Irish Boston, Italian Philadelphia

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

To point out the ridiculousness of our definition of Latino however, Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, would be considered Latino, since he was born in Mexico (his grandparents were from a polygamous Mormon faction which fled the U.S., though both his parents were born in Utah Territory.). He had no Mexican blood, he had American parents, and he only lived in Mexico for the first five years of his life, but still, technically, Mexican and hence Latino.

George Romney would not be Latino. He was a U.S. citizen at birth.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

George Romney would not be Latino. He was a U.S. citizen at birth.

Who was born in Mexico thus had Mexican citizenship. Likely spoke Spanish.

Anyone born in the US is American regardless of where their parents are from apart from diplomats. Same goes for Mexico. The fact that he born to American parents as opposed to Spanish or French parents does not make him any less Latino by the accepted broad definition of the term. Ted Cruz was born in BC to an American mother and was a US citizen at birth but also Canadian which he renounced.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Who was born in Mexico thus had Mexican citizenship. Likely spoke Spanish.

Anyone born in the US is American regardless of where their parents are from apart from diplomats. Same goes for Mexico. The fact that he born to American parents as opposed to Spanish or French parents does not make him any less Latino by the accepted broad definition of the term. Ted Cruz was born in BC to an American mother and was a US citizen at birth but also Canadian which he renounced.

But he was not Mexican. His parents lived in an isolated community just across the Mexican border to escape the US government. It's like saying that someone born on a military base in Germany is German.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But he was not Mexican. His parents lived in an isolated community just across the Mexican border to escape the US government. It's like saying that someone born on a military base in Germany is German.

It is not, because Mexico has birthright citizenship, and Germany does not.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Yes. Boston has by far the largest percentages of Irish, French, and Portuguese; a similar percentage of Italians to NYC and Philly; and a large Polish population.

I was unaware of the large Polish population in Boston.

So while Philly has more mainline Protestant, it also far fewer English. English ancestry is solidly behind Irish, German, and Italian across the board. Like Irish, German heritage is found all over the U.S. and more heavily concentrated in certain parts of the country than others — Pennsylvania being one of them.

Pennsylvania German goes back to colonial times, something like a quarter to a third of the colony was German. So a lot of the "old stock" in Philadelphia were of German ancestry. And obviously mainline Protestant is closer to WASP-dom than to Catholic ethnic. German seems invisible as an ethnic group in Philadelphia.

What's interesting as well is that since Pennsylvania was more heterogeneous than New England, there's really no equivalent of the "Yankees" who brought a common outlook, established cultural institutions across the country etc. Establishmentarian suburbs like Shaker Heights and Chicago's North Shore have strong Yankee roots.

Bottom line... In 2023, I think Irish Catholic and French / French Canadian fall under "generic American." They are not "looked-down-upon-by-some" ethnic groups like Italian and Polish. The Irish that live in Beacon Hill or Park Slope are more likely to have more in common and associate with their well-to-do neighbors of English descent than they are their "ethnic" counterparts in West Roxbury or Rockaway Park.

Irish yes, French Canadians no (though maybe you're referring to descendants of French Huguenots who were a minor contribution to the colonies).

But I agree with you about the Irish, for the most part. This was true in 1983, let alone in 2023.

If you look at the ancestry count in "establishmentarian" suburbs Irish ancestry is not underrepresented, and weren't 40 years ago. Italians and Poles still are, relative to their share of the white population at least (but their numbers are higher than they used to be).

There still is an Irish American identity in the Northeast and to a lesser extent Chicago though. So you have your Irish cop neighborhoods, Irish pols etc.

NYC has a few Irish-leaning suburbs, and some Irish immigrant pockets.

Boston has a big Irish concentration in the South Shore too. The whole area is quite Irish, but this area is really, really Irish.

But to an outsider who knows nothing about the area, is the Irish-ness of Scituate or Marshfield as obvious as the Italian-ness of Massapequa?

