Usuari Discussió:88.96.242.198

Foreign born populations- how many nationalities are represented?

Ethnic origin or ancestry comparisons could be of interest, but there's limited data. Only Canada, the US and Australia have ancestry questions in their censuses. The UK only has a partial one (i.e. white British, white Irish, black African and Caribbean etc.) though there's obviously less diversity among whites anyway.

For instance NYC is about 35% non Hispanic White, and Jews and Italians together make up about 55% of that population in the city itself and in adjacent Westchester and Nassau counties. The other 45% would be a pretty broad array of ethnicities. I think it's about 25% Black, and less than half of that is African American; I think those of Caribbean origin now outnumber African Americans.

London is something like 60% White, including 45% White British, 2% Irish and the rest other. Obviously the Irish descended population is undercounted, as the children and grandchildren of Irish immigrants aren't writing Irish and Jews, mostly of Eastern European descent, are also writing White British. But overall it seems reasonable to believe that about 70-75% of white Londoners are of old stock British/Irish descent.

London's African population is certainly larger than NYC's; I believe African Blacks outnumber Blacks of Caribbean origin by about 2-1. Its South Asian population is obviously larger, but its East Asian pales in comparison. And decisions such as say, whether to open a consulate, expand an ethnic media outlet to a certain area or determine stops for a touring event of a star from the home country, say, is more likely based on sheer numbers (critical mass) than percentages.

Hence Vancouver is an important Chinese community because it numbers about 400,000, not merely because they make up a very high percentage of the population (it is after all the 5th largest population in North America, even though Vancouver probably doesn't even rank in the top 20 metros in terms of size). L.A. may only be about 4% Chinese across the metro but with over 500,000 members it has critical mass and much of that population is concentrated in a few contiguous suburbs that are heavily Chinese. The thing is large cities often have sizable enclaves, where certain groups make a substantial percentage of the population over a large area. That can make a difference too if you're looking for a community.

For instance Seattle has 60,000 Jews pretty spread out over the area, about 2% of the population.

There are about 200,000 Jews in London and the home counties, representing a smaller percentage of the population than in Seattle. But most of that population is concentrated in certain North London boroughs and the typical Jewish Londoner probably lives in a more heavily Jewish area than the typical Jewish person in Seattle.

So can one simply say Seattle is more Jewish than London?

How diverse were European cities in the early 20th century?

Obviously a lot less than they are today, and a lot less diverse than American cities. But it would be interesting to look at some statistics nonetheless.

Obviously immigration would have played more of a role in cities like London and Paris, while a city like Vienna reflected the diversity of the old Austrian Hungarian empire and was filled with Czechs, Hungarians, Galician Jews etc.

Some birthplace data for London.

London 1911

Poland/Russia 63105 Germany 27290 France 13803 Italy 11668 Austria 8050 United States 5352 Switzerland 5342

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/census/EW1911GEN/8

4.1% of London County was foreign born that year.

43952 of those born in Poland and Russia 68% (nearly all Jewish) lived in the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney (in the East End).

British cities were probably more diverse than Australian cities in the early 20th century. Neither were that diverse then but Australia never really got Eastern European Jewish immigration (or any continental European immigration really until after World War II). In addition to London, Manchester and Leeds had sizable Jewish communities. I don't think there were any continental European groups that made up more than 1% of the population of Sydney and Melbourne.

The empire aspect should not be overstated for Britain though. According to my original link, less than 1% of London's population were born in British colonies and many - probably most - of those were probably the children of colonial officials etc., not blacks or South Asians. Although not a large percentage of the overall London population, the Jewish population was large and very concentrated.

Oddly, I had a cabbie in London this summer talk (proudly it seemed) about how it was a city of immigrants - the Huguenots, then the Irish, then the Jews, then the West Indians and South Asians,Africans and Polish vermin and so on. But then near the end of the trip, he said how Donald Trump (half-Scottish and half German) had a point about immigration levels.

(A decade ago it became popular among the British media to tout England as the original nation of immigrants. It was a fabrication with the intended purpose of usurping the unique and optimistic history of the new world, and more specifically The US, and even more specifically New York. They did this by conflating local migration and conquerors from nearby lands, which I'm sure they had plenty of; with immigrants, which they didn't. Of course, many countries have seen local migration and conquering neighbors, so if we consider England a nation of immigrants, then that makes just about every other country one too.) Not by the author above and below)

It's not entirely false in the case of London, where only 45% are White British on the census (and most British-born people of Irish ancestry and British Jews, mostly of Eastern European origin write White British.) London is now a nation of immigrants!

But yeah until a few decades ago the overwhelmingly majority of Londoners were indigenous English.

World's most diverse cities New York Toronto London Los Angeles

A decade ago I'm pretty sure that NYC was well ahead of London, and I'm sure it still is. But it looks like London has gained in a relative sense, and has become a lot more diverse in the last decade. It was 37% foreign-born in 2011, up from 27% in 2001. Now white British are a minority - 45% and the city is now 40% nonwhite, up from 28% a decade ago.

