[Nite]

From the Canadian forum, new 2006 census data on Canada's visible minorities were released today, April 2.
Keep in mind that Native Canadians aren't considered as visible minorities by statscan but they make up about 5% of the Canadian population (Much higher perfect in the West than the East)

I am one of the 1 in 40 Canadian who is Black, whippy :)
( or 1 IN 25 Ontarioian or 1 in 14 Torontonians)

To start off...

Provincial:
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/vmprov.jpg

CMAs & CAs:
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/vis1.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/vis2.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/vis3.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/vis4.jpg

[raggedy13]

Here's a map:

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g296/raggedy13/vmmap.jpg

[Kingofthehill]

Where'd all the Chinamen come from?

[Trae]

Canada?

[MolsonExport]

Where'd all the Chinamen come from?

Is it necessary to use a derogatory term to describe people of Chinese descent?

[LordMandeep]

Chinaman is derogatory term???

I call my Chinese friend that, prehaps I should stop....

[MolsonExport]

Chinaman is a term that refers to a Chinese man. It was not defined as offensive by older dictionaries.[1][2] Today, Asian American organisations and others have objected to the use of the term as offensive. (wikipedia).

Probably many people use the term while being unaware that it can offend Asians.

[Alliance]

Perhaps this group should come up with a better color scale for "visable minorities"?

[dimondpark]

42% in Toronto and 41% in Vancouver is very impressive, both would rank very highly among US Metros...perhaps 5th and 6th respectively-I think similar percentagewise to New York-behind Miami, Honolulu, LA and SF whom now all have no racial majority.

I have these old stats from 2004 for LA and SF from the State of CA. By now its probably a bit less white.

Los Angeles CSA, 2004
All White..............6,529,028.........37.81%
Black..................1,201,633...........6.96%
American Indian.......66,204............0.38%
Asian..................2,004,871..........11.61%
Pacific Islander.........48,656...........0.28%
Multiracial...............305,243...........1.76%
Non White Hispanic.7,108,396..........41.17%
Total..................17,264,031.........100.00%

San Francisco CSA, 2004
All White...............3,586,858........48.71%
Black......................486,255..........6.60%
American Indian.........31,097..........0.42%
Asian...................1,435,082.........19.49%
Pacific Islander..........40,697...........0.55%
Multiracial................174,711..........2.37%
Non White Hispanic.1,605,699.........21.81%
Total.....................7,360,399.......100.00%

[dimondpark]

As far as States themselves,
Hawaii, California, New Mexico(?) and Texas all have no racial majority.

[MolsonExport]

Wikipedia: Ethnically, Hawaii is one of only four states in which non-Hispanic whites do not form a majority, and has the largest percentage of Asian Americans. Hawaii was the second majority-minority state in the United States. Both Hawaii and New Mexico have been majority-minority regions since the early 20th century, but New Mexico became a state before Hawaii. Hawaii also has the largest percentage of persons of mixed race, who constitute some 20% of the total population.[30]
As of 2005, Hawaii was 57.53% Asian (i.e., majority-Asian)

[galaca]

As far as States themselves,
Hawaii, California, New Mexico(?) and Texas all have no racial majority.

soon to be followed by Maryland, Georgia and Nevada.

[Trae]

Georgia? I doubt it. Still will be white, then black.

[galaca]

'no racial majority'... those three states all have majority populations below 60%, and falling.

[westak]

suprised to see Montreal lower than Calgary and Edmonton.

[Minato Ku]

I am always suprise to see that there is only 16.2% of visible minority in Canada.
It is only the half of USA.
According estimation, France has about the same. (of course I can't prove it because there isn't ethnic stat in France) :D
It clearly show the lack of minorities in french TV and politics. :(

I am also suprised to see that there is few black in Canada. According estimation, between 6 at 8% of France inhabitants are black (North african are not include).
France has the second largest black population in the western world. (the third is U.K)

[MonkeyRonin]

I am always suprise to see that there is only 16.2% of visible minority in Canada.
It is only the half of USA.

Remember than an additional 4-6% of the population are Aboriginal. They are not counted as "visible minorities" for some reason, but are not white Europeans either. But still is it more like 20-22% visible minority.


France has the second largest black population in the western world. (the third is U.K)

According to Wikipedia, the UK is 2% black, according to this, Canada is 2.5% black. :shrug:

[Serenade]

The Chinaman is not the issue here.

[Urban Zombie®]

^
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown!

[Marcu]

Wow. Canada is really White.

[MonkeyRonin]

Wow. Canada is really White.

80% white is really white compared to where, 70% white America? :rolleyes:

[LordMandeep]

Canada is not really dominated by huge populations of one certain group.

Like how Blacks and the Lations are in the states...

[Rusty van Reddick]

If the US gets to tout its low percentages, in states like Texas and California, of "non-Hispanic whites," I think Canada should lay claim to "non-French whites." French is an ethnicity precisely as is Hispanic- a latin one, in fact, and one that is largely non-English speaking. If we count "non-French whites," we look MORE diverse than the US, which, after all, we are.

