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.
Canada (Statistics Canada, 2011)
British Isles 16816890 48,0%
French 5082680 14,5%
Western European 4817430 13,8%
Eastern European 3700265 10,6%
Southern European 2964675 8,5%
Nordic 1271120 3,6%
Other Europeans 369235 1,1%
There is something wrong with those numbers for Canada.
There are 6.5 million people of French origin in the province of Quebec alone. There are about another million in the rest of the country who are of French origin and still speak French. And another 1.5 to 2 million in the rest of the country who are of French origin but have become native English speakers.
Iceland only has like 300 thousands of population, naturally you won't meet many of them outside of Iceland.
It is a small country indeed. And those who emigrated in masses, did so more than 100 years. That would be the case for a lot of the people with different ancestries and backgrounds from Europe, with a few exceptions who continued to emigrate in large numbers in the post war periods.
I have actually spent a significant time in Reykjavik growing up. You probably meet more Icelandic Canadians there (who happened to be in Iceland for one reasons than the other), than say in a large Canadian city like Toronto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
There is something wrong with those numbers for Canada.
There are 6.5 million people of French origin in the province of Quebec alone. There are about another million in the rest of the country who are of French origin and still speak French. And another 1.5 to 2 million in the rest of the country who are of French origin but have become native English speakers.
These numbers are not perfect I would say, for all 3 census date for whatever reasons. Like British ancestries declining in the US, Irish undercounted in Australia and such like some of the posters have suggested. This particular data for Canada comes from this page. A few things to keep in mind though. The non-response rate is very high, around 26%, and I didn't put in the numbers for those who claimed Canadian ancestries, which is another 10 million (I did the same for the Australian and American numbers). I think you may have mentioned that the "Canadian" ethnicity response were particular high in Quebec, so I wouldn't doubt that some of these figure were undercounted.
and of course if you're a european immigrant born in Canada, US, Australia or New Zealand, that is obviously your country!!! however do not expect that everyone else is gonna see you as native and rightful owner of these places. (not being offensive, just very honest) especially in regards of asians, africans and latin americans being present in those places as well.
When I think of the REAL australia I think of aborigenees, their presence in the continent for over 50 thousand years, their ability to survive the harsh conditions of the outback, their didgeridoo.... I dont think of some blonde girl born in sydney whose family came from ireland 50 years ago!!!
Real canadians to me are the people in Nunavut, not justin bieber or celine Dion... their familes came from england and france a century ago
Real Americans are the Hopis on the Arizona mesetas.... cultivating corn for thousands of years all over arizona... I dont think a real American is a guido from new jersey whose parents got there from italy 80 years ago or an irish guy from boston whose family got there in the early 20th century.
to me a real kiwi is not a blonde haired blue eyed guy with german last names.... a real kiwi to me is a maori doing the haka and with beautiful tatoos all over.
Perhaps its just my impression as a non-westerner but I am being honest with how I perceive the world.
I think most understand this, but in the context of this thread it's understandable that people are talking about the formation of these nation states we have today.
I am a little uncomfortable with your term " real Canadians ". Finding appropriate terms is a minefield. It's almost impossible not to offend someone. In Canada we have several terms for indigenous peoples.
I'm not sure if any of these people would refer to themselves as " real Canadians " since the political state of Canada is a creation of non-indigenous people.
I can only speak for myself, but my background is 3/4 Quebecois French. My ancestors came to what is now Canada in 1647. A lot of French Canadians mixed with the native population. Many can claim native blood, even with blonde hair.
First Nations is one term used to describe one group of indigenous people in Canada, and I think it is much better term than " real Canadian " since a " real Canadian " in my books is anyone with Canadian citizenship.
I wish StatsCan would discourage the "Canadian" response - and count people who write say "English Canadian" and "Irish Canadian" as single origin rather than multiple origin.
I wish StatsCan would discourage the "Canadian" response - and count people who write say "English Canadian" and "Irish Canadian" as single origin rather than multiple origin.
It seems like the "Canadian", "Australian" and "American" responses are rather popular among these surveys. Maybe people are just too lazy, or feel that these are good response to ethnicity/ancestries (I can see why though it may not be as interesting for those of us who would like to examine these numbers). Perhaps some just don't know or don't have that kind of information.
But I think there is a valid point in having multiple origins though. People from these countries are so mixed nowadays, have so many different backgrounds, I think a lot would be lost if they were only to pick one. I think the First, Second and Third Ancestries Reported, or the Only or Multi response doesn't give us a very clear picture either. It all depends on which group one identifies with the most.
It seems like the "Canadian", "Australian" and "American" responses are rather popular among these surveys. Maybe people are just too lazy, or feel that these are good response to ethnicity/ancestries (I can see why though it may not be as interesting for those of us who would like to examine these numbers). Perhaps some just don't know or don't have that kind of information.
But I think there is a valid point in having multiple origins though. People from these countries are so mixed nowadays, have so many different backgrounds, I think a lot would be lost if they were only to pick one. I think the First, Second and Third Ancestries Reported, or the Only or Multi response doesn't give us a very clear picture either. It all depends on which group one identifies with the most.
I just put "American" because the "Mexican-German-Chippewa-Swedish-Finnish-English-Irish-Nigerian-American" option wasn't listed.
It seems like the "Canadian", "Australian" and "American" responses are rather popular among these surveys. Maybe people are just too lazy, or feel that these are good response to ethnicity/ancestries (I can see why though it may not be as interesting for those of us who would like to examine these numbers). Perhaps some just don't know or don't have that kind of information.
But I think there is a valid point in having multiple origins though. People from these countries are so mixed nowadays, have so many different backgrounds, I think a lot would be lost if they were only to pick one. I think the First, Second and Third Ancestries Reported, or the Only or Multi response doesn't give us a very clear picture either. It all depends on which group one identifies with the most.
I'm not saying multiple origins shouldn't be reported. I'm saying Stats Can should consider "Canadian" only to be a single ancestry response, just as the US Census Bureau does for "American."
Last edited by King of Kensington; 10-10-2014 at 04:14 PM..
Do you mean if someone puts Canadian, then he or she can't put any other ancestries? Or do you mean people would write "English-Canadian," instead of English, and gets counted as both? and in the US "English-American" would counted towards American only? Perhaps I am not too familiar with these surveys. We don't usually use -Swedish here for example to describe someone of similar origin, although our population hasn't historically been nearly as diverse, with a few notable exceptions.
Do you mean if someone puts Canadian, then he or she can't put any other ancestries? Or do you mean people would write "English-Canadian," instead of English, and gets counted as both? and in the US "English-American" would counted towards American only? Perhaps I am not too familiar with these surveys. We don't usually use -Swedish here for example to describe someone of similar origin, although our population hasn't historically been nearly as diverse, with a few notable exceptions.
I'm not sure about Canada, but in the US if you were to put 'American', that's all you would put. You wouldn't check English or French or Mexican as well. Just American. For the most part, self identifying as 'American' tends to be more popular in the south.
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.
