Cities with least assimilation/most cultural retention among immigrant generations?

[Capsicum]

Not just asking what's the city with the most immigrants by percentage, but how much those immigrants and their kids/descendants keep their culture alive, past the initial recent immigration wave.

It's easy for a place to seem diverse and multicultural just in the first generation, but lose that once the immigration stops and assimilation makes the second generation disconnected to the old culture. Which cities do you think have the highest proportion of people belonging to diasporas who carry their culture longest past the first generation (eg. second, third or even more)?

One possibility is Montreal. It seems like Italian Montrealers have carried the Italian language for generations longer than most Italian Americans.

Another is possibly parts of NYC's metro. I'm guessing you have some New York born kids of immigrants, past the first generation who still speak the "old country" language, simply because of critical mass.

I'm also wondering about Vancouver, BC -- even though it has a large foreign born population, you still have multi-generational ethnic communities like Sikhs who keep their culture alive.

Or would you say, all major big cities are equally "assimilationist" with only really older people in small towns (eg. those who speak German in towns with lots of Amish and Mennonites, Cajuns in small town Louisiana, though that's not really an example of an "immigrant" group) resisting assimilation?

[Capsicum]

Perhaps a metric might be something like "percentage of people speaking a foreign language who are not foreign born, or who are second, third generation etc.".

Perhaps also something like number of cultural centers, institutions, restaurants etc. belonging to a certain ethnic group relative to the native-born members of that ethnic group (as compared to the foreign born members of that ethnic group). Eg. Number of native-born kids who are enrolled in say a "Saturday school", teaching kids the old country's language.

Also, number of native-born people of an ethnic group living in an ethnic enclave, relative to foreign-born living in an enclave.

[iheartthed]

Between the U.S. and Canada, most likely New York , Miami, or Montreal. Maybe some Mexican border town like El Paso, but I don't have much perspective on those places.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Between the U.S. and Canada, most likely New York , Miami, or Montreal. Maybe some Mexican border town like El Paso, but I don't have much perspective on those places.

I was thinking Miami.

I feel like New Yorkers assimilate rather quickly because there are so many different ethnicities the common ground is English for all of these people to communicate with each other.

Miami in contrast has a dominant ethnic minority that makes up the majority and one can live their entire life not ever having to learn English.

[proghousehead]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I was thinking Miami.

I feel like New Yorkers assimilate rather quickly because there are so many different ethnicities the common ground is English for all of these people to communicate with each other.

Miami in contrast has a dominant ethnic minority that makes up the majority and one can live their entire life not ever having to learn English.

Disagree about New York. Certain ethnic neighborhoods really make you feel like you’re in another country. Not assimilated at all. This is especially true of immigrant areas deep into Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx etc.

[the urban politician]

^ Exactly. Due to the huge base of immigrant communities, immigrants who stay behind in New York tend to remain "old country" in their styles, thinking, and mannerisms. They also tend to be more risk-averse in a sense, unwilling to get swallowed up in the giant abyss that is "America". I thought it was neat, but ultimately I got a little annoyed with it during the years I lived in New York.

I would run into people who could not comprehend references to American culture, didn't understand the concept of waiting in line, would try to deceive you into giving you money (because they are from your home village in India), etc etc. I actually think that it is this sea of people--immigrants who don't want to adapt to a new culture, and the Americanized people who are wary of them and overly defensive, that explains why New York has this (somewhat inaccurate) reputation of being full of rude people.

[the urban politician]

New York has a lot of retention. Probably the most in the US

[dc_denizen]

^ yup, and that sort of thing is 100 years old. used be the italians and jews that stayed beyond and failed to americanize.

new york by a country mile.

not sure about vancouver. how canadian are the kids of the citizen-investors?

montreal?! the most genetically homogeneous city in the continent (400 years of french canadian genes with no mixing)

[Djesus777]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

^ yup, and that sort of thing is 100 years old. used be the italians and jews that stayed beyond and failed to americanize.

new york by a country mile.

not sure about vancouver. how canadian are the kids of the citizen-investors?

montreal?! the most genetically homogeneous city in the continent (400 years of french canadian genes with no mixing)

You couldn't be more ignorant and wrong. A lot of people in Montreal mix outside their own cultures. Just shows you've never been here/know nothing.

[Omaharocks]

^ Yeah, what a strange comment. Montreal is one of the most integrated major cities I've been to in North America, cutting across race and class.

