Canadian ethnicity, immigration, housing etc.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

yea, but worth noting that whites aren't entirely homogeneous either. and i'm not just trying to be pedantic, but in some cities, like Montreal, it's probably worth noting the Anglo minority as a separate minority group.

Montreal is a city that feels a lot more multicultural than the visible minority numbers and aboriginal numbers would suggest.

Yep. Suppose you had two neighbourhoods of a Canadian city next to each other. In the first neighbourhood, the population was 90% old-stock anglo/franco, and 10% visible minority, and in the second neighbourhood, the population was 70% old-stock anglo/franco, 20% recent immigrants from Eastern Europe, and 10% visible minority. On paper, both neighbourhoods would be 90% white/10% vizmin, but the second would be considerably more multicultural.

My brother's company in Halifax is like this, actually. The staff is almost entirely white, but a good chunk of the staff are recent immigrants from Europe who arrived through the provincial nominee program. This gives it a lot more cultural diversity than would seem apparent just by looking at their faces.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's not pedantic at all and is actually a really good point.

You actually have dual "societal mainstreams" at play in Montreal. The only other large city in Canada that really has this is Ottawa(-Gatineau).

If we're counting "diversity points" (as some people seem to want to do), that most definitely has to count for something.

Yea, definitely the National Capital Region as well. Maybe Moncton, too? Not sure, haven't been to Moncton yet.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Yea, definitely the National Capital Region as well. Maybe Moncton, too? Not sure, haven't been to Moncton yet.

Yeah, I was thinking of the biggest cities but sure, a case could be made. Though the francophone element in Moncton is not as comprehensive IMO as it is in Montreal and Ottawa-Gatineau.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Montreal's situation is almost more a EU-like one (the way many European languages co-exist), with English and French in Canada rather than being similar linguistically to other places in Anglo-America or Latin America.

Europe has a bunch of multi-lingual countries, but to my knowledge at least, I can't think of any multi-lingual cities in the way that Montreal is. It seems you either get Quebec City or Toronto-type monolingual dualities there.

Montreal is probably one of only a small handful of cities in the world where locals can effortlessly switch between their two coexisting languages.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Moncton is not as comprehensive IMO as it is in Montreal and Ottawa-Gatineau.

No doubt, but the fact that Moncton is 1/3rd francophone certainly gives the city a unique identity as far as Atlantic Canada is concerned. The city is becoming increasingly multicultural too. This is multifactorial, but there are three principle streams - Korean immigration, Syrian refugees and black Africans (most of whom arrive as students attending UdeM).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Europe has a bunch of multi-lingual countries, but to my knowledge at least, I can't think of any multi-lingual cities in the way that Montreal is. It seems you either get Quebec City or Toronto-type monolingual dualities there.

If you take the largest possible definition of the metro area I suppose Bruxelles would qualify but you're right that it's not exactly like Montreal.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Eh, not sure if that's a great example. I think African Americans across the United States, including descendants of slaves who have been here for centuries, have developed and maintained a distinct culture. Of course, White American culture and African American culture have deeply influenced one another, and given the population numbers, the influence is greater one-way than the other. But all said, African Americans, especially in communities where they have a sizable presence, have retained cultural distinctiveness. You can see this in language, too, with unique sociolects that have largely been preserved.

Sure, they have their own cultural quirks, but culturally (in the grand scheme of things) they're pretty solidly "American". They'll watch football not soccer, they won't cook weird exotic food at home, they don't speak foreign languages, they won't attend churches of strange religions or denominations, etc.

Such a place as I described is a lot less "culturally diverse" than you'd think at first sight, based on the stats on paper.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

No doubt, but the fact that Moncton is 1/3rd francophone certainly gives the city a unique identity as far as Atlantic Canada is concerned. The city is becoming increasingly multicultural too. This is multifactorial, but there are three principle streams - Korean immigration, Syrian refugees and black Africans (most of whom arrive as students attending UdeM).

That's certainly true. It's just that I find the francophone side in Moncton isn't as self-contained as it is in the other two metros.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Europe has a bunch of multi-lingual countries, but to my knowledge at least, I can't think of any multi-lingual cities in the way that Montreal is. It seems you either get Quebec City or Toronto-type monolingual dualities there.

Montreal is probably one of only a small handful of cities in the world where locals can effortlessly switch between their two coexisting languages.

Maybe Brussels? Though I think French kind of dominates Dutch there.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Maybe Brussels? Though I think French kind of dominates Dutch there.

