Canadian province/ U.S. state analogues

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Docere

Yes Vancouver is more similar to the Bay Area than London demographically. It doesn't mean it's especially similar let alone pretty much the same. The Bay Area has large numbers of East and Southeast Asians, who form the largest group in Vancouver; their numbers are tiny in London. The Bay Area may have the lowest South Asian proportion of the three, but it is a lot more South Asian than London is East and Southeast Asian. Obviously there's groups that are much better represented in the Bay Area but that doesn't make Van "more like London."

Yes actually it does make Van more like London. The Black American, Chicano, latino presence in Van and London is almost nothing. Vancouver is in "British Columbia". San Francisco was first settled by the Spanish and has a Spanish name. Vancouver is a commonwealth city that has more in common with London and other common wealth cities than they do with any thing in the US. Again there is nothing like Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo, Hayward, San Jose etc etc in Vancouver or surrounding areas. Nothing in Vancouver like the mission district or Filmore or hunters point.

[someone123]

Looking at demographic counts broken up by semi-arbitrary racial categories and then arguing about what places are more or less similar without adding further context is very much a "blind men and the elephant" type of discussion.

The minority and immigration/migration experience around Europe can be quite different from North America even if the racial groups are nominally similar. Every country has a huge variety of people in it even though some of them may all tick the same box. There can be disparate selection pressures and the destinations have an impact on the migrants.

Just in Canada we have seen shifts over time from the points-based system that tended to select for lots of white collar education toward temporary residency for people qualifying based on a different bar. The US and Europe had a lot more illegal immigration. Canadians are sometimes smug or naive about just getting along better with immigrants when there's a huge difference between PhD students vs. people who run across the border.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by someone123

Looking at demographic counts broken up by semi-arbitrary racial categories and then arguing about what places are more or less similar without adding further context is very much a "blind men and the elephant" type of discussion.

The minority and immigration/migration experience around Europe can be quite different from North America even if the racial groups are nominally similar. Every country has a huge variety of people in it even though some of them may all tick the same box. There can be disparate selection pressures and the destinations have an impact on the migrants.

That is kind of my point. Even in North America there is a big difference between USA and Canada. You shouldn't lump North America into one place. It's also not arbitrary, it is fact demographics are very different.

[B][I]Just in Canada we have seen shifts over time from the points-based system that tended to select for lots of white collar education toward temporary residency for people qualifying based on a different bar. The US and Europe had a lot more illegal immigration. Canadians are sometimes smug or naive about just getting along better with immigrants when there's a huge difference between PhD students vs. people who run across the border.

Black Americans,Puerto ricans and a good portion of Chicanos did not run over the border, infact they border crossed them. There is a reason why so many places in the southwest have Spanish names. Do you think these names were given recently by people running over the border?

Also while no one is running the over the border into Canada, Canada does experience just as much immigration fraud as anywhere else. It's just that like you said Canadians can be smug or are in denial about it.

[Docere]

If I were to compare Vancouver's demographics to Toronto, the Bay Area and London I'd say most similar to Toronto, then the Bay Area, then London in that order. Pretty much every group in Vancouver also sizeable representation in Toronto, though Toronto has a much more diverse population and many groups not really represented in Vancouver (most notably Caribbean and African Black immigrant groups, but it also has a much more diverse South Asian population than Van). The same can more or less be said of the Bay Area, though the Bay Area has Latino and Black American populations that are unique to the US. London has few East and Southeast Asians, by far the largest group in Vancouver, which really makes it difficult to see much "similarity" to Vancouver at all demographically.

[Docere]

That being said, I don't want to over-weight ethno-racial demographics, because diasporas settle in all sorts of different places. Nor are they static entities that don't assimilate into the broader culture over time or don't differ from their counterparts in other regions. Other factors like economy and geography need to be weighted as well.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Its not really close to London in exact numbers but follows the same pattern of immigration, they just happend to have a lot more chinese. Also south Asians etc. The same Black people moving to London are for the most part are the same ones moving to Canada. If we look at Australian cities we will probably see the samething.

The Black people in the bay area and LA are not immigrants. Not really comparable at all. This something some always over look when talking about these things. Black Americans for the most part are not immigrants. They are as American as apple pie.



Really? Have you heard of Oakland? San Jose? Richmond? Vallejo? Sorry but Vancouver has no suburbs remotely similar to these places. San Francisco itself is like 15% Hispanic. San Francisco had a much bigger Black community at one point. The east bay still does have a large Black community.

