City demographic stats that don't jive with outsiders' perceptions

[memph]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I think that map also exaggerates dominant groups though - just from looking at it you wouldn't get the impression that Scarborough is still 25% white, for example.

It was a bit surprising to me at first, but maybe the impression is actually fairly accurate. I was in Rexdale recently at the end of the school day and pretty much all the high school kids leaving North Albion C.I. were South Asian or black, I only saw one white girl out of about 100 students walking home from school, despite the neighbourhood still being 10-15% white, so I suspect in a lot of these ethnic enclaves the white population is mostly elderly or childless young adults.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by memph

It was a bit surprising to me at first, but maybe the impression is actually fairly accurate. I was in Rexdale recently at the end of the school day and pretty much all the high school kids leaving North Albion C.I. were South Asian or black, I only saw one white girl out of about 100 students walking home from school, despite the neighbourhood still being 10-15% white, so I suspect in a lot of these ethnic enclaves the white population is mostly elderly or childless young adults.

It could also be that white kids that are part of the 10-15% minority primarily go to Catholic or private school.

That school you are referring to is public.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The American "black" community, not people from Africa or the Caribbean today have a unified history in America due to slavery.

Latinos aka Hispanics do not have a unified history or ethnicity, Hispanic is literally a political term that was invented and applied to all Spanish speaking subject in the new world.

How many Hispanics do you know crawford? Do you think Mexicans and Venezuelans and Argentinians identify with each other? They dont, but Black Americans in Georgia and Chicago certain can and do.

There are Mexicans who call themselves English, or Irish (and look the part) just like People in the Usa and Canada with primarily European Decent.

There are also Mexicans that Literally are Mayan's ethnically or the Cross Border native American Community of Tonoho' O'dham

Another example where you shine in your confidant ignorance of most things.

Aren't all racial and ethnic identifiers "invented terms"? I would think that being a member of a population that was formerly colonized by Spain is a unifying characteristic.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It could also be that white kids that are part of the 10-15% minority primarily go to Catholic or private school.

That school you are referring to is public.

Probably not a whole lot of private school enrollment from that area, but I forgot about Catholic school. I can see that being a decently big part of the explanation there, especially since much of the white population there is Italian.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by memph

Probably not a whole lot of private school enrollment from that area, but I forgot about Catholic school. I can see that being a decently big part of the explanation there, especially since much of the white population there is Italian.

And most East Asians and South Asians are not Catholic. (Indeed, most immigration to Toronto these days is non-Catholic.)

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Aren't all racial and ethnic identifiers "invented terms"? I would think that being a member of a population that was formerly colonized by Spain is a unifying characteristic.

Everything is invented that isnt the argument.

The american black community has a recent and unifying experience unique to them in america due to recent history. Slavery erased any prior ethnic and cultural differences and created a very specific group with a very specific set of viewpoints on the world and cultural memory.

The various groups of "latino's" and "Hispanics" are extremely varied ranging from almost purely European decedent to full blown indigenous over much larger variety of geographies and nations and cultural inputs.

You can appeal to "Mexican Americans" a bit more specifically and because they are the single largest group of hispanics in America but there is a reason why you will see political views in the black community in the 90% range but Hispanics are lucky to get 2/3 agreement on anything.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Everything is invented that isnt the argument.
The american black community has a recent and unifying experience unique to them in america due to recent history. Slavery erased any prior ethnic and cultural differences and created a very specific group with a very specific set of viewpoints on the world and cultural memory.

No. The American black community is highly diverse, does not have a shared history, and has a large and increasing share of immigrants.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No. The American black community is highly diverse, does not have a shared history, and has a large and increasing share of immigrants.

Oh okay thanks for that.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Everything is invented that isnt the argument.

The american black community has a recent and unifying experience unique to them in america due to recent history. Slavery erased any prior ethnic and cultural differences and created a very specific group with a very specific set of viewpoints on the world and cultural memory.

The various groups of "latino's" and "Hispanics" are extremely varied ranging from almost purely European decedent to full blown indigenous over much larger variety of geographies and nations and cultural inputs.

You can appeal to "Mexican Americans" a bit more specifically and because they are the single largest group of hispanics in America but there is a reason why you will see political views in the black community in the 90% range but Hispanics are lucky to get 2/3 agreement on anything.

