How diverse were European cities in the early 20th century?

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

There was a big difference between the Western European and Eastern European Jewish experience. Western European Jews received citizenship rights in the 19th century and adopted the language of the non-Jewish population.

How does this relate to the idea of "civic nationalism" vs. "ethnic nationalism"? I get the impression that civic nationalism is seen as more a "western" thing (both North America or the Americas as well as western Europe, as opposed to eastern Europe) than ethnic nationalism.

But I've seen Germany commonly held up as the exemplar of (until fairly recently) "ethnic nationalism" in Europe while France was the more typical "civic nationalist" example.

[Docere]

In the early 20th century, one can draw distinctions within Western Europe too. In England, France and Belgium, Eastern European Jewish immigrants dwarfed the existing Jewish population.

In Germany and Holland it was different. Although there were some "Ostjuden" in Berlin and other German cities, the Jewish population was overwhelmingly of "native" origin. Amsterdam is interesting in that it didn't receive much Eastern European immigration, but there was a sizable (Dutch-speaking) Jewish working class. It's an interesting contrast with Antwerp just two hours away, where Eastern European immigrnats pretty much were the Jewish population and is a Hasidic center today (they work in the diamond trade).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

In the early 20th century, one can draw distinctions within Western Europe too. In England, France and Belgium, Eastern European Jewish immigrants dwarfed the existing Jewish population.

In Germany and Holland it was different. Although there were some "Ostjuden" in Berlin and other cities, the Jewish population was overwhelmingly of "native" origin. Amsterdam is interesting in that it didn't receive much Eastern European immigration, but there was a sizable (Dutch-speaking) Jewish working class. It's an interesting contrast with Antwerp just two hours away, where Eastern European immigrnats pretty much were the Jewish population and is a Hasidic center today (they work in the diamond trade).

Did many of these more "eastern European origin" western European Jewish communities themselves emigrate away to the New World?

Eastern Europe's Jewish population obviously emigrated away directly in large numbers to both other European countries and overseas, but I'm curious as to whether a lot of England- or France- born Jews immigrated overseas too.

[Docere]

^ Yes, though probably not as adults. Many others had the intention of going to America, but might have stayed in say, London's East End and became English Jews.

Just like Liverpool held a lot of America-bound Irish in the 19th century (though many stayed too).

[Capsicum]

I'm aware that the UK has had a really long-standing Jewish immigrant community from hearing that for instance, fish-and-chips is claimed (though the claims are disputed) to have been invented by Sephardic Jews in London centuries ago.

Also, the famous comment by Benjamin Disraeli in the 19th century, after being heckled for being Jewish -- "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon."

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

^ Yes, though probably not as adults. Many others had the intention of going to America, but might have stayed in say, London's East End and became English Jews.

Just like Liverpool held a lot of America-bound Irish in the 19th century (though many stayed too).

That's interesting. The idea that some immigrant communities exist in countries that were meant to be "stepping stones" or "en route" to their final destination, but eventually stayed long term when the temporary plans turned permanent.

A parallel could be how immigrants often used Canada as a stepping stone to get into the US, and some Canadian ethnic communities are products of immigrants who intended but never reached the US, and stayed instead.

[Capsicum]

The thread topic is interesting since it sort of reminds us that immigration or movement between countries was not new or even unique to the New World in the 20th, 19th centuries etc..

I feel like many conventional narratives often focus too much on the idea that New World = immigrant receiving part of the world, Old World = immigrant sending part of the world.

It's notable that England, or France have had long standing ethnic communities so that they might be as diverse or even more diverse than a "New World" country like Australia in the 20th century at some times. Plus, these countries that have diverse colonies around the world and so Africans, Asians, Arabs etc would have resided in England and France. I was at first surprised when I found out that there were lots of third, fourth generation Arabs, South Asians in places like London and Paris, but few of them in places like Canada or the US, but it makes sense in light of colonial history.

[Docere]

British cities were probably more diverse than Australian cities in the early 20th century. Neither were that diverse then but Australia never really got Eastern European Jewish immigration (or any continental European immigration really). In addition to London, Manchester and Leeds had sizable Jewish communities. I don't think there were any continental European groups that made up more than 1% of the population of Sydney and Melbourne.

The "empire" aspect should be overstated for Britain though. According to my original link, less than 1% of London's population were born in British colonies and many - probably most - of those were probably colonial officials etc., not Blacks or South Asians.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

British cities were probably more diverse than Australian cities in the early 20th century. Neither were that diverse then but Australia never really got Eastern European Jewish immigration (or any continental European immigration really). In addition to London, Manchester and Leeds had sizable Jewish communities. I don't think there were any continental European groups that made up more than 1% of the population of Sydney and Melbourne.

