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.
First off, lets reconcile ourselves with the fact that the United States no longer has the monopoly over ethnic/racial heterogeneity. Mass immigration from former colonies and globalization has made all Western societies and Russia (tell me that an ethnic Kazakh, Buryat, and Chechen looks like the average Russian Slav) extremely diverse.
However, the United States stands out greatly from the other multicultural societies because not only did the US have to deal with the question of multiculturalism at home much earlier than the other Western societies with the possible exception of Canada (due to slavery and dealing with the Native Americans), and nowadays remains one of the most ethnically peaceful places in the country. There is no threat of a far-right extremist party coming to take over and make America 'White' again (as if the US was ever wholly white).
I question if the United States has ever had some sort of monopoly on ethinic/racial heterogeneity. I find it interesting that those who speak of multiculturalism in the world usually tend to only focus on the United States and neglect any of the equally ethnically diverse countries of Latin America. Some of which, have experienced issues of multiculturalism long before the United States ever had.
Take Brazil, the other massive importer of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, for example. The country has been a hot destination for many Portuguese, Italians, German, Polish, French, Spanish, Lebanese, Japanese, Chinese, and many other immigrants years before the Great Immigration took place in America, not to mention the addition of African slaves primarily from Angola as well as the various Native groups already living there.
To me, that country has had just as many, if not more multiculturalism issues than the United States. And yet they manage to mix, borrow, and blend these various cultures, and produce something uniquely their own. Obviously, there are still a lot of racial issues going on there, and the same could also be said about areas surrounding the Mediterranean and other multicultural regions in the world, which have been dealing with stuff like this for centuries.
And I don't really buy into this 'globalization' hype. I believe most of what this 'globalization' nonsense has to do with is the idea of banks and conglomerates sleeping with one another and entering unexplored territories. Sure, there has been a recent number of people relocating to other regions of the planet, but not as much as you suggest.
Didn't mean to go into a tangent. I just had to the bolded statement.
I question if the United States has ever had some sort of monopoly on ethinic/racial heterogeneity. I find it interesting that those who speak of multiculturalism in the world usually tend to only focus on the United States and neglect any of the equally ethnically diverse countries of Latin America. Some of which, have experienced issues of multiculturalism long before the United States ever had.
Take Brazil, the other massive importer of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, for example. The country has been a hot destination for many Portuguese, Italians, German, Polish, French, Spanish, Lebanese, Japanese, Chinese, and many other immigrants years before the Great Immigration took place in America, not to mention the addition of African slaves primarily from Angola as well as the various Native groups already living there.
To me, that country has had just as many, if not more multiculturalism issues than the United States. And yet they manage to mix, borrow, and blend these various cultures, and produce something uniquely their own. Obviously, there are still a lot of racial issues going on there, and the same could also be said about areas surrounding the Mediterranean and other multicultural regions in the world, which have been dealing with stuff like this for centuries.
And I don't really buy into this 'globalization' hype. I believe most of what this 'globalization' nonsense has to do with is the idea of banks and conglomerates sleeping with one another and entering unexplored territories. Sure, there has been a recent number of people relocating to other regions of the planet, but not as much as you suggest.
Didn't mean to go into a tangent. I just had to the bolded statement.
I'm glad you brought that up, as many people don't even know that other countries in the Americas have had immigration from all over as well. Heck, some are also dealing with illegal immigration as well.
I question if the United States has ever had some sort of monopoly on ethinic/racial heterogeneity. I find it interesting that those who speak of multiculturalism in the world usually tend to only focus on the United States and neglect any of the equally ethnically diverse countries of Latin America. Some of which, have experienced issues of multiculturalism long before the United States ever had.
Take Brazil, the other massive importer of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, for example. The country has been a hot destination for many Portuguese, Italians, German, Polish, French, Spanish, Lebanese, Japanese, Chinese, and many other immigrants years before the Great Immigration took place in America, not to mention the addition of African slaves primarily from Angola as well as the various Native groups already living there.
To me, that country has had just as many, if not more multiculturalism issues than the United States. And yet they manage to mix, borrow, and blend these various cultures, and produce something uniquely their own. Obviously, there are still a lot of racial issues going on there, and the same could also be said about areas surrounding the Mediterranean and other multicultural regions in the world, which have been dealing with stuff like this for centuries.
And I don't really buy into this 'globalization' hype. I believe most of what this 'globalization' nonsense has to do with is the idea of banks and conglomerates sleeping with one another and entering unexplored territories. Sure, there has been a recent number of people relocating to other regions of the planet, but not as much as you suggest.
Didn't mean to go into a tangent. I just had to the bolded statement.
It's ok that you went off the tangent. If there is any way to split this thread, then could the mods please do it before it veers way too off course?
I've actually done a lot of research on this. However, the short answer is "Do you consider Latin America in the same vein as you would the rest of the Western world?" By Western world, I mean an advanced, industrialized country. I put 'Western society' because there is intermixing all over the third world/non-industrialized world, especially in former settler colonies (like Mauritius and Brazil: Settler colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) AND in former colonial exploitative areas (such as Mexico and the Philippines:Exploitation colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). However, none of these areas EVER claimed that they had legitimacy in quashing other ethnicities or other races due to some 'divine mission' to civilize everyone else unlike the Western world. Multiculturalism is seen as a one way street (where ONE ethnicity or cultural influence dominance), and not going both ways like in the third world (where every ethnicity influences the culture). America had it through manifest destiny, the UK through the 'White Man's Burden', France through 'L'mission civilatrice', Spain through giving everyone salvation, and even Russia/USSR through creating the 'Soviet man' (not usually considered Western, but they are European). In fact, the Brazillian government had legalized slavery until 1889, by far the last Latin American nation to abolish it. Latin American governments, as far as I know (although if you can correct me, do so), never attempted to civilize anyone, or even really try to assimilate anyone because of the mixed nature of the region. In fact, as far as I know, Latin America has an extremely rigid racial hierarchy (casta or Caste System) inherited from Spanish/Portuguese Colonial rule. In a caste system, there is a system of dominance, but not of assimilation to something better. Just pure separation, kind of like South Africa pre-apartheid.
