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.
What about foreign born population divided by # immigrant groups over 20K? I suppose the intuition behind it would be that the larger a city’s foreign born population, the more immigrant groups you would expect to see represented.
Hmmm....I gave it a try but it doesnt seem to reveal anything. Have a look at some of the numbers below.
Washington DC/Baltimore: 76,999
New York City: 127,149
Portland: 128,753
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 140,689
San Jose/San Francisco: 168,286
Austin: 175,033
Phoenix: 177,429
Los Angeles/Riverside: 190,677
These numbers dont seem to indicate anything that I can tell. Maybe Im missing something?
Hmmm....I gave it a try but it doesnt seem to reveal anything. Have a look at some of the numbers below.
Washington DC/Baltimore: 76,999
New York City: 127,149
Portland: 128,753
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 140,689
San Jose/San Francisco: 168,286
Austin: 175,033
Phoenix: 177,429
Los Angeles/Riverside: 190,677
These numbers dont seem to indicate anything that I can tell. Maybe Im missing something?
Interesting - in some ways it seems to reflect the other diversity data, but in some ways it’s different. I think it’s not so much about the individual numbers, but how they compare to each other.
Just to take the most extreme examples - it looks like DC, for its foreign born population, has more groups than we would expect to see represented (in this case smaller number = more diverse). Its foreign born population is just a fraction of LA’s, and yet it still has 23 groups with over 20k residents, compared with LA’s 29. It suggests that LA’s immigrant population is very “top heavy” and concentrated in the largest groups. I’m guessing Mexicans in LA are a higher share of total immigrants, than any community in DC (Salvadorans)?
Definitely not a super precise metric, and it gets less accurate for cities with smaller foreign born populations. Like Portland only has 4 groups over 20K, but since its immigrant population is so small it ends up with a similar number to NYC. But I think it can at least be used to compare the top 10-15 metros
I said this in your last thread but when you measure nations your not measuring ethnic diversity but your measuring diversity of national origin which are two different things. Ethnicity only follows national borders in well established countries were folks within those countries have mixed for hundreds of years or in countries were many of the people came from different places but formed a new culture. The New World and Europe is filled with ethnostates and arguably South America is its own breed because you can argue whether it’s “one ethnicity” among many countries as they share religion, linguistic and lots of cultural similarities although physical distance has lead to individual cultures cropping up to some extent.
For example 40k immigrants from India speaking 4+ different languages, having 3 different religions is 4+ different ethnicities compared to 40k immigrants from 3 bordering Central American countries that all speak Spanish and are all Catholic majority. Now you could argue that a Honduran, El Salvadoran and Guatemalan are different ethnically. I know all countries have slightly different people groups making up each country but they already share language and religion.
In the same way 10,000 people from Somalia (which is an ethnostate) is not the same as 10,000 people from Ethiopia (which has no majority Ethnicity).
Now the census doesn’t have such detailed data so I don’t expect it to be something fixable. But I would argue your making a list focused on the diversity of national origin and not ethnic diversity since India as a country is more diverse than the Americas and more diverse than the European continent. Now not saying the immigrants come from a more diverse background that those from Europe that’s again not really statistically definable but it shows the issues with going through National origin.
I said this in your last thread but when you measure nations your not measuring ethnic diversity but your measuring diversity of national origin which are two different things. Ethnicity only follows national borders in well established countries were folks within those countries have mixed for hundreds of years or in countries were many of the people came from different places but formed a new culture. The New World and Europe is filled with ethnostates and arguably South America is its own breed because you can argue whether it’s “one ethnicity” among many countries as they share religion, linguistic and lots of cultural similarities although physical distance has lead to individual cultures cropping up to some extent.
For example 40k immigrants from India speaking 4+ different languages, having 3 different religions is 4+ different ethnicities compared to 40k immigrants from 3 bordering Central American countries that all speak Spanish and are all Catholic majority. Now you could argue that a Honduran, El Salvadoran and Guatemalan are different ethnically. I know all countries have slightly different people groups making up each country but they already share language and religion.
In the same way 10,000 people from Somalia (which is an ethnostate) is not the same as 10,000 people from Ethiopia (which has no majority Ethnicity).
Now the census doesn’t have such detailed data so I don’t expect it to be something fixable. But I would argue your making a list focused on the diversity of national origin and not ethnic diversity since India as a country is more diverse than the Americas and more diverse than the European continent. Now not saying the immigrants come from a more diverse background that those from Europe that’s again not really statistically definable but it shows the issues with going through National origin.
You took this straight out of the Eurocentric realm of though. Bravo.
In our American context though, I think national origin is probably all most Americans recognize and/or could wrap their heads around. That is not to say that this is sufficient but that it simply “is”.
For example 40k immigrants from India speaking 4+ different languages, having 3 different religions is 4+ different ethnicities compared to 40k immigrants from 3 bordering Central American countries that all speak Spanish and are all Catholic majority.
3 different religions? India is 80% Hindu and another 15% Muslim, isn’t it?
I also wonder the extent to which India’s linguistic diversity translates to Indian immigrants in the States? Is there such good representation of all parts of the country, or do Indian-Americans tend to be from one region more than others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Yeah, it's really cringey to say ethnicity is a matter of nationality-they arent the same thing at all.
Are Sicilians and Catalonians different ethnic groups versus other Italians and Spaniards? If not, then what’s missing? Where’s the line between a different ethnicity vs a regional variation in culture and dialect?
Welsh and Flemish are definitely ethnicities, right? I guess it would be pretty cool to see a full breakdown of ethnic background rather than nationality. Sounds reeeally hard to do, though.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 12-29-2020 at 11:53 AM..
