Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-07-2022, 12:29 AM
 
29 posts, read 12,853 times
Reputation: 17

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts View Post
This is very true.

My experiences in Canada were the opposite, where, towns/cities hours outside major urban areas were decently diverse.

Like omitting A few large cities, Upstate New York, Central Pennsylvania, Northern+Western New England and West Virginia towns are pretty much all 95%+ white.
...this is just mindless nonsense.

Rural and suburban Canada is certifiably less diverse than rural and suburban America. It's not up for deliberation, it's the data. It's basic history.

Canada is much more white than the US is, and it has no rurally-based, historic racial groups like African Americans or Hispanic Americans. It just has whites and natives. A supermajority of it's racial minorities live in Canada's 5 largest urban areas.

Let me emphasize my shock: you seriously think towns/cities outside major urban areas in Canada are diverse, and not in America?

What "cities outside major urban areas" does Canada have?

Again, not even close. Canadian cities and towns are head-for-head less diverse than their American equivalents, and are certainly much whiter. Ditto Canadian vs American rural areas.

Last edited by hardwoodisanissue; 08-07-2022 at 12:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2022, 12:30 AM
 
29 posts, read 12,853 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Sterile means not trashy.
Anything you need to tell yourself, I guess
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2022, 12:40 AM
 
29 posts, read 12,853 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakery Hill View Post
I don't think there is an "iconic" immigrant group in Australia, perhaps because foreign born people have always been such a large proportion of the population. Most of the country is an immigrant, the child of an immigrant or the grand child of an immigrant, so what's "special?"
Foreign immigration from the UK has always been a large proportion of the Australian population, and the UK has remained the largest source of foreign immigration to Australia.

Australia hasn't had an "iconic" immigrant group because it had a much lower volume of immigrants, and it's dominant source of immigrants was the UK. It was a homogeneous commonwealth country until very recently, and in relative terms, it still is - compared to the likes of the USA, Brazil, or Chile.

You'd probably have to look at absolute numbers, the solid mass of a given ethnic community, to gauge "icon" status as an immigrant group.

The number of ethnic Poles, Finns, etc, in Australia, is 216,000 and 22,420, respectively, vs upper estimates of 20 million and 653,222 in the USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2022, 12:44 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
27,296 posts, read 28,371,143 times
Reputation: 24822
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardwoodisanissue View Post
Mostly not even close.

The rural west, especially the far west, is not a supermajority white.

The small town south is often not remotely 95-99% white.
Okay, we're going to have to break this down into states so we know exactly what we're referring to.

Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
Michigan
Illinois
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
North Dakota
South Dakota (except for Indian reservations)
Nebraska
Kansas
Missouri
Montana
Idaho
West Virginia
Kentucky
Much of Tennessee

are all very heavily white in the small towns and rural areas.

And of course, those aren't the only places. Within many metro areas across the United States, there are white, black and Hispanic areas that are distinct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2022, 01:04 AM
 
29 posts, read 12,853 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
Okay, we're going to have to break this down into states so we know exactly what we're referring to.

Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
Michigan
Illinois
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
North Dakota
South Dakota (except for Indian reservations)
Nebraska
Kansas
Missouri
Montana
Idaho
West Virginia
Kentucky
Much of Tennessee

are all very heavily white in the small towns and rural areas.

And of course, those aren't the only places. Within many metro areas across the United States, there are white, black and Hispanic areas that are distinct.
"Much of Tennessee", first indicator that you're kind of just saying stuff and don't really know what you're talking about.

Rural New York is much more populous and much less "white" than rural Ontario, ditto comparing the likes of Pennsylvania and Ohio to Quebec. Small town and rural Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc, are absolutely less white, and more black, than anywhere in rural Canada (outside of First Nations reservations).

Downstate Illinois and northwest Indiana have a significant rural black population, including in places as small and insignificant as Carbondale and Cairo.

No one said that a lot of small towns and rural areas in many northern and western US states weren't heavily white.

You made the claim that rural areas and small towns in Canada were less white and more diverse than in the US, which is demonstrably, absolutely, undeniably false.

I mean, the US is way more populous than Canada tier-to-tier, be it rural, suburban, or urban, so no.