The US is 4.2% Asian- that's all "Asian" groups combined. Canada is 4% SOUTH Asian alone, a proportion that's about ten times higher than that in the US for that group. Canada has about twice as many immigrants, per capita, than does the US. And our proportion of "non-French whites" is lower than the US share of "non-Hispanic whites."

[bnk]

80% white is really white compared to where, 70% white America? :rolleyes:

Good point and Touché as it is called in some circles, but white America is most likey 68% and falling fast.



Any interested Canadians interested in forming the 51st-52nd-53rd-54th or [how ever it works out] state?

There was a map of North America thread that dealed with this issue.


[Not to cut your great country up piecemeal and without regard but I can realistically see 4 major states created out of Canada.

BC will stand alone and grow at its modest clip. Pop est. 4.2 million.

Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba forming the powerful and influential Oil and Farm belt. Pop EST. 5.4 million.

Ontario on its own accord. Pop EST 12.1 million.

Quebec as an independent country and not included in the Union.

The Maritime Providences combining and forming a significant, new, North East state. [Prince Edward Isle, Newfoundland including Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick as a major state in the NE.] Pop est. 2.8 million or so.

Nunavut, the Yukon, and the NW Territories can join Alaska. Est Pop 0.9 million or is that an over estimation?

I mean at some point, like the EU has done, Canada and the US need to think about the long term benefits of a forming a new North American Union.

IMO.

[babybackribs2314]

Good point and Touché as it is called in some circles, but white America is most likey 68% and falling fast.



Any interested Canadians interested in forming the 51st-52nd-53rd-54th or [how ever it works out] state?

There was a map of North America thread that dealed with this issue.


[Not to cut your great country up piecemeal and without regard but I can realistically see 4 major states created out of Canada.

BC will stand alone and grow at its modest clip. Pop est. 4.2 million.

Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba forming the powerful and influential Oil and Farm belt. Pop EST. 5.4 million.

Ontario on its own accord. Pop EST 12.1 million.

Quebec as an independent country and not included in the Union.

The Maritime Providences combining and forming a significant, new, North East state. [Prince Edward Isle, Newfoundland including Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick as a major state in the NE.] Pop est. 2.8 million or so.

Nunavut, the Yukon, and the NW Territories can join Alaska. Est Pop 0.9 million or is that an over estimation?

I mean at some point, like the EU has done, Canada and the US need to think about the long term benefits of a forming a new North American Union.

IMO.

Strongly agree.. the US is more conservative than Canada on several issues, but we're really quite similar. I doubt you'd notice any difference in local politics going from Montana into Alberta or New York to Ontario, it's just that the 'right wing' population in the US is more influential than Canada's (although, that might be changing since Canada's president is now a conservative? I'm not well versed in Canadian politics, though...)

But yes, it would be nice. I don't think the US would 'dominate' Canada either, since the conservative Canadian states would align with the conservative American states and the same thing goes for the liberal Canadian states (BC and Ontario, I think?)

It would still be called the United States of America, though... wouldn't it? Since Canada is still in the Americas and the union would just bring in more states...

[Evergrey]

but what about the invisible minorities that lurk among us?

[JMancuso]

I think Canada should lay claim to "non-French whites." French is an ethnicity precisely as is Hispanic- a latin one, in fact, and one that is largely non-English speaking. If we count "non-French whites," we look MORE diverse than the US, which, after all, we are.

hispanics are a distinct group from whites culturally where as french-canadians are a subgroup of canada's greater white/ european population. anyway, i don't think there is a race to be the most diverse. it is what it is and no one is deny canadian cities aren't diverse.

edit: except for celine dion. she's in a category of her own.

[raggedy13]

Good point and Touché as it is called in some circles, but white America is most likey 68% and falling fast.

Just for reference:

As of 2006 the US was 73.9% white:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_submenuId=factsheet_1&_sse=on

As of 2006 Canada was 80.0% white (when taking the aboriginal population into account):
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/highlights/Aboriginal/pages/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&Code=01&Table=1&Data=Dist&Sex=1&Age=1&StartRec=1&Sort=2&Display=Page

As fast as it may be falling in the US, it is most likely that Canada is closing the gap as we accept more immigrants per capita than the US:

"Canada accepts about 250,000 immigrants each year, more than doubling the per-capita rate of immigration in the United States, census figures from both countries show."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/washington/27points.html?fta=y

[MolsonExport]

Good point and Touché as it is called in some circles, but white America is most likey 68% and falling fast.



Any interested Canadians interested in forming the 51st-52nd-53rd-54th or [how ever it works out] state?

There was a map of North America thread that dealed with this issue.


[Not to cut your great country up piecemeal and without regard but I can realistically see 4 major states created out of Canada.

BC will stand alone and grow at its modest clip. Pop est. 4.2 million.

Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba forming the powerful and influential Oil and Farm belt. Pop EST. 5.4 million.

Ontario on its own accord. Pop EST 12.1 million.

Quebec as an independent country and not included in the Union.

The Maritime Providences combining and forming a significant, new, North East state. [Prince Edward Isle, Newfoundland including Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick as a major state in the NE.] Pop est. 2.8 million or so.

Nunavut, the Yukon, and the NW Territories can join Alaska. Est Pop 0.9 million or is that an over estimation?