Should immigrants from Africa be considered "black"?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Should immigrants from Africa be considered "black"?

No I would not consider more recent African or Caribbean immigrants to be in the "African American" category they have virtually nothing in common. Even down to genetics African Americans are typically somewhat mixed with European and Native American DNA compared to new arrivals in the modern Era.

I would find it hard to find anything in common between a recent Nigerian immigrant moving into Houston from Lagos compared to a local African American born and Raised in Houston.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No. The American black community is highly diverse, does not have a shared history, and has a large and increasing share of immigrants.

Well, viewed from outside, the African-American population is a clearly identifiable distinct human grouping. In the perspective of an "us" vs. "them" narrative (not necessarily negative BTW), they obviously constitute their own "us" in many tangible ways.

The influx of black people from other horizons who do not have the indigenous-to-the-USA experience of African-Americans in their families, and their varying degrees of integration and identification with AAs, does not in any way negate the existence of African-Americans as one of the unique peoples of humanity.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

No I would not consider more recent African or Caribbean immigrants to be in the "African American" category they have virtually nothing in common. Even down to genetics African Americans are typically somewhat mixed with European and Native American DNA compared to new arrivals in the modern Era.

I would find it hard to find anything in common between a recent Nigerian immigrant moving into Houston from Lagos compared to a local African American born and Raised in Houston.

But Africans identify themselves as black, while those "white" Hispanics in upper Manhattan and the Bronx don't. Many us of reading this thread would bucket them into the "black" or "other" category based on physical appearance. That is the point I was making. White Hispanic in Manhattan doesn't look like what "white" does in Toronto.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But Africans identify themselves as black, while those "white" Hispanics in upper Manhattan and the Bronx don't. Many us of reading this thread would bucket them into the "black" or "other" category based on physical appearance. That is the point I was making. White Hispanic in Manhattan doesn't look like what "white" does in Toronto.

I would argue that depends on the types of immigrants in the bronx.

If they are (actually African in decent in some cases) Puerto Ricans I can see what you are saying.

Racially they are African, culturally Puerto Rican and in a larger group they are technically Hispanic.

But these people in the Bronx are nothing like the traditional Black's of Harlem and they are nothing like Cubans in Miami, or Mexican farmers in California.

However I would Argue African Americas in Harlem or the South Side of Chicago or Atlanta have a more unified identity than various Hispanic groups.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, viewed from outside, the African-American population is a clearly identifiable distinct human grouping. In the perspective of an "us" vs. "them" narrative (not necessarily negative BTW), they obviously constitute their own "us" in many tangible ways.

Blacks in the U.S. aren't necessarily African American. Most blacks in NYC have non-U.S. ancestry. And many self identified as "white" are black. Dominicans, to take an example, are usually white Hispanic per Census but the average American (or Canadian) would call them black. White, in the U.S. Census context, is not the same as in Canada.

Dominicans are the largest Hispanic group in Manhattan and the Bronx (and PRs, who aren't much different racially, are #2), so you cannot consider Hispanics in such areas as generally "white". Washington Heights east of Broadway has almost no one who is "black" per Census yet probably 70% of the people have brown skin and visible African ancestry. So it would be very silly to say that WASPs in Rosedale and Dominicans in Upper Manhattan are both white because of Census self-reporting. Manhattan is visibly much "browner" than Old Toronto.

[Capsicum]

What does it mean to have "US ancestry"? Does it mean to have Native American ancestry (some African Americans and old stock white Americans whose roots are from the 1700s etc. have Native ancestry).

How many generations is necessary to say that a group has American ancestry? Some Hispanics have been around in the US (when parts of the Southwest became part of the US from Mexico, or even New Spain) as long as African Americans or colonial stock white Americans have in Virginia or New England since the Mayflower and Jamestown days, while others just arrived a year or two ago from Guatemala.

Are Italian-Americans a different enough group from Italians, or Mennonite German Americans, or the Pennsylvania "Dutch" a different enough group from European Germans, the way we see, say African Americans different from Africans, and French Canadians in Quebec and Acadia and Cajuns in Louisiana different from French in France?

In Hawaii, there are Asian Americans, often mixed with Native Hawaiian ancestry who've have families living on the island since the 1800s, while most Asian Americans on the mainland are overwhelmingly dominated by first and second generation immigrants, and are post 1960s. Of the major Asian groups in the US, only the Japanese Americans are majority far removed generations-wise from the recent immigrant experience. There are a few, but quite small proportion of Chinese Americans descended from 1800s railway builders. Does an Asian American identity exist for either of them, separate from Asians from Asia?