Whereas many Flemish speak French, practically no Walloons speak Dutch.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

Sure, they have their own cultural quirks, but culturally (in the grand scheme of things) they're pretty solidly "American". They'll watch football not soccer, they won't cook weird exotic food at home, they don't speak foreign languages, they won't attend churches of strange religions or denominations, etc.

Such a place as I described is a lot less "culturally diverse" than you'd think at first sight, based on the stats on paper.

I wouldn't just call it cultural quirks, but yea, it's not as different as say, a family coming from straight from Nigeria and settling in a small town in the US.

But there are differences beyond quirks. African Americans tend to be more religious and socially conservative; more likely to embrace a role for government to play in society (rather than some kind of rugged frontiersman individualism); in sports they have a greater interest in basketball relative to other ethnic groups; in cuisine they have soul food and cajun food; linguistically they have a sociolect (African American Vernacular English) that they use among themselves; in terms of religion, they predominantly attend Black churches; in terms of music there are genres they are more interested in and more represented in than others, etc.

It's only in places where there is no sizable African American community (like, say, Denver) where they are basically White Americans with a different skin color. The kind of extreme assimilation you find among some immigrants over a generation or two when they don't have any sizable community of their own to help retain their own culture to some degree. But in places where they have a sizable community, their cultural distinctiveness flourishes. Places like Atlanta are pretty distinctive.

I've lived in cities with sizable African American populations (e.g., St. Louis) and cities with virtually no African American population (e.g., Denver), and I think African Americans contribute to the diversity of a city's overall culture. I don't see them as White Americans with a different skin color.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Europe has a bunch of multi-lingual countries, but to my knowledge at least, I can't think of any multi-lingual cities in the way that Montreal is. It seems you either get Quebec City or Toronto-type monolingual dualities there.

Montreal is probably one of only a small handful of cities in the world where locals can effortlessly switch between their two coexisting languages.

Well, I'm not familiar enough with Africa or Asia, but I'm wondering then if maybe an analog would be countries with a "colonial" language and a "regional" language, and in some cases, other smaller local languages. Places like India or Tanzania might have English and a language, like Hindi, Swahili, etc. commonly understood among large swathes of the population, and then additionally you'd have smaller languages and dialects among local communities.

People often talk about Europeans as being famously multilingual but many Africans and Asians (I mean, in their home continents, not necessarily the diasporas) often are too.

Originally Posted by lio45

Sure, they have their own cultural quirks, but culturally (in the grand scheme of things) they're pretty solidly "American". They'll watch football not soccer, they won't cook weird exotic food at home, they don't speak foreign languages, they won't attend churches of strange religions or denominations, etc.

Such a place as I described is a lot less "culturally diverse" than you'd think at first sight, based on the stats on paper.

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I wouldn't just call it cultural quirks, but yea, it's not as different as say, a family coming from straight from Nigeria and settling in a small town in the US.

But there are differences beyond quirks. African Americans tend to be more religious and socially conservative; more likely to embrace a role for government to play in society (rather than some kind of rugged frontiersman individualism); in sports they have a greater interest in basketball relative to other ethnic groups; in cuisine they have soul food and cajun food; linguistically they have a sociolect (African American Vernacular English) that they use among themselves; in terms of religion, they predominantly attend Black churches; in terms of music there are genres they are more interested in and more represented in than others, etc.

It's only in places where there is no sizable African American community (like, say, Denver) where they are basically White Americans with a different skin color. The kind of extreme assimilation you find among some immigrants over a generation or two when they don't have any sizable community of their own to help retain their own culture to some degree. But in places where they have a sizable community, their cultural distinctiveness flourishes. Places like Atlanta are pretty distinctive.

To be fair, even though you can get stats on language, religion, and foreign-born vs. native born, typical stats on racial or ethnic demographics aren't going to be able to tell you some of these other cultural things.

If hypothetically, you have two groups of the "same" ethnoracial group living in different cities, and in one case, the people go home every night and cook a traditional recipe from the old country that survived from ten generations back, practice folk dancing every weekend, and dress traditionally, while a second group of people living in the other city do none of these things, if these two groups are the same size and race and both native born, they will both appear the same on a census. Further study and surveys might distinguish them, but for most reporting purposes, the two count equally for "diversity".

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Europe has a bunch of multi-lingual countries, but to my knowledge at least, I can't think of any multi-lingual cities in the way that Montreal is. It seems you either get Quebec City or Toronto-type monolingual dualities there.

Montreal is probably one of only a small handful of cities in the world where locals can effortlessly switch between their two coexisting languages.