I mean at some point, like the EU has done, Canada and the US need to think about the long term benefits of a forming a new North American Union.

IMO.

Why? I see no compelling argument, neither here nor elsewhere. To the contrary, we should forever remain divided.

[babybackribs2314]

Why? I see no compelling argument, neither here nor elsewhere. To the contrary, we should forever remain divided.

It would help commerce between the states & provinces, and would also eliminate resources needed to maintain two federal governments. We would also be the largest country in the world with the most natural resources (don't quote me on that, but I think it would be possible...), not that either the US or Canada is lacking in natural resources currently. I think the main thing would be that it would help us compete more efficiently against emerging countries as well as consolidating regions, such as the EU.

[MolsonExport]

Strongly agree.. the US is more conservative than Canada on several issues, but we're really quite similar. I doubt you'd notice any difference in local politics going from Montana into Alberta or New York to Ontario, it's just that the 'right wing' population in the US is more influential than Canada's (although, that might be changing since Canada's president is now a conservative? I'm not well versed in Canadian politics, though...)
But yes, it would be nice. I don't think the US would 'dominate' Canada either, since the conservative Canadian states would align with the conservative American states and the same thing goes for the liberal Canadian states (BC and Ontario, I think?)

It would still be called the United States of America, though... wouldn't it? Since Canada is still in the Americas and the union would just bring in more states...

yeah, whatever. You are most certainly not well versed in Canadian politics. Do you think that Canadians would rush with open arms into your American system? Canada has no president, never has had one. Come on, we are the most important trading partner, closest neighbour to the USA, and yet you are unaware that we have a parliamentary system, with a Prime Minister? The ignorance of Canada is staggering. With your statements, you end up sounding like Homer Simpson.

[MolsonExport]

It would help commerce between the states & provinces, and would also eliminate resources needed to maintain two federal governments. We would also be the largest country in the world with the most natural resources (don't quote me on that, but I think it would be possible...), not that either the US or Canada is lacking in natural resources currently. I think the main thing would be that it would help us compete more efficiently against emerging countries as well as consolidating regions, such as the EU.

These arguments hold no substance. NAFTA obliviates the need for a union. Diseconomies of scale set in when gov't becomes too big; not to mention, that our different cultures/histories/nationhood strongly emphasize the need for two different gov'ts. The remainder of your argument is a red herring.

[babybackribs2314]

yeah, whatever. You are most certainly not well versed in Canadian politics. Do you think that Canadians would rush with open arms into your American system? Canada has no president, never has had one. Come on, we are the most important trading partner, closest neighbour to the USA, and yet you are unaware that we have a parliamentary system, with a Prime Minister? The ignorance of Canada is staggering. With your statements, you end up sounding like Homer Simpson.

I'm not an idiot. I didn't mention the parliamentary system or the prime minister, nor did I mention congress/the President. All I said was that there are conservative and liberal Canadian provinces, just as there are in the US (except they're called states). I did make an error regarding Canada's prime minister, but I do know Canada doesn't have a president... they're roughly equivalent and I didn't think twice when I was posting that.

It's fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[J. Will]

Strongly agree.. the US is more conservative than Canada on several issues, but we're really quite similar. I doubt you'd notice any difference in local politics going from Montana into Alberta or New York to Ontario

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Just because a State and a Province border each other doesn't mean their politics (and I'm using the word "politics" in a very broad sense) are similar in the slightest. Some of the areas of the most jarring differences are right across the border from each other (Western New York/Southern Ontario for example).

[Minato Ku]

Remember than an additional 4-6% of the population are Aboriginal. They are not counted as "visible minorities" for some reason, but are not white Europeans either. But still is it more like 20-22% visible minority.

Interresting, I did not imagine that native Canadian was so numberous.

It don't change that it is close to France but Canada is internationally view as a multiracial country and France is not, this is the problem. :(


According to Wikipedia, the UK is 2% black, according to this, Canada is 2.5% black. :shrug:

2% of 60 million inhabitants, it is larger than 2.5% in 33 million inhabitants. ;)
Actually U.K stat don't include black mixed race (numberous in U.K and France) in black category, so if we do as Canada, the real part of black in the U.K is 3%

[Echo Park]

If the US gets to tout its low percentages, in states like Texas and California, of "non-Hispanic whites," I think Canada should lay claim to "non-French whites." French is an ethnicity precisely as is Hispanic- a latin one, in fact, and one that is largely non-English speaking. If we count "non-French whites," we look MORE diverse than the US, which, after all, we are.

In the U.S. there are non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic whites and non-white Hispanics. There is a distinction between race and culture, mainly white and latino, or a mix. However there is no such thing as "non-white French" so your category would not offer more diversity.

The US is 4.2% Asian- that's all "Asian" groups combined. Canada is 4% SOUTH Asian alone, a proportion that's about ten times higher than that in the US for that group. Canada has about twice as many immigrants, per capita, than does the US. And our proportion of "non-French whites" is lower than the US share of "non-Hispanic whites."