Originally Posted by Luisito

Yes actually it does make Van more like London. The Black American, Chicano, latino presence in Van and London is almost nothing. Vancouver is in "British Columbia". San Francisco was first settled by the Spanish and has a Spanish name. Vancouver is a commonwealth city that has more in common with London and other common wealth cities than they do with any thing in the US. Again there is nothing like Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo, Hayward, San Jose etc etc in Vancouver or surrounding areas. Nothing in Vancouver like the mission district or Filmore or hunters point.

Originally Posted by Docere

That being said, I don't want to over-weight ethno-racial demographics, because diasporas settle in all sorts of different places. Nor are they static entities that don't assimilate into the broader culture over time or don't differ from their counterparts in other regions. Other factors like economy and geography need to be weighted as well.

Considering Black American and Chicano (which by definition are Mexican American and not Mexican Mexican) minorities are unique is already stacking the deck so that only US cities can be compared to US cities, since other cities worldwide don't have them in large numbers unless they are expats or migrated from the US itself.

If you say that across the English-speaking countries' groups, Canada's ethnic groups, unlike those groups unique to the US, are interchangeable -- so that Italian Torontonians are akin to Italian New Yorkers, that Asian Brits are like Asian Canadians etc., that's also stacking the deck against Canadian uniqueness, it's like saying "Canada's groups are just groups any other country has", but the US has it's own homegrown groups.

If you arbitrarily said for instance that Black Nova Scotians, or "old stock" Quebecois or Canadian indigenous people, Canadian Métis, or even Ukrainian Canadians on the prairies or something were a different group that were unique to Canada and homegrown, that would also inflate Canada's uniqueness.

And philosophically, it's arbitrary which criteria -- genealogical ancestry or separation by culture or racial differences that are visibly seen people pick and choose, and what's considered homegrown and it's common to flip flop between them.

Few people consider for instance Amish or Orthodox Jewish communities in many cultural diversity discussions even if these groups in terms of cultural lifestyle could be as different as a suburb-dwelling Asian and Black Torontonian's lifestyle from one another.

For instance, if the criteria why "old stock" African Americans are a different people than African immigrants is culture (e.g. the latter have recent African culture/language), then you would also consider assimilated people of voluntary immigrant background to be no longer different, and be similar to the majority after however much time they assimilate (e.g. a Chinese Canadian or Mexican American that no longer speaks Chinese or Spanish upon the third generation stops contributing to cultural diversity, or even a Black American that grew up around the majority white culture, even if they might still count in many perspectives as racial diversity).

[Docere]

Canada obviously has some distinctive demographics. Take Winnipeg. No major US city comes close to being over 10% Ukrainian or over 10% Indigenous.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Its not really close to London in exact numbers but follows the same pattern of immigration, they just happend to have a lot more chinese.

London is about 8% Black African and less than 2% Chinese. Same pattern indeed.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Docere

London is about 8% Black African and less than 2% Chinese. Same pattern indeed.

And what percentage of Blacks in the bay are from Africa? Umm Yeah I would still say Canadian cities are more like London.

[Docere]

Very bizarre argument. Vancouver is less than 2% Black but they're mostly immigrants like in London so overall Vancouver is more demographically similar like London than the Bay Area?

[urbandreamer]

Vancouver is very Scottish, so I'll say it's the Aberdeen of Canada: an isolated dead-end.

Years ago I met a Ghanaian immigrant from Toronto, now living in Vancouver, who spent the entire day I was with her bitching about how white Vancouver is, how everyone ignores her and how awesome "The Brooklyn of Canada is" aka New West. Lol.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Considering Black American and Chicano (which by definition are Mexican American and not Mexican Mexican) minorities are unique is already stacking the deck so that only US cities can be compared to US cities, since other cities worldwide don't have them in large numbers unless they are expats or migrated from the US itself.

Like or not the US is unique and an outlier in the Anglo world. It is not controversial to say Montreal is unique and different from Toronto or Boston because most people speak French in Montreal. It should not be a problem to point out that the demographics of the US also have their unique charatecistics.

If you say that across the English-speaking countries' groups, Canada's ethnic groups, unlike those groups unique to the US, are interchangeable -- so that Italian Torontonians are akin to Italian New Yorkers, that Asian Brits are like Asian Canadians etc., that's also stacking the deck against Canadian uniqueness, it's like saying "Canada's groups are just groups any other country has", but the US has it's own homegrown groups.