I don't want to only criticize as I'm not the one making the list. But you could add national weights based on country's ethnic diversity but then again that's subjective and it might not always line-up with reality. For example, Nigerian immigrants are overwhelmingly Igbo and Yoruba, and as a result Southern Nigerian and Christian. The middle belt and Northern half get's little representation and oil cities like Warri and Port Harcourt are overrepresented when you ask place of origin in America. Cities in general are overrepresented. So the country is more diverse on paper than the immigration stats would give you, so even if you weighed Nigeria highly because the Hausa are the largest group at 30% your getting false stats as Hausa aren't even 15% of immigrants in America, likely less than 10%, and the ethnic diversity is only a smattering of what Nigeria has to offer.
Then even with the new world being a complete mess in terms of Ethnicity, the old world still has issues like the Swiss and the case of the Hausa-Fulani/Rwandans/Burundians. The Swiss are an ethnicity that speaks 3 and a half different languages. So are the Swiss really one ethnicity or 4 different ones? The Hausa-Fulani are two ethnicities, that share religious culture, and inhabit roughly the same region. One were historically merchants and city-dwellers while the others were rural and nomadic. But over centuries they have intermixed and in modern Nigeria they form a joint ethnic group representing 36% of the population. https://www.pulse.ng/lifestyle/food-...od%20merchants.
Is it two separate ethnic groups or one. What about non-Nigerian Hausa-Fulani relationships, clearly outside of the country the ethnic separation is much larger due to the nomadic nature of Fulani people and the fact that their own language is less supressed outside Nigeria.
Rwanda and Burundi operate in much the same way with the Tutsi being herders and the Hutu being farmers. They share religion, culture and language. Burundi and Rwanda have two different national languages. Are we dealing with 4 different ethnic groups, 2 different ethnic groups or 1 different ethnic group that not only encompasses both countries but parts of neighboring Tanzania.
Finally due to the influence of French and English. The Yoruba people in Benin and Nigeria are slowly seeing differentiation. While most still consider it one ethnic group it is well on the way to Switzerland with the French Yoruba and English speaking Yorubas being distinct because of national boundaries.
So the ethnicity question has a lot to unpackage even before you enter the new world which has completely rewritten how ethnicities historically formed. In America we of course have various European ethnic heritages although most have faded, you look to Canada and the French vs. English ethnic separation is still strong and with slightly more recent immigration things like Italian and Greek descent is more discernable than America. So by that token while the U.S is certainly racially more diverse than Canada ethnicity is more of a gray area.
For example another thing you could also factor is whether African American and White American are two separate ethnic groups? Now my view of it is much like the view of the Hausa-Fulani or Rwanda-Rundi. It's one big ethnic group with lifestyle/regional/racial flavors. But i'm sure not everyone agrees with me in labelling them under the ethnicity of "Americans".
I said this in your last thread but when you measure nations your not measuring ethnic diversity but your measuring diversity of national origin which are two different things. Ethnicity only follows national borders in well established countries were folks within those countries have mixed for hundreds of years or in countries were many of the people came from different places but formed a new culture. The New World and Europe is filled with ethnostates and arguably South America is its own breed because you can argue whether it’s “one ethnicity” among many countries as they share religion, linguistic and lots of cultural similarities although physical distance has lead to individual cultures cropping up to some extent.
For example 40k immigrants from India speaking 4+ different languages, having 3 different religions is 4+ different ethnicities compared to 40k immigrants from 3 bordering Central American countries that all speak Spanish and are all Catholic majority. Now you could argue that a Honduran, El Salvadoran and Guatemalan are different ethnically. I know all countries have slightly different people groups making up each country but they already share language and religion.
In the same way 10,000 people from Somalia (which is an ethnostate) is not the same as 10,000 people from Ethiopia (which has no majority Ethnicity).
Now the census doesn’t have such detailed data so I don’t expect it to be something fixable. But I would argue your making a list focused on the diversity of national origin and not ethnic diversity since India as a country is more diverse than the Americas and more diverse than the European continent. Now not saying the immigrants come from a more diverse background that those from Europe that’s again not really statistically definable but it shows the issues with going through National origin.
Yeah, it's really cringey to say ethnicity is a matter of nationality-they arent the same thing at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitySlickerFuego
You took this straight out of the Eurocentric realm of though. Bravo.
In our American context though, I think national origin is probably all most Americans recognize and/or could wrap their heads around. That is not to say that this is sufficient but that it simply “is”.
I’m working with data that’s AVAILABLE. Of course the has its limits but the census doesn’t tell you how many Shipibo people are in Boston or how many Chin Burmese are in LA. We have to play the hand we’re dealt and this is about as good as it can get.
Is this a full and complete picture? No it isn’t, but it’s about as close as we can accurately get. If either of you have suggestions for improvement I’ll listen.
3 different religions? India is 80% Hindu and another 15% Muslim, isn’t it?
I also wonder the extent to which India’s linguistic diversity translates to Indian immigrants in the States? Is there such good representation of all parts of the country, or do Indian-Americans tend to be from one region more than others?
Are Sicilians and Catalonians different ethnic groups versus other Italians and Spaniards? If not, then what’s missing? Where’s the line between a different ethnicity vs a regional variation in culture and dialect?
I was saying the possibility of three different religions since Sikhs are overrepresented in Indian migration as a percent of the population. Only 25 million Sikhs but more than a million of them in North America. Indian Christians are also overrepresented in North America.
Roughly 20% of all North Americans of India descent identify as Sikh.
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.
