Which of these two factors do you think of more when you consider a city diverse?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I know I know, just joshin ya.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

To me, diversity is enriched much more by what people have "acquired" during their lives than the genetics they've accidentally inherited from their forebears and determine skin, hair and eye colour, facial features, etc.

A Chinese girl who's been adopted by a Québécois francophone family and gets raised as such in some city here in Quebec may contribute a teeny bit to the visual and genetic diversity of her city, but unless she makes an effort to reconnect with her Chinese roots her meaningful contribution to her home's diversity will be fairly minimal.

This isn't bad or good. C'est la vie.

I agree but it isn't easy to measure "acquired life experiences" (especially in lists of "top rankings" of diversity that measure demographics based on ancestry/race alone).

Self-identification kind of gets at that -- perhaps we assume that someone identifying as "Italian" has more "acquired life experiences" associated with cultural elements from Italy or of the Italian diaspora than someone who puts down only "white" or "American" for ancestry. Perhaps we assume that someone putting down "Nigerian" as an identifier has more firsthand experience with overseas or first-generation immigrant African culture than someone putting down "African American". But these are all assumptions. Maybe the African American has traveled abroad and lived in Italy more years than the Italian American, for instance.

High foreign-born population also gets of a kind of diversity of "acquired life experience", since the foreign born will be exposed to certain experiences, it might be assumed, simply by being in another country. However, again, that does not account for domestic diversities of life experiences (an Amish town, native reserves in northern Alaska, and inner cities of New York or LA could represent domestic life experiences as different or more different than two foreign locations such as upper class people living in London, UK and in Manhattan).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I agree but it isn't easy to measure "acquired life experiences" (especially in lists of "top rankings" of diversity that measure demographics based on ancestry/race alone).

Self-identification kind of gets at that -- perhaps we assume that someone identifying as "Italian" has more "acquired life experiences" associated with cultural elements from Italy or of the Italian diaspora than someone who puts down only "white" or "American" for ancestry. Perhaps we assume that someone putting down "Nigerian" as an identifier has more firsthand experience with overseas or first-generation immigrant African culture than someone putting down "African American". But these are all assumptions. Maybe the African American has traveled abroad and lived in Italy more years than the Italian American, for instance.

High foreign-born population also gets of a kind of diversity of "acquired life experience", since the foreign born will be exposed to certain experiences, it might be assumed, simply by being in another country. However, again, that does not account for domestic diversities of life experiences (an Amish town, native reserves in northern Alaska, and inner cities of New York or LA could represent domestic life experiences as different or more different than two foreign locations such as upper class people living in London, UK and in Manhattan).

These examples are micro or even nano-phenomenon within the mass of the general American experience lived by over 300 million people, though.

On a broader level, I am not really on board with the Global Metropolitan Affinity idea based primarily on lifestyle and that seems to have a lot of credence these days - especially on SSP. My sense is that most of the people who play this up have never really met or talked to the Parisians, Tokyoites, Muscovites, Londoners, etc. that they're so eager to lump in with New Yorkers in a global urban super-class. I doubt most of them have even been to these cities, and if they have they've never much further than happy hour at the Marriott and the boardrooms of multinationals.

Regardless of the eeewww factor, if you add everything up your random Parisian has more in common with the guy in Issoire than he does with a Londoner. And even the "UK influence" (EPL games on TV, Boddington's beer, Paddington bear, Harry Potter, Bridget Jones, Pink Floyd, Queen, James Bond, Harrods shopping bags, etc.) is present in Issoire just as much as it is in Paris.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

These examples are micro or even nano-phenomenon within the mass of the general American experience lived by over 300 million people, though.

Would you consider expat bubbles (eg. Americans who do everything in English and socialize with other Americans abroad) or immigrant enclaves (eg. people who watch old country media and socialize with others from the same source country) also micro- or nano- phenomenon within most nations' larger populace?

I guess they're temporary (eventually most expats return, by definition, and immigrants mostly assimilate), but they add a lot of "cultural diversity" some argue while they exist.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Would you consider expat bubbles (eg. Americans who do everything in English and socialize with other Americans abroad) or immigrant enclaves (eg. people who watch old country media and socialize with others from the same source country) also micro- or nano- phenomenon within most nations' larger populace?

I guess they're temporary (eventually most expats return, by definition, and immigrants mostly assimilate), but they add a lot of "cultural diversity" some argue while they exist.

How much cultural diversity they add depends on a lot of factors. In a place like Tokyo it's basically a drop in the bucket and the city itself remains extremely Japanese demographically and culturally. In other places expats are close to or even the majority of the population. I suppose that influences the local culture to some degree, though in many cases they also live very much apart, as if they'd never left home.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I agree but it isn't easy to measure "acquired life experiences" (especially in lists of "top rankings" of diversity that measure demographics based on ancestry/race alone).

Self-identification kind of gets at that -- perhaps we assume that someone identifying as "Italian" has more "acquired life experiences" associated with cultural elements from Italy or of the Italian diaspora than someone who puts down only "white" or "American" for ancestry. Perhaps we assume that someone putting down "Nigerian" as an identifier has more firsthand experience with overseas or first-generation immigrant African culture than someone putting down "African American". But these are all assumptions. Maybe the African American has traveled abroad and lived in Italy more years than the Italian American, for instance..

There are always going to be exceptions but I don't think it's a stretch to say that someone born and raised in Italy who came to the U.S. in his 20s will bring more of the Italian "diversity dimension" than 99.99% of U.S.-born African-Americans.

We're splitting hairs here a bit. Most people know diversity when they see it, and also can spot differences in the levels and depth of diversity.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Hey, That's a great question.

But Im not here to assist in your constant attempts to move of the goal post.

I'll continue looking at it the Canadian way:

Visible Minorities 2016:
Oakland 73%
London 55%
Boston 54%
Toronto 51%

Um, my "line" has been consistent throughout the thread. I just don't think the NHW-Black-Hispanic-Asian paradigm is a key measure of diversity. It can tell us something but diversity within these groups tells us more.

[BrownTown]

Personally I feel like we place WAY too much emphasis on, "diversity" these days. As if having a bunch of people of different colors or even different religions somehow enriches things. I think the only sort of diversity that is actually a positive is diversity of points of view and that isn't really that well correlated to skin color which is apparently all anyone really cares about these days.

[jd3189]

Well, the main benefit of a place with high diversity in race, culture, ethnicity, viewpoints, etc is that it prevents closed thinking which has led to some of the worst ways we as human beings have treated each other.


I know that it was a blessing for me to be born and raised for a little while in NYC. I was exposed to many different types of people, cultures, food, etc, which allowed me to not be closed minded and judge people who are different from me. Plus, we live in a diverse world. Most of humanity's problems could be solved if we accepted the differences that cannot change nor need to change and embrace one another. Sorta idealistic, but living in little bubbles with people who are very similar to us is also as idealistic.

[mhays]

It also makes life more interesting.