That's great you have a large Asian presence in Canada, but what was your point bringing that up? If it was to support your idea that Canada is more diverse than the United States, then it didn't help much. What about your latino and black populations? They make up 2.5% and 0.7% of your population, respectively. In the U.S., it's 15% and 13%. I think you omitted this because there seems to be this attitude that asians are a 'prefered minority' in Canada. Also paper diversity doesn't count for much if you don't have the numbers to make it relevant. Los Angeles area alone has more Koreans, Chinese and Japanese than Canada has in its entirety.

[david23]

As far as States themselves,
Hawaii, California, New Mexico(?) and Texas all have no racial majority.


That's not true. As of 2006 in California 59.5% of people identified as white. In Texas 71%, in New Mexico 66.8%. Hawaii is the only state that really has no racial majority. The reason for this is that half of the Hispanic population is white.


source: factfinder.census.gov

[LMich]

He was meaning racial as in the sense of ethnic. Non-hispanic whites are a plurality in those states.

[SHiRO]

I don't know what is worse...classifying people according to some weird racial/continental divide (US) or this "visible minority" crap. :shrug:

[sogod]

As fast as it may be falling in the US, it is most likely that Canada is closing the gap as we accept more immigrants per capita than the US:

"Canada accepts about 250,000 immigrants each year, more than doubling the per-capita rate of immigration in the United States, census figures from both countries show."

Well A. not all immigrants are non-white, B. annual illegal immigration to the US from Latin America probably evens out that per-capita immigration difference, and C. since most immigrants that come to the US are poorer than their Canadian counter parts they have higher birth-rates.

Of course, whites in the US have a higher birthrate as well so that may even out itself. And when all is said and done, an immigration system that favors middle class people probably makes more sense than the US one, even if ours is more, lets say, romanticized and inspiring.

[J. Will]

In the U.S. there are non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic whites and non-white Hispanics. There is a distinction between race and culture, mainly white and latino, or a mix. However there is no such thing as "non-white French" so your category would not offer more diversity.

Nonsense. There are plenty of "non-white French" people. There are plenty of black French people for example.



Also paper diversity doesn't count for much if you don't have the numbers to make it relevant. Los Angeles area alone has more Koreans, Chinese and Japanese than Canada has in its entirety.

That's a pretty stupid statement. Canada only has 33 million people, so of course the absolute numbers will be smaller than the United States. You can't compare the absolute numbers because of that. It only makes sense to compare percentages. Besides, who's to say how big the numbers have to be to be "relevant". You can't say that 1 million+ people of a certain ethnicity is not "relevant" or is "paper diversity". That's complete nonsense.

And I doubt L.A. has more Chinese than all of Canada.

[MolsonExport]

That's not true. As of 2006 in California 59.5% of people identified as white. In Texas 71%, in New Mexico 66.8%. Hawaii is the only state that really has no racial majority. The reason for this is that half of the Hispanic population is white.


source: factfinder.census.gov

Racially, Hawaii is majority Asian.

[dimondpark]

Racially, Hawaii is majority Asian.


What I meant was that Hawaii, New Mexico, California and Texas have non-white majorities. No Canadian Provinces have non-white majorities.

[dimondpark]

That's not true. As of 2006 in California 59.5% of people identified as white. In Texas 71%, in New Mexico 66.8%. Hawaii is the only state that really has no racial majority. The reason for this is that half of the Hispanic population is white.


source: factfinder.census.gov

oh brother, do you really want to go down this road. Visible Minority should not just by the color of their skin-its also a matter of cultural and ethnic heritage and if you think a White Foreign Born Mexican is exactly the same as a White American whose family has been here for 6+generations then youre sorely mistaken.

[dimondpark]

Nonsense. There are plenty of "non-white French" people. There are plenty of black French people for example.


I can live with this assessment but the same consideration must be given to white hispanics in the US.

Perhaps a better way to measure would be ancestry instead of race. Ive always found that more telling.

[Echo Park]

Nonsense. There are plenty of "non-white French" people. There are plenty of black French people for example.

You're not understanding me. I'm talking about ethnicity, not nationality. Yes there are black people in France, but ethnically they would be called African/black, not "French." French is not an ethnicity. But Hispanic is not so clear cut as it is conflated with 'latino' in census counts.

[Echo Park]

I don't know what is worse...classifying people according to some weird racial/continental divide (US) or this "visible minority" crap. :shrug:

What's wrong with gathering statistics

[bricky]

The great majority of Latinos/Hispanics in America are mixed race. Typically mixed white and native American, but from the Carib, very often mixed black and white. However, for cultural reasons stemming from racial dynamics in Latin America, many of those same mixed race Latinos self-classify as white on the US Census. Large American metros, and now even the largest states, are majority "Visible Minority" in the Canadian sense.

However, Canada's Visible Minorities tend to be drawn much more from Asia, and much less from Latin America. Asians are still frankly a peripheral group here in the States (I say this as someone who is half Asian). That's why I was so struck on my visits to Canada, to see so many Indians, Chinese, etc. The only American metro that would compare (outside of Hawaii) would be the SF Bay Area.

[J. Will]

I can live with this assessment but the same consideration must be given to white hispanics in the US.