[eschaton]

The Irish were the first substantial Catholic immigrant group to come to the U.S., beginning in the 1840s, with immigration from Southern/Eastern Europe not becoming a major factor until the very end of the 19th century.

Thus the Irish had 2-3 generations longer to acculturate into America, and indeed, they were already in some ways assimilated by the early 20th century in ways that newer migrant groups were not. For example, Irish neighborhoods tended to be the most racist against blacks, whereas first-generation Italians generally didn't give a shit about living in integrated neighborhoods.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The Irish were the first substantial Catholic immigrant group to come to the U.S., beginning in the 1840s, with immigration from Southern/Eastern Europe not becoming a major factor until the very end of the 19th century.

Thus the Irish had 2-3 generations longer to acculturate into America, and indeed, they were already in some ways assimilated by the early 20th century in ways that newer migrant groups were not.

Yes, and they spoke English and came from the British Isles.

They were also sort of the "gatekeepers" of American Catholicism and urban politics. Other Catholic immigrant groups didn't really view the Irish as "fellow immigrants." There was a lot of resentment of Irish dominance.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It is not, because Mexico has birthright citizenship, and Germany does not.

Citizenship is not a criteria of the US OMB definition of "Latino":

OMB defines "Hispanic or Latino" as a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.

https://www.census.gov/topics/popula...gin/about.html

The Romneys were white Americans, mostly descended from the British Isles, who happened to briefly move across the Mexican border. They were not Latino or Hispanic.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But he was not Mexican. His parents lived in an isolated community just across the Mexican border to escape the US government. It's like saying that someone born on a military base in Germany is German.

According to Mexico, he was. Mexican is a nationality not an ethnicity. He and his family were merely not passing through on an overseas military deployment. Looks like they lived in Mexico. Immigrants groups here cluster together segregated from the rest of society hanging into their native cultures even though they're still American. I don't think my great grandmother ever spoke English and she lived most of her life here.

Romney and his dad could have easily claimed (if they wanted to) they are/ were Hispanic or Latino because they are of any racial/ ethnic background. Don't even have to speak Spanish.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

According to Mexico, he was. Mexican is a nationality not an ethnicity. He and his family were merely not passing through on an overseas military deployment. Looks like they lived in Mexico. Immigrants groups here cluster together segregated from the rest of society hanging into their native cultures even though they're still American. I don't think my great grandmother ever spoke English and she lived most of her life here.

Romney and his dad could have easily claimed (if they wanted to) they are/ were Hispanic or Latino because they are of any racial/ ethnic background. Don't even have to speak Spanish.

He was not culturally Mexican. This is not the same as your hypothetical ethnic Italian person from Brazil or Argentina.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

He was not culturally Mexican. This is not the same as your hypothetical ethnic Italian person from Brazil or Argentina.

There are plenty of Indigenous Americans from Latin America who have migrated to the U.S. and speak little to no Spanish/have no Spanish ancestry.

Would you consider someone from a German-speaking Mennonite community in Latin America to be Latino?

[Docere]

There's been a significant dropoff in reported English ancestry since the first time the ancestry question was asked in 1980. So I went and had a look to see how large the English ancestry count was then.

English ancestry, 1980

Boston 697,328 20.2% (#2 behind Irish)
New York 1,283,498 8% (#4 behind Italian, Irish, German)
Philadelphia 950,599 17.1% (#3 behind Irish, German and ahead of Italian)
Chicago 846,212 10.8% (#4 behind German, Irish, Polish)

[Quixote]

"First entry" ancestry. I don't believe this is a proxy for single ancestry, as the figures are way too high. I did this exercise last year and remember that Boston was like 6-6.5% Irish alone, or about a quarter to a third of the total Irish population.

"American" as well as Scottish ancestry are proportionately high in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where English ancestry is #1 or #2. In Maine, English ancestry is #1 by a good margin and "American" ancestry is slightly more prevalent than even French Canadian.


