Most geographically concentrated ethnic groups

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am sure there are some, even some maybe more recently established than second or third generation, who check off "Canadian" just to affirm their belonging to the country. How many I am not sure though.

Well, there was that campaign a while back (I think the 90s) to get people to check off "Canadian". I'm kind of curious how much that impacted newer Canadians versus old stock Canadians.

On the one hand, a newer Canadian might be reluctant to do so, if he/she prefers their pre-existing ethnic identity, over the Canadian one.

But then, on the other hand, if old stock Canadians were already going to check off "Canadian" anyways, then a campaign to get people to check of that label would probably affect more newer Canadians, since they'd be the ones that might be needing persuading (if they didn't think to do so before, and if the campaign prompted them to affirm their Canadian-ness).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Well, there was that campaign a while back (I think the 90s) to get people to check off "Canadian". I'm kind of curious how much that impacted newer Canadians versus old stock Canadians.

On the one hand, a newer Canadian might be reluctant to do so, if he/she prefers their pre-existing ethnic identity, over the Canadian one.

But then, on the other hand, if old stock Canadians were already going to check off "Canadian" anyways, then a campaign to get people to check of that label would probably affect more newer Canadians, since they'd be the ones that might be needing persuading (if they didn't think to do so before, and if the campaign prompted them to affirm their Canadian-ness).

Old stock Canadians were checking off English, French, Scottish or Irish mostly before the campaign, and the decision to put Canadian at the top of the list of options (as opposed to people having to write it in before).

[Capsicum]

I'd imagine that now that the campaign to put Canadian is decades in the past, the ones who were convinced to put Canadian by the campaign and the question format "reverted" to their old ethnic ancestry labels, we're back to the situation where it's only the old stock Canadians who put Canadian again.

Not unless, the campaign had some lasting impact (so that people think, "Oh they prompted me to put Canadian last time, I'm going to keep doing it from now on, year after year", even if the campaign to do so already ended).

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm not so sure about that as you are. In the Maritimes, the fact that the region is divided into three provinces is usually mentioned as a hindrance (more administrative waste per capita, etc.) and people have brought up the idea of merging them into a single province to "fix this".

I support unifying the Maritimes into one province but also support eventually creating NW ON and NE ON.

The Maritimes as a whole is the size of Southern Ontario. In that context, I feel like having multiple provinces can be a hindrance. But NW ON and NE ON are massive areas with dramatically different economic and social realities, certainly when compared to Southern Ontario but also between each other.

They can both be supported (unification of the Maritimes and trifurcation of Ontario) without contradiction, but the homework needs to be done.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I'd imagine that now that the campaign to put Canadian is decades in the past, the ones who were convinced to put Canadian by the campaign and the question format "reverted" to their old ethnic ancestry labels, we're back to the situation where it's only the old stock Canadians who put Canadian again.

Not unless, the campaign had some lasting impact (so that people think, "Oh they prompted me to put Canadian last time, I'm going to keep doing it from now on, year after year", even if the campaign to do so already ended).

My bet is that the campaign (which I believe was entitled "Call me Canadian!") actually had a lasting impact.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Is it always a given though that identifying as American/Canadian alone in ethnicity but saying nothing else, means you have deeper roots in the country?

Do we have good numbers on how many people label themselves as Canadian despite not having deep roots in the country? I mean, if a second or third generation Canadian says "I'm just Canadian", it might show up there too, and you couldn't distinguish that from colonial ancestry. To be fair, the census question on ancestry does suggest that ancestry as a label should go back at least over two generations (I think the wording is something like an ancestor is more distant than grandparents typically). But that's still ambiguous. For instance, I'd imagine the southwestern Ontarians identifying as Canadian on the map don't on average have settlement histories of their region going as far back as the other areas on the map.

Well the extreme part of Southwestern Ontario where Windsor is located is one of the oldest continuously settled areas west of Montreal, and it’s showing up as identifying as “Canadian”, so not sure about that!

[north 42]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Apparently, some sources claim this still exists, but just barely; it is nearly extinct, with only the last elderly generation able to speak the dialect.

Also, Wikipedia says that another variant that exists stateside is Métis French around North Dakota near Manitoba

I haven't heard of if this dialect from around the Detroit River area is still alive and well, if the southwestern Ontarians or Michiganders around there, even old people, still have any trace of it.

That’s very interesting! My mother was adopted into a French Canadian family when she was about 5, in the early 40s. Her adopted parents were born and raised in Point Aux Roches, which is on the south side of Lake St. Clair at the eastern end of Essex County. They were fluent in French, and spoke it at home as well. I’m not really sure of the dialect though, as everyone has now passed, but my adopted grandfather used to trap muskrats and sell the meat and pelts. It used to freak me out as a kid seeing them all hanging to dry!!!
I remember having lots of family out there and in Belle River who all spoke French at home, which was not out of the ordinary in that part of Essex county!

[north 42]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I support unifying the Maritimes into one province but also support eventually creating NW ON and NE ON.

