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

[Docere]

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 stats nonetheless.

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

[Docere]

Some birthplace data for London.

London, 1911:

Poland/Russia 63,105
Germany 27,290
France 13,803
Italy 11,668
Austria 8,050
United States 5,352
Switzerland 5,342

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

4.1% of London County was foreign born that year.

43,952 of those born in Poland and Russia (nearly all Jewish) lived in the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney (in the East End).

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Docere

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 stats nonetheless.

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

Not very, even if we count European ethnicities separately

[Docere]

France took in a good number of immigrants in the 1920s, and around 600,000 of 6,700,000 (9%) in Greater Paris were born in other countries in 1931.

The largest nationalities were Italians (148,000), Poles (83,000) and Belgians (52,000).

https://books.google.ca/books?id=EKA...oetics&f=false

It looks like there were about 150,000 Jews in Paris in the 1930s, and like in London a majority were of Eastern European origin. I am not sure if this figure is for Paris proper or Greater Paris however.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=FFs...hadows&f=false

[Docere]

Some other groups for 1926, again not sure if it's for Paris proper or greater Paris: Russians (44,500), Spaniards (31,500), North Africans (27,500), Turks and Armenians (18,300), Asians (13,600), Czechs (6,600).

https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks...policing+paris

[muppet]

Originally Posted by Docere

Some birthplace data for London.

London, 1911:

Poland/Russia 63,105
Germany 27,290
France 13,803
Italy 11,668
Austria 8,050
United States 5,352
Switzerland 5,342

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

4.1% of London County was foreign born that year.

43,952 of those born in Poland and Russia (nearly all Jewish) lived in the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney (in the East End).

That doesn't of course count ancestry either, for example the huge amounts of Irish or the 200,000 Jews by 1919.

[Commentariat]

Originally Posted by Docere

Some birthplace data for London.

London, 1911:

Poland/Russia 63,105
Germany 27,290
France 13,803
Italy 11,668
Austria 8,050
United States 5,352
Switzerland 5,342

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

4.1% of London County was foreign born that year.

43,952 of those born in Poland and Russia (nearly all Jewish) lived in the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney (in the East End).

There's some interesting information in that link. Even in 1851 (ie at the height of the famine) only 2.9% of the population of England and Wales was born in Ireland, and it had fallen to 1% of the population in 1911. In 1851, 0.3% of the population of England and Wales were born in foreign countries, or 1 in 300. By 1911 it had only increased to 1.03%, most of whom resided in London. It shows how ridiculous the Blairite propaganda that Britain was historically a 'nation of immigrants' was. Until the refugee movements in the lead up to WW2, Britain was as homogenous as Japan. From the Norman conquest until the start of the 20th century, it's unlikely the foreign-born population ever exceeded 1% of the total population at any given time.

[Crawford]

German industrial cities had fairly large numbers of immigrants from Poland, especially. This is why there are so many Polish surnames among longtime native Germans in the industrial Ruhr cities today.

But Germany tended to have outmigration rather than inmigration. Germany was pretty overcrowded, land was scarce, families were large (with only first born sons getting family land) and so Germans had been migrating into emptier Eastern Europe for a good 200 years (which, of course, eventually led to some of the twisted "logic" around WW2).

In the Germanic world, Vienna was undoubtedly the most cosmopolitan city with its large number of migrants from the provinces.

France had pretty steady inmigration, given it was rich and had low birthrates. It needed labor.

I doubt Budapest received many new immigrants, but it had a gigantic Jewish population (perhaps largest in the world at some point?), Romany and various Slavs and folks from Balkans.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by Commentariat

There's some interesting information in that link. Even in 1851 (ie at the height of the famine) only 2.9% of the population of England and Wales was born in Ireland, and it had fallen to 1% of the population in 1911. In 1851, 0.3% of the population of England and Wales were born in foreign countries, or 1 in 300. By 1911 it had only increased to 1.03%, most of whom resided in London. It shows how ridiculous the Blairite propaganda that Britain was historically a 'nation of immigrants' was. Until the refugee movements in the lead up to WW2, Britain was as homogenous as Japan. From the Norman conquest until the start of the 20th century, it's unlikely the foreign-born population ever exceeded 1% of the total population at any given time.