Perhaps a better way to measure would be ancestry instead of race. Ive always found that more telling.

If you go by ancestry, Canada doesn't have a majority "ancestry" either. Not even close.

[MonkeyRonin]

Well A. not all immigrants are non-white, B. annual illegal immigration to the US from Latin America probably evens out that per-capita immigration difference, and C. since most immigrants that come to the US are poorer than their Canadian counter parts they have higher birth-rates.

In America that would be the case with the millions of Latin American immigrants, but Canadian immigrants are mostly Asian, with many more from the Caribbean and Africa. And I doubt illegal immigration in the US is THAT high, that it would even out the difference. Also, regarding birth rates, I believe Canadian Aboriginals have higher birth rates than both US-born and foreign-born Americans.

[bricky]

In America that would be the case with the millions of Latin American immigrants, but Canadian immigrants are mostly Asian, with many more from the Caribbean and Africa. And I doubt illegal immigration in the US is THAT high, that it would even out the difference. Also, regarding birth rates, I believe Canadian Aboriginals have higher birth rates than both US-born and foreign-born Americans.

You might be surprised. In America, net illegal immigration has been running about equal with legal immigration. No one really knows for sure, but the orders of magnitude are at least similar.

It's also a mistake to think that all illegals in America are Mexican or Latino. Here in NY, and I would imagine in LA as well, there are lots (hundreds of thousands) of Asian and Eastern European illegals. People who somehow manage to secure a student, tourist or other visa, but have no intention of going back. For instance, the Bangladeshi community here in NY is reckoned to be three or four times as big as legal immigration would account for. So you'd be talking about 100,000 or 200,000 illegal Bangladeshis in NYC alone. Then you'd have people from the former USSR, China, etc.

It's actually really hard to land permanent residency in America now, unless you have relatives living here, or marry someone. It's a very very disfunctional system. I much prefer the Canadian system. But everyone here is so hung up on illegal immigration that legal immigration is almost forgotten, costing us a huge missed opportunity in importing educated, talented and dynamic people.

[Echo Park]

That's why I was so struck on my visits to Canada, to see so many Indians, Chinese, etc. The only American metro that would compare (outside of Hawaii) would be the SF Bay Area.

I don't know why the LA area is usually left out in this discussions as a major destination for east Asians. LA county had the first Asian majority cities in the U.S. outside Hawaii, and the San Gabriel Valley is a major region for Asian Americans. There are about 2+mil asians living in the LA metro(inc riverside/sanberdo).

[J. Will]

I don't know where some people get this idea that Canada doesn't have lots of illegal immigrants as well. There are countless, especially in Toronto, in places like St. Jamestown. People come to "visit", and never go back, often sharing an apartment with someone who lives here legally and working "under the table".

[bricky]

I don't know why the LA area is usually left out in this discussions as a major destination for east Asians. LA county had the first Asian majority cities in the U.S. outside Hawaii, and the San Gabriel Valley is a major region for Asian Americans. There are about 2+mil asians living in the LA metro(inc riverside/sanberdo).

Because while there are 2 million Asians in the LA area, that area also has about 18 million people total. So the percentage is not especially high. Also, Mexicans and Central Americans in LA are such a big story, such a huge and ubiquitous part of the metro, Asians there are very much relegated to the side.

Meanwhile in Toronto and Vancouver, Asians are the minority. Kind of like Latinos are in LA.

[bricky]

I don't know where some people get this idea that Canada doesn't have lots of illegal immigrants as well. There are countless, especially in Toronto, in places like St. Jamestown. People come to "visit", and never go back, often sharing an apartment with someone who lives here legally and working "under the table".

Anecdotally, I know illegals here in NY, who would prefer to stay in NY, but who have moved or are moving to Toronto, because it is so much easier to gain legal residency there. There isn't quite as much of a "need" for illegal immigration up there, because it's much easier to get in legally. Also, you guys don't have a 2,000 mile land border with a populous 3rd-world country (no jokes about America being that 3rd-world country, haha)

[edluva]

Because while there are 2 million Asians in the LA area, that area also has about 18 million people total. So the percentage is not especially high. Also, Mexicans and Central Americans in LA are such a big story, such a huge and ubiquitous part of the metro, Asians there are very much relegated to the side.

Meanwhile in Toronto and Vancouver, Asians are the minority. Kind of like Latinos are in LA.

asians relegated to the side? 12 percent asian isn't vancouver, but it's not exactly "to the side" either, especially considering how massive the population is - at 2 million you find yourself with enough critical mass to see enormous "enclaves" if you'll even call them that (I prefer entire cities) resembling taiwan, seoul, and saigon here. And they're not clannish either. Asians definitely make their presence felt in LA. In fact, I'm rather sick of them myself.

And Latinos are not "The Minority" here, but rather, "the other mainstream".

J.Will - please, canada having a lot of illegals is correct depending on whose definition of "a lot" you're using. LA may have enough illegals to populate Toronto and Vancouver in their entireties, and then some. I'm sure NY is equally bad. Even by proportionality canadian cities do not hold a candle.