The Maritimes as a whole is the size of Southern Ontario. In that context, I feel like having multiple provinces can be a hindrance. But NW ON and NE ON are massive areas with dramatically different economic and social realities, certainly when compared to Southern Ontario but also between each other.

They can both be supported (unification of the Maritimes and trifurcation of Ontario) without contradiction, but the homework needs to be done.

If we’re gonna divide NW and NE Ontario into separate provinces, why not divide the northern parts of the western provinces from their southern parts? Why stop there? Where does it all end? It just seems silly to me!

I could see maybe dividing northern Ontario from Southern Ontario, but splitting up the North seems completely unnecessary!

I do agree with a possible union of the three Maritime provinces though!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by north 42

That’s very interesting! My mother was adopted into a French Canadian family when she was about 5, in the early 40s. Her adopted parents were born and raised in Point Aux Roches, which is on the south side of Lake St. Clair at the eastern end of Essex County. They were fluent in French, and spoke it at home as well. I’m not really sure of the dialect though, as everyone has now passed, but my adopted grandfather used to trap muskrats and sell the meat and pelts. It used to freak me out as a kid seeing them all hanging to dry!!!
I remember having lots of family out there and in Belle River who all spoke French at home, which was not out of the ordinary in that part of Essex county!

I've met a number of francophones from the Windsor area (and even one from the Detroit area). Their French was about what I would expect from people in that area - pretty standard for highly minoritized North American francophones in terms of vocabulary and accent. I didn't notice anything outlandish.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by north 42

If we’re gonna divide NW and NE Ontario into separate provinces, why not divide the northern parts of the western provinces from their southern parts? Why stop there? Where does it all end? It just seems silly to me!

I could see maybe dividing northern Ontario from Southern Ontario, but splitting up the North seems completely unnecessary!

I do agree with a possible union of the three Maritime provinces though!

So the only point we disagree on is whether Northern Ontario itself should be split into two. There's good discussion on that topic. It's worth discussing that instead of just saying hey that's crazy what's next 100 provinces?

[Docere]

I don't think SW Ontario and Eastern Ontario are that different, certainly not enough to warrant a split.

(Toronto is obviously quite different from the "hinterlands" but that's true everywhere).

[whatnext]

Interesting article on the rise of "Ethnic Economies" in Canada. IMHO this is one area where teh USA has us beat, with the emphasis on melting pot, rather than little silos:

...Ethnic economies don’t receive much attention in the West. And the few scholars who are interested usually portray them as morally neutral. While some business leaders rave that ethnic economies are wonderfully positive, since they’re based on the affinity that can exist between people of the same ethnicity and language, others raise questions about workplace exclusion.

In highly diverse Metro Vancouver, it is ethnic Chinese economies that are beginning to draw attention. News stories are emerging about a Chinese housing market, Chinese signs on retail outlets, Chinese-specific hiring practices, Chinese malls (there are more than 100 in Canada), a Chinese rental market and Chinese ride-for-hire programs, many of which are exclusive to ethnic Chinese...

..A new play, which delves into ethnic economies, is also being performed this month in Vancouver at The Cultch. It’s titled ‘No Foreigners.” Created by playwright David Yee, who is of mixed Chinese and white ancestry, the play was inspired by his experience in a Chinese mall in Richmond with a luxury-bag store salesperson who would not sell him anything, saying: “No foreigners.” By which she meant: “No Caucasians.”...

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/colu...etro-vancouver

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Interesting article on the rise of "Ethnic Economies" in Canada. IMHO this is one area where teh USA has us beat, with the emphasis on melting pot, rather than little silos:

...Ethnic economies don’t receive much attention in the West. And the few scholars who are interested usually portray them as morally neutral. While some business leaders rave that ethnic economies are wonderfully positive, since they’re based on the affinity that can exist between people of the same ethnicity and language, others raise questions about workplace exclusion.

In highly diverse Metro Vancouver, it is ethnic Chinese economies that are beginning to draw attention. News stories are emerging about a Chinese housing market, Chinese signs on retail outlets, Chinese-specific hiring practices, Chinese malls (there are more than 100 in Canada), a Chinese rental market and Chinese ride-for-hire programs, many of which are exclusive to ethnic Chinese...

..A new play, which delves into ethnic economies, is also being performed this month in Vancouver at The Cultch. It’s titled ‘No Foreigners.” Created by playwright David Yee, who is of mixed Chinese and white ancestry, the play was inspired by his experience in a Chinese mall in Richmond with a luxury-bag store salesperson who would not sell him anything, saying: “No foreigners.” By which she meant: “No Caucasians.”...

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/colu...etro-vancouver

Aren't there still quite a lot of "ethnic economies" in the US, especially geared for many of Hispanic/Spanish cultural background?