The US has large rural black populations, rural hispanic populations, and more significant rural Asian populations than Canada does.

Take one example from your list: a relatively small, more densely populated state like Ohio has plenty of population shift and overflow between it's 4 significant urban regions, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Dayton, not to mention Toledo and other college towns, that no, it is absolutely goddamn wrong to claim that "rural/small town Ohio/America, etc, is less diverse than rural or small town Ontario/Alberta/Quebec/Canada, etc". No. That just is not true. That's COMPLETELY backwards.

You would never have a list of places like this for Canada, for towns of almost any size, with ethno-racial "minority" populations this dominant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ations_in_2000

Here are the majority black areas of New York state:

Places with between 25,000 and 100,000 people
Hempstead (52.5%)
Mount Vernon (59.6%)

Places with fewer than 25,000 people
Hillcrest (51.1%)
Lakeview (85.0%)
North Amityville (68.7%)
Roosevelt (79.2%)
South Floral Park (59.1%)
Uniondale (55.5%)
Wyandanch (77.7%)
Gordon Heights (62.1%)
Fairview, Westchester County, New York (73.09%)

In Pennsylvania:

Places with between 25,000 and 100,000 people
Chester (75.7%)
Harrisburg (54.8%)

Places with fewer than 25,000 people
Braddock (66.5%)
Chester Township (73.3%)
Colwyn (52.1%)
Darby (60.0%)
Homestead (51.3%)
Rankin (69.3%)
South Coatesville (56.1%)
Wilkinsburg (66.5%)
Yeadon (80.8%)

In Illinois:

Places with between 25,000 and 100,000 people
Calumet City (52.9%)
Dolton (82.4%)
East St. Louis (97.7%)
Harvey (79.6%)
Maywood (82.7%)

Places with fewer than 25,000 people
Alorton (97.1%)
Baldwin (58.9%)
Bellwood (81.6%)
Broadview (73.1%)
Brooklyn (98.7%)
Burnham (54.2%)
Cairo (61.7%)
Calumet Park (82.9%)
Centreville (95.8%)
Country Club Hills (81.8%)
Dixmoor (57.1%)
Dolton (82.3%)
Fairmont (53.6%)
Ford Heights (95.9%)
Hazel Crest (76.1%)
Hopkins Park (92.3%)
Markham (78.8%)
Matteson (62.3%)
Mounds (60.6%)
Oak Grove (57.7%)
Olympia Fields (52.1%)
Phoenix (93.8%)
Pulaski (70.8%)
Richton Park (60.0%)
Riverdale (86.3%)
Robbins (95.3%)
Royal Lakes (80.5%)
South Holland (50.9%)
Sun River Terrace (88.3%)
University Park (83.3%)
Venice (93.6%)
Washington Park (91.9%)

In Tennessee:

Places with over 100,000 people
Memphis (61.4%)

Places with fewer than 25,000 people
Bolivar (56.4%)
Brownsville (60.7%)
Gallaway (59.0%)
Gates (53.4%)
Henning (74.9%)
Mason (51.5%)
Stanton (67.8%)
Whiteville (60.9%)

Michigan:

Places with over 100,000 people
Detroit (82.7%)
Flint (53.3%)

Places with between 25,000 and 100,000 people
Southfield (54.22%)
Pontiac (52.01%)
Inkster (67.5%)

Places with fewer than 25,000 people
Benton Harbor (92.4%)
Benton Heights (65.6%)
Benton Charter Township (51.9%)
Buena Vista (69.3%)
Buena Vista Charter Township (55.6%)
Highland Park (93.4%)
Muskegon Heights (77.77%)

There's just no such thing in Canada. It has some Asian populations in the satellite cities and suburbs of Toronto, including a handful of small towns throughout the country, but Canada literally has no majority non-white small towns and rural areas (it has no majority non-white cities!), aside from those rural northern communities populated by First Nations peoples.

Canadians seem to see Asians as being particularly exotic, and get all excited whenever they spot one somewhere outside of a city. Lol.

Last edited by hardwoodisanissue; 08-07-2022 at 01:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2022, 04:11 PM
 
1,464 posts, read 1,319,945 times
Reputation: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardwoodisanissue View Post
Foreign immigration from the UK has always been a large proportion of the Australian population, and the UK has remained the largest source of foreign immigration to Australia.

