Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Chicago's role as a Mexican-American hub is not laughable to people on the West Coast--I think it's exactly what we would expect of such a large and prominent American metropolis. It's just that Westerners often don't know much about a lot of places to our east, including Chicago.
If anything, I would think Westerners are guilty of assuming Mexican-Americans have a bigger presence throughout the nation, especially in the big regional hubs, than the data would support. |
Quote:
For some reason, European, Mexican and Asian immigration all continued to boost Chicago's population onto the late 20th century/21st century, long after Midwestern cities in general were known for peaking in terms of high immigration rates. Any reason besides the fact that Chicago was the biggest city in the region? |
Quote:
|
For Latino/Hispanic populations in cities and states, everywhere but the eastern seaboard is mostly Mexican with the occasional smaller group thrown in (Hispanos in Santa Fe and Albuquerque, Tejanos in Corpus Christi and San Antonio, Central Americans in Los Angeles and Houston, a rich tapestry of ethnicities in New Orleans, Puerto Ricans in Chicago, San Antonio was founded by the Spanish crown but originally settled by afrohispanic Canary Islanders, etc.).
Along the eastern seaboard, however, cities and states all lack the same large Mexican American populations present west of I-95 yet are still known for specific particular communities: Brazilians (Boston, Jersey, Chicago), Cubans (Miami, Jersey, NYC), Puerto Ricans (Orlando), Hondurans, Costa Ricans, and other Central Americans (Miami, NYC, Boston), Haitians and other (NYC), Dominicans (NYC), Colombians (NYC), Venezuelans (NYC), etc. EXCEPT rural North Carolina. Economic pressures there have resulted in decent rural pockets of Mexican American farm labor. My question is this: why doesn’t the United States have any city to speak of with a large immigrant population from Chile, Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, The Guyanas, Paraguay, or Uruguay? Or do we and I just don’t know? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Most of the other countries you listed have decent representation in NYC and Miami. But obviously Chile and Argentina were immigration destinations until recently, and Uruguay and Paraguay immigrated to these wealthier next-door states. Totally anecdotal, but my coffee guy is Uruguayan. |
I’ve lived in the East for most of my life, and I can attest to the fact that I met Latinos from a variety of national origins. Mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Cuban, Brazilian, Ecuradoran, Nicaraguan, etc. It was only when I came to the Inland empire that I started to meet only Mexican Latinos on a day to day basis.
As for Chicago as a hub, I think some earlier posters hit it on the head. I also think relative proximity to the Western US and Mexico compared to the Eastern cities helped bring a lot of Mexicans to Chicago. |
Quote:
|
^ That's my point. The Hispanic population in Cleveland is mostly Puerto Rican.
|
Quote:
|
Where Latinos exist, they are largely a mix between Mexican and another group or just outright Mexican, in any city that is not on the I-95 corridor:
All major non-western cities that are not on the I-95 corridor: Atlanta: Mexican, Central American particularly El Salvadoreno, and Caribbean Cleveland: Puerto Rican and Mexican Chicago: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Brazilian, others Milwaukee: Mexican Indianapolis: Mexican Columbus: Mexican and Puerto Rican Detroit: Mexican (huge dating back to the 20s and 40s, one of the hardest hit by forced repatriation during the 20s and 30s) Minneapolis: Mexican and Ecuadorian Kansas City: Mexican and Central American, particularly Guatemalan and El Salvadoreno Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Cincinnati have negligible Hispanic/Latino populations. Anyone know what Tampa’s large Hispanic community consists of? |
Milwaukee is more PR than Cleveland is Mexican, no?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Houston has large Central American populations New Orleans is historically the south’s non-Mexican Mecca, until Miami usurped it, but it also has a large Mexican population |
Quote:
~80-15 Puerto Rican to Mexican in Cleveland ~70-25 Mexican to Puerto Rican in Milwaukee All four communities are large enough for mention. |
To answer my own question:
Cleveland city Puerto Rican 31,000 8.1% Mexican 4,500 1.1% Cleveland MSA Puerto Rican 66,000 3.2% Mexican 24,000 1.2% Milwaukee city Mexican 74,000 12.4% Puerto Rican 27,000 4.5% Milwaukee MSA Mexican 108,000 6.9% Puerto Rican 37,000 2.3% |
Quote:
The coastal Southeast or South Atlantic (Virginia, South Carolina etc.) doesn't have as many Mexicans but still seems to be connected to the Puerto Rican "east coast" community between NYC and Florida. The transition is more gradual in the northeast/Great Lakes, right? |
Does the Mexican/Puerto Rican line also reflect their relative share of immigration history by land vs. by sea?
The Southwestern Mexican communities and those of the Texas, Great Plains, Chicago I think had a land route (Chicago's early Mexican community in the 1910s came up from the southwest), whereas the Hispanics (including Puerto Ricans and others, both islanders and Central/South Americans) crossed the sea, naturally. I'm also curious as to if Mexican communities in the East tend to be those who internally migrated from Mexican communities in the West/Southwest rather than independently moved from Mexico directly, by plane or sea. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.