[MonkeyRonin]

J.Will - please, canada having a lot of illegals is correct depending on whose definition of "a lot" you're using. LA may have enough illegals to populate Toronto and Vancouver in their entireties, and then some. I'm sure NY is equally bad. Even by proportionality canadian cities do not hold a candle.

Yes, I'm sure 65% of Angelenos are illegal immigrants. :haha: (or 8 million are just somehow all hiding in the city...out of an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants total, of course)

[westak]

Because while there are 2 million Asians in the LA area, that area also has about 18 million people total. So the percentage is not especially high. Also, Mexicans and Central Americans in LA are such a big story, such a huge and ubiquitous part of the metro, Asians there are very much relegated to the side.

Meanwhile in Toronto and Vancouver, Asians are the minority. Kind of like Latinos are in LA.

Aren't Latino's the largest ethnic group in the L.A area?

[edluva]

Yes, I'm sure 65% of Angelenos are illegal immigrants. :haha: (or 8 million are just somehow all hiding in the city...out of an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants total, of course)

last time i checked Toronto proper had a pop of less than three million and vancover less than 600k. but you obviously knew that already.

[MonkeyRonin]

last time i checked Toronto proper had a pop of less than three million and vancover less than 600k. but you obviously knew that already.

But you're still saying LA has upwards of 25% of the US's illegals? I suppose thats not beyond possibility, but seems a tad much for a single city.

[edluva]

actually, funny thing is I wouldn't be surprised if that were close to truth - and I haven't put much thought into that possibility either.

[Bassic Lab]

You're not understanding me. I'm talking about ethnicity, not nationality. Yes there are black people in France, but ethnically they would be called African/black, not "French." French is not an ethnicity. But Hispanic is not so clear cut as it is conflated with 'latino' in census counts.

You're not catching what he means, he is referring to the French-Canadian population where there could be a division along the lines of the US Hispanic population, with francophone whites, francophone non-whites, and non-francophone whites. Those that are arguing that white Hispanics, holding a distinct culture, are not part of the majority population may have a point, but how is that really distinct from the situation with any other white immigrant group, particularly with the influx of Eastern European immigrants in both Canada and the US? In any case, Francophone and Anglophone Canadians are definitely distinct cultures, and will remain as such, will the grand children of white Hispanic immigrants be any different from other Americans?

As for a North American Union, the political differences are largely exaggerated and essentially amount to healthcare, we're not as far to the left as we think we are and you're not as far to the right as we think you are. That said there are cultural differences, you Americans might not see them, but we do, and we know who would be in charge in the end and it wouldn't be us. The EU works precisely because no single nation can dominate the entire union, this would not be the case here. Canada would be giving up the right to have an independent foreign policy, to set our own monetary policy, and so on, you'd be giving up nothing, thanks but no thanks. We're happy to trade and its nice to have you but we don't want to be you.

[MolsonExport]

^good post.

[J. Will]

J.Will - please, canada having a lot of illegals is correct depending on whose definition of "a lot" you're using. LA may have enough illegals to populate Toronto and Vancouver in their entireties, and then some. I'm sure NY is equally bad. Even by proportionality canadian cities do not hold a candle.

:jester:

I notice you cite no sources. But I guess we're just supposed to take your word as fact :haha:

[Urbanguy]

MolsonExport, in regards to race in Hawaii, technically, the state has no racial majority still. The Asian population does not exceed 50% but does hover around 40-41% (it only exceeds it if you include those from the mixed race category), followed by Whites (over 20%), Mixed Race folks or Hapas (over 20%), Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders (9-10%) and Hispanics/Latinos of any race (8%).

[Pinion]

My area is somewhat unique in that it is mostly affluent, socially liberal Iranians who make up the minority population.

I've never felt any sense of anti-Iranian sentiment here either, which is nice.

Anyone who thinks "Canada is white" forgets that most of country lives in the three big cities and the three big cities are where all the visible minorities are.

[bricky]

Anyone who thinks "Canada is white" forgets that most of country lives in the three big cities and the three big cities are where all the visible minorities are.

I don't think that anyone who has ever visited Vancouver and Toronto would call them not diverse. They are lovely cities, all the more lovely because of the incredible diversity, and the sense that (more than in America) different nationalities mix.

However, I suppose that what some Americans are saying is that, "hey, we're diverse too! Not less than you guys!"

[Urbanguy]

I'm baaaack. ;) Since my Polynesian brother from the Bay already added some stats for LA and SF early in the thread, I figured i'd add some newly released Race and Hispanic origin estimates as of July 2007 according to the US Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php).

However, unlike the Canadian Census, the US Census does not recognize/classify Arabs, West Asians, etc as "visible minorities" but as Whites/Caucasians instead.

Here are percentages and raw numbers including Hispanic/Latino Whites, Blacks, Amerindians, etc. and the total Hispanic/Latino (of any race) percentage/population at the end.