[Docere]

From the 2011 NHS, religion for the Indian-born population:

Canada:

Sikh 269,100 49.1%
Hindu 167,730 30.6%
Christian 53,250 9.7%
Muslim 33,775 6.2%

Ontario:

Hindu 119,360 38.5%
Sikh 109,620 35.2%
Christian 39,130 12.6%
Muslim 27,355 8.8%

British Columbia:

Sikh 114,725 80%
Hindu 15,080 10.5%
Christian 5,675 4%
Muslim 2,365 1.6%

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

From the 2011 NHS, religion for the Indian-born population:

Canada:

Sikh 269,100 49.1%
Hindu 167,730 30.6%
Christian 53,250 9.7%
Muslim 33,775 6.2%

Ontario:

Hindu 119,360 38.5%
Sikh 109,620 35.2%
Christian 39,130 12.6%
Muslim 27,355 8.8%

British Columbia:

Sikh 114,725 80%
Hindu 15,080 10.5%
Christian 5,675 4%
Muslim 2,365 1.6%

How does the relative proportion of Indo-Canadians by religion change if you look at the native born? The Sikhs have a larger share of Canadian-born right?

Despite people always talking about how Canada does much more selection of immigrants based on economics or skill, rather than family reunification, and the US being the other way around, I think Indo-Canadians are more likely to have links (sponsored immigration from networks) to the earlier 20th century Sikh families on the BC coast, proportionally speaking, than Indian-Americans to those on their coast (eg. California) even if both countries had tiny Indian-descent populations until recently.

For Indian-descent people, it's probably the Americans who (especially those who came to work on tech) probably came more by skill/economic selection with no family ties to earlier Indian-Americans, and the Canadians who came more by family ties/reunification.

[Capsicum]

Also, I wonder how common it is for Indian-Canadians to have converted to Christianity as opposed to have been Christians beforehand or have had a family history of Christianity in India itself (or say another country outside Canada, such as Trinidad), prior to immigrating. I know that there are long-standing orthodox Christian communities on the Malabar coast of India.

Is a personal history like Bobby Jindal or Nikki Haley's Christian background common in Canada? I suspect not. Even "conservative" Indo-Canadians are conservative socially (or maybe fiscally too, like Chinese Canadians, but I'm not entirely sure) but in a way that reflects the conservatism of the "old country", not in a way that involves adopting the conservatism of "old-stock" Canadian, after immigrating and "assimilating".

East Asian Canadians like those of Chinese descent seem more likely to adopt say, evangelical Christianity (though to what extent that reflects post-immigration conversion as opposed to them already believing prior to immigrating I don't know).

[Docere]

35.8% of Sikhs and 26.3% of Hindus were Canadian-born in 2011.

Year of immigration for foreign-born Sikhs, 2011 NHS:

Before 1971 9,655
1971-1980 33,970
1981-1990 43,265
1991-2000 90,720
2001-2011 107,000

Year of immigration for Indian immigrants, 2011 NHS:

Before 1971 25,470
1971-1981 60,615
1981-1991 64,915
1991-2001 153,010
2001-2011 243,880

Virtually all Sikh immigrants were born in India, only about half of Hindus were (many are Sri Lankan, Indo-Caribbean etc.) It's pretty clear that a majority of immigrants from India in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s were Sikh. Sikh immigration continued to increase after 2000, but not as quickly as non-Sikh immigration.

My guess is Sikhs may be slightly over 50% with 2nd generation Indians included, but I don't think the difference is that dramatic.

If you include all Indian origin though it's lower because then you're including ethnic Indians from outside the Indian Subcontinent very few of whom are Sikhs.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

Virtually all Sikh immigrants were born in India, only about half of Hindus were (many are Sri Lankan, Indo-Caribbean etc.) It's pretty clear that a majority of immigrants from India in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s were Sikh. Sikh immigration continued to increase after 2000, but not as quickly as non-Sikh immigration.

I'd forgotten that the assumption that Hindu = immigrant from India isn't as true in Canada (probably compared to the US and maybe other western countries?) because of the heavy Sri Lankan Tamil immigration and other Indian diaspora. I think apart from Punjabi Sikhs, a surprisingly high share of the Indian diaspora in Canada is not directly from India -- but Indo-Caribbean, Indo-Tanzanian (like Naheed Nenshi's roots) etc., probably much more than the US.

Probably why South Asian Canadian is used as a term much more than in the US (in the US, you don't hear South Asian American very often as a term, maybe Indian American).

South of the border, I think Hindus already started dominating the Indo-American population much earlier (was it already by the 70s? Probably at least well before the IT/tech worker wave), and much more of them directly from India, since a lot of the professionals were Indian Hindus (and also those who arrived with the motel industry), but I might be mistaken.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Well, there was that campaign a while back (I think the 90s) to get people to check off "Canadian".

Has anybody here actually ever filled out the Long Form Census? There is no Canadian "box" to "check off."

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

South of the border, I think Hindus already started dominating the Indo-American population much earlier (was it already by the 70s?), and much more of them directly from India, since a lot of the professionals were Indian Hindus (and also those who arrived with the motel industry), but I might be mistaken.

I think this is basically correct. Hindus dominate the Indian-American population.

There are some exceptions of course, like the Sikhs in the interior of California and Indo-Guyanese in NYC.