Actually the heyday was in medieval times, when London's foreign born percentage was almost as high as today. Also 'foreign born' doesn't measure ancestry.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/...e-middle-ages/

I think alot can also be said for assimilation, plus the invasions and conquests that created the British in the first place - waves of Picts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Normans, Scots, Flemish, Jews, French Huguenots and Irish. I've heard people in Yorkshire still have an abnormal amount of African DNA due to having the Roman city of York there, and the empire's soldiers.

The Ivory Bangle Lady, a high status tomb from Roman York:







After that came the slaves from the 1500s onwards, who worked as servants among high society (the African population in the city was up to 20,000 by the 1700s), but once again assimilation and intermarriage meant their bloodlines disappeared after the abolition of slavery. Also the 40,000 lascars from Bengal, who would live intermittently in the port from 1830- the turn of the century.

In short the history is one of waves of migration, then assimilation and periods of monoculture, before another wave. The last period was between the world wars (and European refugees), in the 1920s particularly.

[McBane]

During this era, much of Africa and Asia were under European colonial rule. In some cases, natives went to the colonial power's country for education. A few became fascinated with European ideals of liberty and became leaders in their respective country's independence movements. Examples include Ho Chi Minh (Paris, 1919-1923) and Gandhi (London, 1880's).

[Docere]

Originally Posted by muppet

That doesn't of course count ancestry either, for example the huge amounts of Irish or the 200,000 Jews by 1919.

You have to make due with the data you get. Even today there's no ancestry count for Britain.

Irish immigration to London was actually more of a 20th century phenomenon than a 19th century one. Among UK cities, Liverpool and Glasgow were much more "Irish" in the mid-19th century than London was (as a percentage of the population).

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I doubt Budapest received many new immigrants, but it had a gigantic Jewish population (perhaps largest in the world at some point?), Romany and various Slavs and folks from Balkans.

Yeah, Budapest I believe was about 25% Jewish at the turn of the century and it produced a lot of prominent Jewish intellectuals and scientists.

Interestingly while Hungary is considered "Eastern Europe" today, Hungary had a more Western-type Jewry, more similar to German Jewry than Polish Jewry. They spoke Hungarian, not Yiddish (and often German as well as it was the lingua franca for educated Central Europeans at the time) and considered themselves Hungarians of the Jewish faith. It was the eastern parts like Transylvania and the Carpathian region where the more traditional Hungarian Jews lived, and these areas were no longer part of Hungary after 1920.

Hungarians, at least the ones I've met, were often quite adamant about being from Central Europe, not Eastern Europe.

Of course fast-forward to today and Hungary has descended into one of the most xenophobic and anti-Semtic countries in Europe.

[Commentariat]

Originally Posted by muppet

Actually the heyday was in medieval times

Complete nonsense and historical revisionism, like most of what you write. Britain was feudal for much of the medieval period, society was organised around legally binding ties to land. You couldn't leave even if you wanted to. When feudalism fell apart, the vast majority of the population remained tied to the land because they were subsistence peasants and would starve if they lost their connection to it. Most people were born, married and died within about a 10 mile radius, until the industrial revolution.

[Sun Belt]

Since the topic of diversity in England has been brought up, according to recent claims as recently as 10,000 years ago the people in present day Britain were black and just a couple thousand years ago, those black people turned white. With this logic, all of the diversity in England today will all turn white in just a couple thousand years from today.

A DNA sample from a 10,000-year-old skeleton discovered in Gough Cave near Cheddar Gorge, England, offers a remarkable revelation: the first modern British people had “dark brown to black skin.” According to recent analysis, they also had dark curly hair and blue eyes. In other words, whiteness in Europe is a much newer thing than we thought.

The so-called Cheddar Man was a hunter-gatherer during the Mesolithic period, which ended just before the appearance of agriculture. While Britain was populated and abandoned by humans during earlier periods, archaeologists think that humans lived on the island continuously from Cheddar Man’s time through to present day. This is part of what makes the details about his appearance so meaningful. Cheddar Man’s genome shows that Europeans didn’t develop pale skin until a few thousand years ago, rather than tens of thousands of years ago when humans first migrated west onto the European continent.

https://gizmodo.com/turns-out-the-fi...bla-1822796426

Cheddar Man.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Docere

Yeah, Budapest I believe was about 25% Jewish at the turn of the century and it produced a lot of prominent Jewish intellectuals and scientists.