I didn't mean for my post to come off as Amerocentric/Eurocentric (I tend to avoid that because I'm a firm believer in the 'world systems' school of thought). The reason I say globalization is a driving factor in migration is the rapidity that one person can move around the planet. It's the access that makes migration so much easier. In fact, according to UN estimates, there are now 191 million migrants around the world (more than ever before!), of which 112 million are living in 'high income' countries, or around 57% of the migrant population.
No, you're absolutely right, and you make some great points. I would not consider any country in Latin America advanced, but I do believe some are industrialized while others are making some progress. I would like to think that Argentina (specifically Buenos Aires) is leading the pack.
However, I would still consider Latin America to be a part of the 'Western World' because despite their 3rd world status, culturally they do share similar characteristics with North America and Western Europe.
But back on topic, I think it's easier to identify the least and most segregated cities than states. 'The most segregated state' could mean a number of things - it could mean that all of the cities and towns of a state are segregated, it could also mean one particular ethnic group can only be found in one region of a state while another resides in a completely different region, or it could mean a specific ethnic group can only be found in the city limits of a state while other ethnic groups may live outside it.
I would say the most segregated states these days are going to be in the Midwest followed by the Northeast. The South has obviously made the most effort in integration over recent years, and there is just as much integration as there is segregation out in the West. While there are many segregated neighborhoods and communities in the Northeast, it appears that there is at least some interaction going on amongst other ethnicities. Whereas in the Midwest, there are parts where depending on where you're living, you may never have the opportunity to encounter people of an ethnicity outside of your own. This may not be true for all Midwestern states, but it seems to be the trend.
Along with Michigan as the OP suggested, I would also add in Illinois as one of the Most segregated states. It seems like the majority of ethnic minorities live in Chicago, an already segregated city, which is the northern half of the state, while the other half of the state is demographically the opposite.
Least segregated state I've visited was Colorado. It seems like every group blends into each other there, racially and economically. The state I consider to be 50/50 on segregation is California. Again, there seems to be equally as much integration as there is segregation there.
St. Louis seemed much more segregated than Memphis. I hardly ever saw black and white people interacting, they seemed to keep their distance from one another. Whereas in Memphis, black & white people interact a lot, even strangers.
No, you're absolutely right, and you make some great points. I would not consider any country in Latin America advanced, but I do believe some are industrialized while others are making some progress. I would like to think that Argentina (specifically Buenos Aires) is leading the pack.
However, I would still consider Latin America to be a part of the 'Western World' because despite their 3rd world status, culturally they do share similar characteristics with North America and Western Europe.
But back on topic, I think it's easier to identify the least and most segregated cities than states. 'The most segregated state' could mean a number of things - it could mean that all of the cities and towns of a state are segregated, it could also mean one particular ethnic group can only be found in one region of a state while another resides in a completely different region, or it could mean a specific ethnic group can only be found in the city limits of a state while other ethnic groups may live outside it.
I would say the most segregated states these days are going to be in the Midwest followed by the Northeast. The South has obviously made the most effort in integration over recent years, and there is just as much integration as there is segregation out in the West. While there are many segregated neighborhoods and communities in the Northeast, it appears that there is at least some interaction going on amongst other ethnicities. Whereas in the Midwest, there are parts where depending on where you're living, you may never have the opportunity to encounter people of an ethnicity outside of your own. This may not be true for all Midwestern states, but it seems to be the trend.
Along with Michigan as the OP suggested, I would also add in Illinois as one of the Most segregated states. It seems like the majority of ethnic minorities live in Chicago, an already segregated city, which is the northern half of the state, while the other half of the state is demographically the opposite.
Least segregated state I've visited was Colorado. It seems like every group blends into each other there, racially and economically. The state I consider to be 50/50 on segregation is California. Again, there seems to be equally as much integration as there is segregation there.
Illinois is tricky, as there are many southern Illinois communities with decent to high Black populations. It has more of a Southern vibe as well.
New York City unfortunately is pretty segregated. Howard Beach anyone? Every race seems to have their own neighborhood.
Spanish Harlem/ SO Bronx - Puerto Ricans
Wash Heights/Inwood - Dominicans
Howard Beach - Italians
Corona- South Americans
Jamaica, Canarsie, Flatbush, Bed Stuy- West Indians/ AA
Richmond Hill - Indians
Location: Concrete jungle where dreams are made of.
8,900 posts, read 15,933,384 times
Reputation: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTruth08
New York City unfortunately is pretty segregated. Howard Beach anyone? Every race seems to have their own neighborhood.
Spanish Harlem/ SO Bronx - Puerto Ricans
Wash Heights/Inwood - Dominicans
Howard Beach - Italians
Corona- South Americans
Jamaica, Canarsie, Flatbush, Bed Stuy- West Indians/ AA
Richmond Hill - Indians
etc. etc.
It's because ethnic groups tend to want to be together. It's not that they're against mixing with other races. We wouldn't have all these different ethnic neighborhoods if everyone mixed everywhere.
It's because ethnic groups tend to want to be together. It's not that they're against mixing with other races. We wouldn't have all these different ethnic neighborhoods if everyone mixed everywhere.
Well, our home town Long Island was rated the most segregated suburb in the states.
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.
the bolded statement.