Australia hasn't had an "iconic" immigrant group because it had a much lower volume of immigrants, and it's dominant source of immigrants was the UK. It was a homogeneous commonwealth country until very recently, and in relative terms, it still is - compared to the likes of the USA, Brazil, or Chile.

You'd probably have to look at absolute numbers, the solid mass of a given ethnic community, to gauge "icon" status as an immigrant group.

The number of ethnic Poles, Finns, etc, in Australia, is 216,000 and 22,420, respectively, vs upper estimates of 20 million and 653,222 in the USA.
The population of the US is about 13 times that of Australia, so it doesn't make much sense to compare absolute numbers. If you're using Australian census numbers these are people who were either born in Poland or Finland or that ancestry is strong enough for it them to consider they were culturally influenced by it. So these are real numbers and comparing them to "estimates" of people who may have a degree of Polish or Finnish ancestry in the US is comparing apples to oranges.

The UK may be largest single national group (or groups as in England plus Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) of migrants, but in a country where more than 29% of the population was born overseas, they make up just 4%.

Back in the late 19th century, some parts of northern Australia were actually majority Asian due to the numbers of Japanese and Malays working in the pearling industries. Due to restrictive immigration policies introduced at the start of the 20th century these groups gradually declined in prominence, as did the economic importance of those regions.

Last edited by Bakery Hill; 08-07-2022 at 04:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2022, 04:50 PM
 
29 posts, read 12,853 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakery Hill View Post
The population of the US is about 13 times that of Australia, so it doesn't make much sense to compare absolute numbers. If you're using Australian census numbers these are people who were either born in Poland or Finland or that ancestry is strong enough for it them to consider they were culturally influenced by it. So these are real numbers and comparing them to "estimates" of people who may have a degree of Polish or Finnish ancestry in the US is comparing apples to oranges.
It's not comparing apples to oranges, it's data taken right from Wikipedia. They're the upper estimates of Polish ancestry in the US vs Australia. It's a measure of ancestry and birth, same as in Australia.

Estimates are higher in the US because there has historically been a lot more immigration from central and eastern Europe to the USA than Australia. Ditto Finland, where the Finnish influence is strong in places like the Upper Midwest.

The fact is that Australia's immigrant history is much, much more homogeneously white British relative to the US's.

As I've said, larger populations don't imply larger numbers of any given ethnic group. It makes perfect sense to compare absolute numbers between the US and Australia - while using proportions. They help tell what country received the most immigration, what country is more ethnically and racially diverse, etc, so yes, it makes sense to compare absolute numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2022, 04:57 PM
 
1,464 posts, read 1,319,945 times
Reputation: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardwoodisanissue View Post
It's not comparing apples to oranges, it's data taken right from Wikipedia. They're the upper estimates of Polish ancestry in the US vs Australia. It's a measure of ancestry and birth, same as in Australia.

Estimates are higher in the US because there has historically been a lot more immigration from central and eastern Europe to the USA than Australia. Ditto Finland, where the Finnish influence is strong in places like the Upper Midwest.

The fact is that Australia's immigrant history is much, much more homogeneously white British relative to the US's.

As I've said, larger populations don't imply larger numbers of any given ethnic group. It makes perfect sense to compare absolute numbers between the US and Australia - while using proportions. They help tell what country received the most immigration, what country is more ethnically and racially diverse, etc, so yes, it makes sense to compare absolute numbers.
For Australia they are census data, so my point stands.

Historically, the British were only ever a part of the European population of Australia even in the early days of free migration. It's a point that explains so much of Australian history. There have been posts already about the friction between the two largest groups of that period, the British and the Irish.

Last edited by Bakery Hill; 08-07-2022 at 05:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2022, 09:27 PM
 
3 posts, read 1,327 times
Reputation: 12
Diversity is just another word for replacing whites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2022, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Australia
3,602 posts, read 2,274,579 times
Reputation: 6931
Reposting from the ANZ sub forum.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjYEskzWt6I

RIP Judith Durham. Diversity has always been part of who we are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top