Although the dynamics are different than in Montreal, both Barcelona and Kiev spring to mind. If you include smaller cities, Gibraltar seems somewhat similar as well, while daily life (and a majority of people) in Maltese cities operates in three languages. On the other hand, Nicosia would represent the most extreme example of a "two solitudes"-type bilingual city.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by lio45

Sure, they have their own cultural quirks, but culturally (in the grand scheme of things) they're pretty solidly "American". They'll watch football not soccer, they won't cook weird exotic food at home, they don't speak foreign languages, they won't attend churches of strange religions or denominations, etc.

Such a place as I described is a lot less "culturally diverse" than you'd think at first sight, based on the stats on paper.

First of all, who gets to decide the criteria for "weird exotic food"?

Secondly, if these cultural criteria of diversity meaning increased deviation from what one considers a "norm", are used, whatever that may be, then such differences can be completely independent of being native-born or not, of ancestry or not, and therefore be hard to measure. I agree that they count for cultural diversity, and thus diversity in general, but it's hard to capture.

For example, imagine that you have a community of people, all native born, who have never left their country and thus have not been exposed to international cultures outside their small town. Then, suddenly, all these people decide to travel abroad for several years and return to the US, and bring with them all kinds of new ideas, lifestyles and ways of doing things. For example, they learn to cook the recipes they learned abroad, or listen to music they heard there, or keep in touch with friends they made there and the international ties stick, though no immigration happens. Imagine that it's the same people who return. The stats will not change. The race of the people are the same, the foreign-born population has not increased. But you could argue cultural diversity has increased.

Another example, hypothetical again, imagine lots of native-born people (of any race) change religions in a way that increases religious diversity (eg. imagine lots of white Americans convert to Hinduism without ever leaving the country). That would increase cultural diversity too, but with no change in ancestry, race or foreign-born figures.

Or imagine, every single American learns a second language he or she has never known before. Now linguistic diversity has doubled by some measures. Again diversity increases with no immigration or foreign influence.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by lio45

The best example I like to give of this is of a sleepy American town that is 50% old stock American whites and 50% old stock American blacks, i.e. where everybody in the phone book has names like John Smith and is an unilingual American English speaker.

I'm assuming this "sleepy American town" you speak of would be in the Deep South where Trump got 90% of the white vote and HRC got virtually all of the Black vote in the last election.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

I'm assuming this "sleepy American town" you speak of would be in the Deep South where Trump got 90% of the white vote and HRC got virtually all of the Black vote in the last election.

That raises an interesting point -- are there examples of places in the US where black and white Americans "politically" belong to the same culture? If so, which place would come the closest? I'd imagine examples where black and white Americans are both equally left wing are more common than places where black and white Americans are both equally right wing.

[Capsicum]

One general issue with comparing diversity that is racial with diversity that is cultural, religious or linguistic is how to weight them in a way that's not apples to oranges comparisons?

For example does speaking a foreign language count for more or less than say, racial or religious diversity?

For example,

A hypothetical land of a single race and a single religion, but one half of the land speaks one language and the other half another... versus

A hypothetical land of a single race and a single language, but one half of the land believes in one religion and the other half another... versus

A hypothetical land where everyone speaks a single language and believes a single religion, but the land is evenly divided into two races that look visually very distinctive but are otherwise the same culturally.

Does it change if in one case, the hypothetical society is highly segregated vs. integrated by any of these measures? If inter-racial, inter-religious, and cross-language interaction is common vs. uncommon?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Whereas many Flemish speak French, practically no Walloons speak Dutch.

As much as many Walloons like to claim the contrary...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Maybe Brussels? Though I think French kind of dominates Dutch there.

Brussels is like Ottawa (Ontario side only).

There is a decent degree of bilingualism in "officialdom" (often comprehensive and systematic) but outside of that everyday life is very predominantly in one language (French in Brussels, English in Ottawa).

So you visit a museum or buy a ticket at a train station in both languages, but when you stop at a news stand, smoke shop or café the bilingualism immediately becomes extremely hit and miss.

[begratto]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Not always. In Toronto? Yea, probably 95% of the time, unless they're very recent migrants, White people might see themselves as a community of sorts. However, in a place like Montreal it could be different. I don't think the Francophone White folks view the Anglophone White folks all that differently from the South Asians in Montreal. Well, maybe they do view them differently from South Asians, I don't know, but just that they may not view them as "one of us".

Honestly, anyone who speaks French with anything resembling a Quebec accent will definitely be considered "one of us".