Are Jewish Americans a distinctive American group, separate from the rest of the Jewish diaspora? The Jewish diaspora already has branches separated from each other, and from the homeland Israel, on the family tree much longer than either Hispanics from Spanish conquistadors, African Americans from Africa, or Thirteen Colonies English settlers from England itself (not just centuries but thousands of years). Is the few generations that Jewish New Yorkers spent shaping American culture enough to make them a distinct group, while the group itself has national origins all over the world ranging from the Ashkenazi Jews whose culture is most familiar to Americans to Moroccan Jews, to Portuguese-descent Sephardic Jews, to even Ethiopian Jews?

Your mileage may vary.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Blacks in the U.S. aren't necessarily African American. Most blacks in NYC have non-U.S. ancestry. And many self identified as "white" are black. Dominicans, to take an example, are usually white Hispanic per Census but the average American (or Canadian) would call them black. White, in the U.S. Census context, is not the same as in Canada.

Dominicans are the largest Hispanic group in Manhattan and the Bronx (and PRs, who aren't much different racially, are #2), so you cannot consider Hispanics in such areas as generally "white". Washington Heights east of Broadway has almost no one who is "black" per Census yet probably 70% of the people have brown skin and visible African ancestry. So it would be very silly to say that WASPs in Rosedale and Dominicans in Upper Manhattan are both white because of Census self-reporting. Manhattan is visibly much "browner" than Old Toronto.

Racial identity is self-reported. If they aren't white, why would they identify themselves as such? Manhattan is 26% Hispanic or Latino of any race, of which 18% identify as white.

I don't really see any convincing reason to believe that there are a whole bunch of black Dominicans ticking off that "white" box on the census.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And most East Asians and South Asians are not Catholic. (Indeed, most immigration to Toronto these days is non-Catholic.)

But Filipinos (maybe not counted as East Asian, but if there's no Southeast Asian option, they often get lumped in anyways) typically are.

[Chisouthside]

Mexicans in Mexico dont even have an unified experience. Here in the US we are more unified by the immigrant experience in a similar way to African Americans as you are describing. But sometimes are also very fragmented. And youre right, Mexicans dont generally feel united to other hispanics with a few exceptions like in certain chicago neighborhoods where mexicans and PRs grew side by side or California with Mexicans and central americans.

And to support your argument you know if you've been around more recently arrived African people in the US enough, you know alot of them would take offense to being mistaken for african american or black.

And same for afro caribbean/hispanics, if you call them african american or black its a can of worms.

Originally Posted by Obadno

I would argue that depends on the types of immigrants in the bronx.

If they are (actually African in decent in some cases) Puerto Ricans I can see what you are saying.

Racially they are African, culturally Puerto Rican and in a larger group they are technically Hispanic.

But these people in the Bronx are nothing like the traditional Black's of Harlem and they are nothing like Cubans in Miami, or Mexican farmers in California.

However I would Argue African Americas in Harlem or the South Side of Chicago or Atlanta have a more unified identity than various Hispanic groups.

[Capsicum]

There's always going to be divides between a group. How many generations one's family has been in a place, culture, ethnicity, religion, political views, language, accent, race, skin tone, gender, sexual orientation, class, education, occupation, region, state, city. Might as well add all the individual differences like personalities, habits, dispositions, preferences.

There are as many ways of dividing people as there are people...

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

South Brooklyn, in particular, is becoming Asian plurality (or majority?) outside of the Jewish enclaves.

Bay Ridge seems to be holding up as a majority white neighborhood as well, except at its northern fringe.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's one of the biggest differences between predominately latino hoods and predominately black ones. latino areas have way better and way more intact commercial streets. this is what makes a handful of them (avondale, logan, humboldt, pilsen) so enticing to gentrifiers. those mostly intact, active retail streets make a neighborhood billions of times more appealing than the often dilapidated or out-right bombed-out retail streets in many of the city's black neighborhoods.

I'm not surprised with the other three, but is Humboldt Park really gentrifying? I also thought it was about a 50/50 Black/Latino split. Unless you're counting areas east of the park, which I always thought was West Town.