One difference with the British census is there isn't an ancestry question like there is in the US and Canada- so a fourth-generation Londoner of Eastern European Jewish descent marks British on the census while someone with the same background in New York would likely write Polish or Russian (Statistics Canada includes Jewish as an ancestry group). Obviously the white population in London is much more long line British or Irish than is the case in NYC, but still the British census data doesn't do a good job capturing diversity given that they merge ancestry and race (White British, White Irish, White Other, Black African, Black Caribbean, etc.) while the US and Canada do both. I wonder what % of Londoners can claim French Huguenot ancestry!

Toronto is in the top tier, and L.A. deserves an honorable mention as well, particularly if you look at L.A. County rather than just the city. While the immigrant population is heavily Mexican/Salvadoran/Guatemalan, it also has very large Asian populations (including Chinese and the largest Korean and Filipino communities in North America) as well as the largest Iranian and Armenian populations in North America.

(* No foreign born % alone doesn't determine diversity...otherwise Miami would be more diverse than NYC!)

NEW YORK AND LONDON COMPARISONS

Foreign-born: 3,042,315 in NYC (37.2%); 2,998,264 (36.7%) in London

Caribbean population:

- 603,964 West Indian origin in NYC (7.4%), including 215,294 Jamaicans (2.6%), 128,422 Haitians (1.6%) and 81,080 Trinidadians (1%).

- 344,597 Black Caribbean in London (4.2%), mostly of Jamaican origin.

African population: - 160,517 of Subsaharan African ancestry (2.0%) and 89,932 Subsaharan African-born (1.1%) in NYC, Ghanaians are the largest group.

- 573,931 Black African in London (7.0%); 114,718 born in Nigeria (1.4%), 65,333 in Somalia (0.8%) and 62,896 in Ghana (0.8%)

South Asian population:

- 296,992 (3.6%) in NYC including 192,209 Indians (2.3%), 53,174 Bangladeshis (0.7%) and 41,887 Pakistanis (0.5%).

- 542,857 Indians (6.6%), 223,797 Pakis and 222,127 Bangladeshis (2.7%) each. There are also 84,542 born in Sri Lanka (1%); Sri Lankans are lumped with Asian other.

Note that the poster failed to mention biracials.

Yes, I'm not sure how white British (they're a nationality not an ethnic group let alone a race) are so distinctive from standard white Americans most of whom are of Northwest European ancestry. British is not an ethnic group!

Chinese population:

486,463 Chinese (6%) in NYC, 124,250 (1.5%) in London

There are no hard numbers for Hispanics or Latin Americans in London, obviously it is a small population compared to the large and diverse Hispanic population in NYC of 2.5 million. European ethnic groups are also hard to directly compare given the lack of an ancestry question in the UK.

Some of the leading European groups in London:

White Irish 175,974 (2.2%) - obviously the number of Irish ancestry is much higher. White Other 1,033,981 (12.6%) - no further breakdown.

Leading European countries of birth, London:

Poland 158,300 (1.9%) (Also known as vermin to some white British ) Ireland 129,807 (1.6%) France 66,654 (0.8%) Italy 62,050 (0.8%) Germany 55,476 (0.7%) some born on British military bases Romania 44,848 (0.5%) Portugal 41,041 (0.5%)

Leading European ancestry groups, NYC:

Italian American 589,803 (7.2%) Irish American 414,943 (5.1%) German American 256,720 (3.1%) Russian American 234,035 (2.9%) Polish American 211,310 (2.6%) English American 140,557 (1.7%) Greek American 75,567 (0.9%)

I'm guessing that NYC's white population is probably about 30% Jewish and 20% Italian, while London is probably 60% old-stock English/Scottish/Welsh and 75% old-stock British and Irish.

ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF LONDON

According to the 2011 census, nearly half of Londoners (45%) are White British - which implies that the city's white population is overwhelmingly of old-stock English descent. But while the US and Canadian censuses have separate ancestry and race questions, in the UK they're combined (White British, White Irish, Other Whites, Black Caribbean, Black African, etc.) and it seems obvious that pretty much every white person fills in White British after the second generation. For instance, it's obvious that FAR more than 2% of Londoners have Irish ancestry - and I'm sure it's higher than in New York. The vast majority of Jews - who would fill out Polish, Russian, Romanian, etc. in the US are also counted as White British; only Jews by religion get a census count. It would be interesting to know the number of Londoners with French, Italian, German, Greek, etc. ancestry as well. On paper, London appears much more homogeneous than New York and Toronto but part of that seems to be explained by(unfinished by author for unknown reason)

Also the Black Caribbean population is now smaller than the Black African population - is that due to immigration or are British-born Blacks of Caribbean descent identifying as something else?

BLACK IMMIGRANTS

Interesting to note that while Caribbean immigrants are more concentrated in the US (NY/Miami) and Canada (Toronto/Montreal) while Africans are more dispersed, in Britain the opposite is true (with Africans more concentrated in London and with the Black population outside London being more Caribbean. This had to do with the timing and character of the two streams - Caribbean immigration to Britain was generally a generation earlier than in North America(1948-1962, from the arrival of the Windrush to the commonwealth immigration Act, versus 1965-) and industrial cities were more appealing then than now to immigrants.