*Notice (in reference to earlier comments) that Hawaii truly has no racial majority, there's none exceeding 50% or even 40% for that matter in any of the figures represented.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/252/uscensus2007raceinclhisca2.gif
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/4528/uscensus2007raceinclhiscr5.gif

Here are percentages and raw numbers of Non-Hispanic/Latino Whites, Blacks, Amerindians, etc. and the total Hispanic/Latino (of any race) percentage/population at the end.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/2624/uscensus2007racenonhispgl3.gif
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/5926/uscensus2007racenonhispej0.gif

What do you think? Any surprises? :)

[wild wild west]

My area is somewhat unique in that it is mostly affluent, socially liberal Iranians who make up the minority population.

I've never felt any sense of anti-Iranian sentiment here either, which is nice.

Anyone who thinks "Canada is white" forgets that most of country lives in the three big cities and the three big cities are where all the visible minorities are.


The 3 largest cities have only about 11 million in their metropolitan areas. That is not "most of the country".

[Cambridgite]

I see a lot of people equating % non-white as "cultural diversity" and Americans are using this as a way to say that the US is more culturally diverse than Canada. I think this is flawed reasoning for a couple good reasons.

1) Consider that the US has a large Black population (13%) that has been in America for several generations, and in a sense, is 'more American' than many Whites. Detroit has a large non-white population, but since they're mostly the descendents of Black slaves from generations back, I would hardly call Detroit multicultural or a major gateway for immigrants. Merely a generation ago, Canada was almost entirely White.

2) "White" is not a culturally or ethnically homogenous group. Not only are there regional cultural differences in Canada, but many Canadian Whites are of the non-WASP variety, unlike America. My own metro area is about 85% White (although that's declining quickly), but you'd be mistaken to believe that that 85% isn't culturally diverse. 25% of our total population is ethnically German, which is a feature that makes it distinct from other Canadian regions. There are also large populations of Portuguese, Russians, Serbians, and Romanians as well, with Portuguese forming significant enclaves. To add to that, Portuguese are technically considered "White" in the census, but I find those from the Azores actually look more Latino in appearance. And although Newfoundlanders are White and technically Canadian, many Newfies in Ontario retain an ethnic identity of Newfie, as I would argue them to have a distinct regional culture.


As an aside, why is it that all Western countries are competing to see who's more non-white? Nothing against any other races, but frankly, I don't like the idea of Whites becoming a minority in every corner of the world. And there's something about the idea of entire European ethnicities getting tossed into the dustbowl of history (through declining birthrates and mixing) that I find a bit discomforting.

[Cambridgite]

Anyone who thinks "Canada is white" forgets that most of country lives in the three big cities and the three big cities are where all the visible minorities are.

As was pointed out earlier, the 3 largest cities are not the majority of Canada, but one third of its population.

And while, in absolute numbers, the majority of the 'visible minority' population lives in the 3 largest CMAs, Montreal is not too different from many smaller CMAs in its visible minority %, and far behind Toronto and Vancouver, which are untouched by other cities. If you look at the chart on the first page of this thread, you'll see that Montreal is more comparable to cities like Kitchener/Windsor/Winnipeg than it is to Toronto/Vancouver. Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa all have higher vismin %s than Montreal now.

Even when I was in Montreal about 5 years ago, I noticed that it wasn't nearly as racially diverse as Toronto, where I almost became a minority. I wouldn't call Montreal homogenous, but I could tell that it felt demographically a lot more like my own city of today, except you make most of the White people speak French, and switch our East/South Asians with Arabs and Blacks, then you have Montreal's racial composition.

[Urbanguy]

Cambridgite, i'm not equating the % non-White as "cultural diversity" but do keep in mind that the U.S. does have millions of people that are foreign-born Black (Nigerians, Cape Verdians, Jamaicans, Haitians, etc), White (Portuguese, Russians, Armenians, and what have you too), etc. Also you stated that Azoreans look more like Latinos in appearance to you but even Hispanic/Latinos have many different looks and cultural diversity (e.g., an Argentine or Uruguayan vs a Guatemalan vs a Dominican).

BTW it's not like the Blacks/African Americans in the U.S. that have been here for generations are some how culturally monolithic, a population that is larger than the entire population of Canada. As you would argue a Newfie being culturally distinct from other Canadian Whites I would also consider a Gullah from the islands off of Georgia and the Carolina's as being culturally distinct to African Americans from Detroit or Los Angeles. BTW, sure, ethnoculturally Detroit may not be as diverse as other major US cities and is a city in an unfortunate decline because of an insufficient amount of opportunities but there is a lot of cultural diversity to be found there. There are thousands of Iraqis, Yemenis, Assyrians, Albanians, Eastern Europeans, etc that continue to move and thrive there every year.

Also, I would disagree that Western countries are competing to see whose more non-White. I think that people are pointing it out because most of these societies have been dominated by one race for so long (regardless of their ethnic, cultural or religious diversity) and now it's changing rapidly around them. Let's get straight to the point, most Western countries however they choose to categorize it are mainly basing stats on skin-colour. Obviously, cultural diversity is more complex than that but not as easy to define.