If you arbitrarily said for instance that Black Nova Scotians, or "old stock" Quebecois or Canadian indigenous people, Canadian Métis, or even Ukrainian Canadians on the prairies or something were a different group that were unique to Canada and homegrown, that would also inflate Canada's uniqueness.

No one is saying there are no Unique groups in Canada. If anything that further serves to make my point.

For instance, if the criteria why "old stock" African Americans are a different people than African immigrants is culture (e.g. the latter have recent African culture/language), then you would also consider assimilated people of voluntary immigrant background to be no longer different, and be similar to the majority after however much time they assimilate (e.g. a Chinese Canadian or Mexican American that no longer speaks Chinese or Spanish upon the third generation stops contributing to cultural diversity, or even a Black American that grew up around the majority white culture, even if they might still count in many perspectives as racial diversity).

Comparing recent African immigrants to Blacks Americans to other groups is a false equivalence. It should be obvious why. Having said that, Black Americans do have their own unique distinct culture from white Americans and many things we think of that are American culture are of Black american origin.

The situations with Mexicans is also different. While it is true there has always been a steady stream of new Mexican immigrants, parts of the southern United states were actually part of Mexico at one point. Do you think everyone got up and left when those areas became part of the united states? Puerto Rico is actually a US territory with its own disctint culture.

[urbandreamer]

While architecturally similar to Brooklyn, Montreal reminds me of San Francisco, subbing the Quebecois for Latino Americans.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

Very bizarre argument. Vancouver is less than 2% Black but they're mostly immigrants like in London so overall Vancouver is more demographically similar like London than the Bay Area?

At what point does an immigrant population diverge that it stops becoming the same group?

Are old stock Irish, Scottish and Anglo-Canadians the same group as the kind of person that puts "American" on the US census and has British Isles ancestry pre-Revolution?

Are the Mexican Americans of border towns in the US a separate group from recent Mexican Americans. Are the Irish of Newfoundland a separate group from the Irish of Boston? Are Puerto Ricans on the island themselves a separate group from the Nuyorican NYC identity? Also in NYC, Black Americans with roots in the south and those of Caribbean are often mixed in ancestry, immigrants can also marry non-immigrants. Is Honolulu's Asian Americans/Pacific Islander population not comparable to that on the mainland or Canada because of how very separated their immigration wave is?

[Luisito]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

At what point does an immigrant population diverge that it stops becoming the same group?

Are old stock Irish, Scottish and Anglo-Canadians the same group as the kind of person that puts "American" on the US census and has British Isles ancestry pre-Revolution?

Old stock Black Americans were never immigrants. Their situation is totally different from others.

Are the Mexican Americans of border towns in the US a separate group from recent Mexican Americans.?

Yes most would say they are. Infact Old stock Hispanics in Texas refer to themselves as Tejanos. There are differences.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Like or not the US is unique and an outlier in the Anglo world. It is not controversial to say Montreal is unique and different from Toronto or Boston because most people speak French in Montreal. It should not be a problem to point out that the demographics of the US also have their unique charatecistics.

Then all the Anglo world countries are outliers to each other. No other English speaking country has the Maori population New Zealand has, or Aboriginal population that Australia has, just like Francophone Canada is unique or the US groups we are discussing are unique.

If we stretch the Anglo world farther -- e.g. Ireland, Jamaica etc. they're all pretty special in their demographics, even if small.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Then all the Anglo world countries are outliers to each other. No other English speaking country has the Maori population New Zealand has, or Aboriginal population that Australia has, just like Francophone Canada is unique or the US groups we are discussing are unique.

If we stretch the Anglo world farther -- e.g. Ireland, Jamaica etc. they're all pretty special in their demographics, even if small.

We're talking cities here. I am sure if you checked out the demographics of Sydney it would look a lot more like toronto than the SF Bay area does.

Again no one said there weren't unique ethnic minority groups in each of these countries.

[Docere]

Australia almost seems like a bit of a southern hemisphere Canada with no Quebec and where you have roughly equal sized "Vancouver" (Sydney) and "Toronto" (Melbourne).

[Docere]

Is Vancouver more similar to Manchester or Seattle?

[urbandreamer]

Vancouver is Scarborough with a bit of Calgary and Toronto south of Front Street. It's an extremely suburban, car centric city aside from about 1/4 of the downtown peninsula.