Do you think the lack of continental European immigration to Australia reflects more the barriers or policy favoring Brits and against continental Europeans, or lack of desire on behalf of continental Europeans wanting to choose Australia as opposed to say the US (or even Britain) as destination.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

The "empire" aspect should be overstated for Britain though. According to my original link, less than 1% of London's population were born in British colonies and many of those were probably colonial officials etc., not Blacks or South Asians.

Paris or France seems to have gotten more of the "empire" influenced immigration than Britain.

To what extent that is either country favoring or disfavoring immigration from the colonies versus France's colonies often just being closer (eg. North Africa) to France itself geographically, and thus easier to move to, I'm not sure.

[Docere]

Paris was clearly the more international city then. Both London and Paris had similar numbers of Jews, but Paris received more Italians, Poles, North Africans etc. Paris was about 10% foreign born then compared to 3-4% in London.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

Paris was clearly the more international city then. Both London and Paris had similar numbers of Jews, but Paris received more Italians, Poles, North Africans etc. Paris was about 10% foreign born then compared to 3-4% in London.

I wonder to what extent the descendants of that 10% foreign born today identify as just "French" now.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by Commentariat

Complete nonsense and historical revisionism, like most of what you write. Britain was feudal for much of the medieval period, society was organised around legally binding ties to land. You couldn't leave even if you wanted to. When feudalism fell apart, the vast majority of the population remained tied to the land because they were subsistence peasants and would starve if they lost their connection to it. Most people were born, married and died within about a 10 mile radius, until the industrial revolution.

Revisionism? Oh you're gonna love this:

https://www.bbc.com/education/guides/zyrymnb/revision

[CaliNative]

Vienna. London. Paris etc. Capital cities of nations with large overseas colonies, or multi-ethnic conglomerations (e.g. Austria-Hungarian empire) were always diverse. Ancient Rome was the first international city, and extremely diverse. Greeks, Spaniards, Jews, Arabs, North Africans, Anatolians, French and British Celts, Germans, Slavs, and every other imperial ethnicity lived in ethnic enclaves. The first "Cosmopolis".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I wonder to what extent the descendants of that 10% foreign born today identify as just "French" now.

Close to 100 percent of them in my experience.

[Minato Ku]

That's my experience as well.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by Docere

Paris was clearly the more international city then. Both London and Paris had similar numbers of Jews, but Paris received more Italians, Poles, North Africans etc. Paris was about 10% foreign born then compared to 3-4% in London.

For which year was this true? Are the Irish considered foreign born in those figures?

In any case, the number of foreign-born residents paints only part of the picture. Britain and France were (and still are) ethnically diverse countries themselves. Both the Welsh and Scottish certainly had a presence in London, and I would assume Bretons and members of France's other native ethnic groups were present in Paris as well.

[Capsicum]

Now, knowing that (especially western) Europe itself was not homogeneous, I've always wondered then how people doing ancestry tests square this with ideas about being X % "British" or Y % "French" etc. especially when you hear about people using those DNA kits. Lots of people seem to love to do those these days, and I constantly see ads about it online as well as people talking about them.

If we have a case where 100, 200 years ago, a high proportion of British, French etc. were foreign born themselves but now identify as British/French, will their own descendants' DNA tests not show 100% British/French, or are they themselves now included in the "standard" for what it means to be British/French?

How do the makers of the DNA tests pick a standard (if pretty much no country, even in the most traditional and isolated parts of the Old World had zero mixing outside its borders or was only ever composed of people who only lived and married with their countrymen and countrywomen locally since the entire country's founding) to represent a country and say that this individual is 100% (insert nationality here)?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Now, knowing that (especially western) Europe itself was not homogeneous, I've always wondered then how people doing ancestry tests square this with ideas about being X % "British" or Y % "French" etc. especially when you hear about people using those DNA kits. Lots of people seem to love to do those these days, and I constantly see ads about it online as well as people talking about them.

If we have a case where 100, 200 years ago, a high proportion of British, French etc. were foreign born themselves but now identify as British/French, will their own descendants' DNA tests not show 100% British/French, or are they themselves now included in the "standard" for what it means to be British/French?

How do the makers of the DNA tests pick a standard (if pretty much no country, even in the most traditional and isolated parts of the Old World had zero mixing outside its borders or was only ever composed of people who only lived and married with their countrymen and countrywomen locally since the entire country's founding) to represent a country and say that this individual is 100% (insert nationality here)?

God, I hate those stupid ads for DNA tests where one "thinks" they were German but it turns out they were "really" Scottish and switch from lederhosen to kilts!

They make it sound as if borders are fixed and culture is entirely about bloodlines.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

For which year was this true? Are the Irish considered foreign born in those figures?

In any case, the number of foreign-born residents paints only part of the picture. Britain and France were (and still are) ethnically diverse countries themselves. Both the Welsh and Scottish certainly had a presence in London, and I would assume Bretons and members of France's other native ethnic groups were present in Paris as well.

Early 20th century. 4% in 1911 for example. And no the Irish wouldn't been counted as immigrants.