[MTLskyline]

"White" is not a culturally or ethnically homogenous group. Not only are there regional cultural differences in Canada, but many Canadian Whites are of the non-WASP variety,unlike America. My own metro area is about 85% White (although that's declining quickly), but you'd be mistaken to believe that that 85% isn't culturally diverse. 25% of our total population is ethnically German, which is a feature that makes it distinct from other Canadian regions. There are also large populations of Portuguese, Russians, Serbians, and Romanians as well, with Portuguese forming significant enclaves. To add to that, Portuguese are technically considered "White" in the census, but I find those from the Azores actually look more Latino in appearance. And although Newfoundlanders are White and technically Canadian, many Newfies in Ontario retain an ethnic identity of Newfie, as I would argue them to have a distinct regional culture.

Who says the US isn't culturally diverse? The largest four groups aren't even WASPs...
1. Germans are the largest single ethnic group in the USA (50 million)
2. Hispanic/Latino Americans: 44 million
3. Non-hispanic African American: 38 million
4. Irish American 36 Million
5. The WASPs (English) are only 25 million (less than 10% of American population).
6. Italian American 17 million
7. French American (not speaking of course) 13 million
8. Polish American 10 million
9. Jewish American 7 million
10. Scottish American 5 million

[GDS]

Germans are WASPs

[Cambridgite]

Germans are WASPs

Germans are anglo-saxons? I thought Anglo-Saxons had to be British. :shrug:

[vid]

Anglo-Saxons are a Germanic people in England.

[Spocket]

^Uh , no, Anglo currently is a reference to language so unless Germans all speak English as their first language they certainly aren't WASPs. The Saxons are a germanic people but they don't all live in England.

I have no problem with non-white's but I've never understood why 'diversity' is supposedly so inherently good. From a statistical standpoint it's the exact opposite of what's good for nations. We get along well enough here in Canada so there isn't anything to complain about really. All the same, 'diversity' certainly seems to be the main factor in any number of wars whether it's because one group wants to secede from some union or because another group is pushing one out. Make of that whatever you like folks but as I said, whatever it is that makes 'diversity' so good certainly isn't obvious after looking at the statistics.

Like I said though, I don't really care who's immigrating here as long as they're contributing. I just don't see what it is that makes diversity some sort of great thing we need to embrace and encourage.

[Cambridgite]

^Uh , no, Anglo currently is a reference to language so unless Germans all speak English as their first language they certainly aren't WASPs. The Saxons are a germanic people but they don't all live in England.

There ya go.

I have no problem with non-white's but I've never understood why 'diversity' is supposedly so inherently good. From a statistical standpoint it's the exact opposite of what's good for nations.

My thoughts exactly. :yes:

As we continue this social experiment, it's important to remember the old saying that 'birds of a feather flock together'. Take my neighborhood for example. A large portion of my city's Punjabi community lives in my subdivision or in subdivisions adjacent to mine. I've had no problems with them. They're law-abiding, friendly for the most part, and family-oriented. But if diversity was our strength, would they be seeking out neighborhoods where many of the residents look similar to them, or would they be spread throughout the city, living amongst people of many diverse backgrounds? I can look on my campus for another example. The Chinese are a large group and they tend to stick together and their culture has a powerful influence on the university. Whites tend to stick together, as do Tamils, Punjabis, etc. Yes, I do have many non-white friends. Lots of non-whites have white friends, friends of other minority groups, etc. But the overall group dynamic can't be overlooked.

Spocket, you and I live in CMAs where the vismin population is around 15%. As such, we can walk down a busy street or mall and while we'll be able to spot lots of people from other races, we'll still see a lot more people who look racially similar to us. In the case of Winnipeg or KW, the population isn't overwhelmed by diversity. Go to Richmond, Brampton, or Markham, in a busy place, and you'll have a lot more trouble finding people who look similar to us. A lot of White people are moving away from these places because they feel alien to them. I think most people are okay with a certain amount of diversity, but everybody has a breaking point. Now imagine all formerly White countries continue on with these policies of multiculturalism and places like Richmond, Markham, and Brampton become the rule, rather than the exception. Imagine a century from now when 1 in every 50 people residing
in Western nations are White. Is this what 'diversity' means? Left unchecked, "diversity" = the unintended genocide of an entire race and will therefore reduce global human diversity.

We get along well enough here in Canada so there isn't anything to complain about really.

I'm going to get a little contraversial here. Maybe the reason we get along reasonably well is that most of our immigrants are educated people from South and East Asian countries? If most of them were illegal Mexicans, Muslim, or Haitian refugees, would we start feeling a little different about 'diversity'?

All the same, 'diversity' certainly seems to be the main factor in any number of wars whether it's because one group wants to secede from some union or because another group is pushing one out. Make of that whatever you like folks but as I said, whatever it is that makes 'diversity' so good certainly isn't obvious after looking at the statistics.

Has bilingualism or scuffles over Native land claims been our strength? Has diversity been a strength for Serbia, Denmark, or South Africa?

Like I said though, I don't really care who's immigrating here as long as they're contributing. I just don't see what it is that makes diversity some sort of great thing we need to embrace and encourage.

I agree. It's best to judge people as individuals, even if they are part of a group that correlates to certain problems. Everyone should get the benefit of the doubt. But once again, while people of different races/cultures may not be problematic on an individual level, diversity generally doesn't work under a large scale where groups compete against each other for resources, 'representation', political clout, etc. Look at the identity politics in the USA as an example.