wish.
Again, your perspective is your perspective. I don't tell people they are wrong unless it can be statistically proven. Saying one city is better than another is not something that is statistical. My perspective is simply different.
In regards to the relocation of immigrants to specific cities, including refugees, none of those people are actually obligated to remain living in those cities. Also, refugees actually get a choice of where they go initially, usually from a list of many cities, and they tend to choose places that they may be familiar with in some way or they already know people living there. So it isn't simply that these people are being assigned a city and are forced to stay there.
I just talked about how I am in the international arena. Of course I like it. Also overrated. I do like hanging out with my Russian friends and I have been watching all the Cavs games with a Brazillian dude. It's fun. But it's not the only good people to chill with in the city.
You live in Mexico City too,this is likely selection bias. I lived in Russia. This doesn't mean that it's not unusual for Americans to live in Russia. It's extremely uncommon. I would bet anything that the average person I stop on the street near my house in Brighton would not have an actual friend from, say, El Salvador, and lives in East Boston.
It wasn't a selective choice as if I went out looking for immigrant friends. I wasn't closed to having them, but it was not something I actively sought, as I said. It was more like I made one that led to another and another, etc. And in terms of those I worked with, that was not a choice at all.
I've always figured that, with Chicago in the obvious top spot; the top three, top five, and top ten Midwest cities are a pretty easy call. This is true in general, as well as to the specific criteria proposed in the OP. The problem comes in determining their orders within those categories. There has been more than one thread here asking about the number two city in The Midwest. Those threads have often become contentious between supporters of Detroit and of Minneapolis, with an occasional Cleveland or St Louis booster thrown in.
An argument can be made for either Detroit or Minneapolis as the number two metro. However, there is no rationally-based argument for any other city. Minneapolis and Detroit have by far more international flight connections, global business interactions, and foreign-born/influenced cultural enclaves than any of the other listed cities. Whichever of these two cities places second, the other clearly places third.
As to the question of what city comes after the top three, Cleveland and St louis are in much the same situation as are Minneapolis and Detroit. That is to say that a clear case can be made for either city, with neither standing irrefutably above the other. I voted for Cleveland, but someone else could certainly make a strong case for St Louis.
Other than the official regional designation provided by The US Census Bureau, there is no standardized way of defining The Midwest. The Census Bureau's definition excludes the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. Therefore Buffalo, Rochester, Pittsburgh, and Louisville, in spite of some cultural similarities, are not really Midwestern. However, for the sake of argument, I would suggest that Pittsburgh is a peer of Cleveland and St Louis, while the other three fall outside of the top ten in The Midwest--in my opinion, and in alphabetical order, those top ten are rounded out by Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Kansas City, and Milwaukee.
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.