Boston CSA*

Irish

First: 1,204,663
Second: 502,393
Total: 1,707,056

First:second :: 2.4:1


Italian

First: 741,297
Second: 279,062
Total: 1,020,359

First:second :: 2.7:1


English

First: 677,860
Second: 394,139
Total: 1,071,999

First:second :: 1.7:1


English + American

First: 941,230
Second: 446,982
Total: 1,388,212

First:second :: 2.1:1


French + French Canadian

First: 605,044
Second: 314,849
Total: 919,893

First:second :: 1.9:1


Portuguese

First: 262,977
Second: 82,740
Total: 345,717

First:second :: 3.2:1


* Includes Carroll County, NH and Sagadahoc County, ME, which aren't part of the CSA

[Quixote]

New York CSA*


Italian

First: 2,187,205
Second: 514,757
Total: 2,701,962

First:second :: 4.3:1


Irish

First: 1,415,353
Second: 803,316
Total: 2,218,669

First:second :: 1.8:1


* Includes Sullivan County, NY; Wayne and Susquehanna Counties, PA (not part of CSA)

[Docere]

The further out in the periphery and surrounding regions, the more ancestry reflects the colonial-descended population. So more Yankee New Englanders proportionately. I would expect the same would be true for German ancestry in the Philadelphia region (at least in Pennsylvania).

[Quixote]

Philadelphia CSA


Irish

First: 756,322
Second: 433,459
Total: 1,189,781

First:second :: 1.7:1


Italian

First: 642,645
Second: 217,843
Total: 860,488

First:second :: 3:1


German

First: 673,140
Second: 380,757
Total: 1,053,897

First:second :: 1.8:1


English

First: 330,243
Second: 229,246
Total: 559,489

First:second :: 1.4:1


English + American

First: 503,131
Second: 282,616
Total: 785,747

First:second :: 1.8:1

[Quixote]

Chicago CSA*


Irish

First: 591,519
Second: 402,738
Total: 994,257

First:second :: 1.5:1


Polish

First: 529,068
Second: 194,018
Total: 723,086

First:second :: 2.7:1


Italian

First: 435,051
Second: 158,758
Total: 593,809

First:second :: 2.7:1


German

First: 871,317
Second: 464,512
Total: 1,335,829

First:second :: 1.9:1


English

First: 294,716
Second: 196,788
Total: 491,504

First:second :: 1.5:1


English + American

First: 485,656
Second: 244,106
Total: 729,762

First:second :: 2:1


* Missing Bureau and Putnam Counties, IL; Jasper and Newton Counties, IN

[JManc]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There are plenty of Indigenous Americans from Latin America who have migrated to the U.S. and speak little to no Spanish/have no Spanish ancestry.

Would you consider someone from a German-speaking Mennonite community in Latin America to be Latino?

Or consider the Amish and Mennonite here in the US as Americans. They reject the "English" way and more or less maintain their rural German heritage.

[Quixote]

Observations:

Boston

• No surprise that Portuguese and Italian are the least assimilated
• Lowest Irish assimilation (also not surprising)
• English ancestry is orders of magnitude greater in both raw numbers and percentage compared to Philly and Chicago, and is also less assimilated

New York

• NYC is associated with Italians to a much greater degree than Philly and Boston not just because of media portrayals. Despite similar shares of Italian ancestry between the three, there's clearly less assimilation.

Philadelphia

• I would've expected less Irish assimilation than NYC
• Less Italian assimilation than Boston
• Strong legacy German culture
• English assimilation similar to Irish; English more assimilated than in Boston

Chicago

• Far less English than Boston and Philly percentage-wise
• "American" ancestry is probably different in Chicago than in Boston and Philly, meaning it's much more likely to not have colonial lineage
• Stronger German culture than Philly (German is Chicagoland's #1 ancestry)
• Most assimilated Irish population among the four cities
• Would have expected less assimilation among the Polish population

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Quixote

• Less Italian assimilation than Boston

Is there though? The numbers claiming Italian ancestry - alone or in combination - are pretty much identical in Boston and Philadelphia.