I'm guessing that Budapest was most Jewish city on earth before 1900. Warsaw and Vienna were probably close behind, with Berlin and Paris in contention too.

Post-1900 it would be NYC, though. By 1920 or so, NYC probably had 5-6x the Jewish population of any other place on earth.

Originally Posted by Docere

Hungarians, at least the ones I've met, were often quite adamant about being from Central Europe, not Eastern Europe.

Yes, Eastern Europeans love this term "Central Europe". They always want to be grouped with the Germanic countries and not the "backward" Balkans and Slavs. Too bad the actual "Central European" states don't use the term.

Originally Posted by Docere

Of course fast-forward to today and Hungary has descended into one of the most xenophobic and anti-Semtic countries in Europe.

Yup. Hungary is in a very sad state right now. I really like Budapest and have been there twice, but probably won't visit until it again becomes a functioning democracy.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Docere

Obviously a lot less than they are today, and a lot less diverse than American cities.

I think Europe would have been more diverse a century ago when people were less apt to intermingle with people on the other side of the continent of even their own or country or even province. I think as time goes on, it will grow more homogenized and national and regional identity will become blurred. A bunch of white people does not mean there is no diversity. Same thing with a bunch of black people (in Sub-Saharan Africa) which is the most genetically diverse region on earth.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, Eastern Europeans love this term "Central Europe". They always want to be grouped with the Germanic countries and not the "backward" Balkans and Slavs. Too bad the actual "Central European" states don't use the term.

The more assimilated Jews of Vienna and Budapest made this distinction as well ("Mitteleuropa"). Non-assimilated Yiddish-speaking Jews were referred to as "Ostjuden."

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

Interestingly while Hungary is considered "Eastern Europe" today, Hungary had a more Western-type Jewry, more similar to German Jewry than Polish Jewry. They spoke Hungarian, not Yiddish (and often German as well as it was the lingua franca for educated Central Europeans at the time) and considered themselves Hungarians of the Jewish faith. It was the eastern parts like Transylvania and the Carpathian region where the more traditional Hungarian Jews lived, and these areas were no longer part of Hungary after 1920.

That's interesting. I've heard it claimed that unlike any European countries or others of the Old World, the US was really the only country where Jewish communities eventually assimilated and felt comfortable enough to have considered themselves long-term Americans of Jewish faith/descent, rather than Jews who happened to be residing in America, unlike how in other countries there were Jewish communities residing in the country who thought of themselves as in, but not "of the country" but it's probably exaggeration to say "only in America".

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Since the topic of diversity in England has been brought up, according to recent claims as recently as 10,000 years ago the people in present day Britain were black and just a couple thousand years ago, those black people turned white. With this logic, all of the diversity in England today will all turn white in just a couple thousand years from today.


https://gizmodo.com/turns-out-the-fi...bla-1822796426

Cheddar Man.

Well, just because they had darker skin back then doesn't mean it was "diverse." If everybody there had that color skin, then it wasn't diverse.

[Docere]

There was a big difference between the Western European and Eastern European Jewish experience. Western European Jews received citizenship rights in the 19th century and adopted the language of the non-Jewish population.

In the 1930s, a lot of German Jews were pretty shocked at the idea that "a Jew can't be a German." While no doubt anti-Semitism existed, they contributed to German culture and felt a part of it. In Poland, the experience was very different. They didn't see themselves, nor did non-Jews see them, as "Poles." Germany was also the birthplace of the Reform movement, while Reform Judaism didn't exist in Eastern Europe.

Scholars often draw a distinction between Western and Eastern-type Jewry. Western Jews were assimilated, had higher rates of intermarriage and pretty prosperous for the most part. Eastern Jews (in Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania etc.) were poorer, made up a larger percentage of the population in their countries, spoke Yiddish, were more Orthodox and traditional, intermarriage was almost nonexistent etc. Obviously I'm generalizing here, but the differences were significant.