Tokyo is genetically homogenous. Montreal is damn near the opposite.

[montréaliste]

I thought dc denizen had plumbed the depths of dumbness but I had underestimated his talent for generating more inanity. My bad.

[isaidso]

^^ Agree. If you want a full thread full of ignorance try the Amazon HQ2 thread. It's the de facto US Amazon HQ2 thread as no one in Canada really bothers sticking around for more than a day or 2. No one in there seems to know anything about anything beyond their borders. It's an exercise in futility trying to have a meaningful conversation with people which such limited and bizarre ideas about Toronto (and Canada). It's stunning how little they know. Toronto? Might as well be talking to them about some fictional place one made up yesterday.

I admit I had a little giggle reading dc_denizen's comment about Montreal and Vancouver above. Funny or sad? Hard to say. As far as this thread goes. Maybe Miami? Their various latin American communities don't seem to assimilate like they do in other big immigrant cities around the world. Without a constant stream of new immigrants, established communities assimilate over 2-3 generations.

[dc_denizen]

^ I would love to know how many times you have visited in the USA, if ever.

actually, geneticists like to study French Canadians for the same reason that they are interested in Ashkenazi Jews: because it's a population with very little intermarriage with outside groups. How assimilated can immigrants be if there is no intermarriage with the dominant population?

I take issue with the idea of Montreal as a major immigrant gateway, as a place where immigrants historically made any kind of major mark on the culture (else, the city would not have remained as French as it did).

The rate of turnover and immigration/population replacement was vastly greater in the US cities than in Canada, for most of the two countries history.

Didn't Montreal mostly grow in the 19th century from migration from the countryside, rather than immigration?

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

^ I would love to know how many times you have visited in the USA, if ever.

actually, geneticists like to study French Canadians for the same reason that they are interested in Ashkenazi Jews: because it's a population with very little intermarriage with outside groups. How assimilated can immigrants be if there is no intermarriage with the dominant population?

I take issue with the idea of Montreal as a major immigrant gateway, as a place where immigrants historically made any kind of major mark on the culture (else, the city would not have remained as French as it did).

The rate of turnover and immigration/population replacement was vastly greater in the US cities than in Canada, for most of the two countries history.

Didn't Montreal mostly grow in the 19th century from migration from the countryside, rather than immigration?

C'mon, that's not serious. Stop those insults.

They French Canadians did some great job at melting with Natives. They did not butcher them as they did in Little Big Man or Dances With Wolves.
They only married them.

Why would they be ugly disabled consanguineous/inbred monsters? Because they can speak Fr? Just learn French, yourself, if your exhausted brain still can do it.

I don't know Canada. I never went over there yet. I only had online conversations with them. Their neurons worked very fine through my conversations, efficiently, believe me. I highly doubt they'd be consanguineous retards.

Actually, even my elder bro and his wife might move to Ottawa sometime, if they think they have better opportunities over there. They're annoying. It's scaring and pissing me.
It'd be a pain in my butt, cause I'd have to take care of their 3 sons if they left. Because their kids won't move, and I won't either.

As if it wasn't enough to take care of myself...

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

^ I would love to know how many times you have visited in the USA, if ever.

actually, geneticists like to study French Canadians for the same reason that they are interested in Ashkenazi Jews: because it's a population with very little intermarriage with outside groups. How assimilated can immigrants be if there is no intermarriage with the dominant population?

I take issue with the idea of Montreal as a major immigrant gateway, as a place where immigrants historically made any kind of major mark on the culture (else, the city would not have remained as French as it did).

The rate of turnover and immigration/population replacement was vastly greater in the US cities than in Canada, for most of the two countries history.

Didn't Montreal mostly grow in the 19th century from migration from the countryside, rather than immigration?

Another gem.

This only shows more of the same ignorance. I suggest you restore whatever little faith some posters, i.e; Crawford may have in you, by avoiding topics you know little about before you posit an opinion.

The 19th century had probably the same numbers of people form the countryside moving to the cities as other parts of the continent. Many French Canadians ended up in New England, the Midwest or Western Canada. My paternal grandmother (French) was born in Michigan, while my paternal grandfather was Irish by his parents but born in Montreal. Montreal in the 19th Century was a mix of French, Irish, Scot and English, and so was Quebec City and many other towns all over Quebec from the Gaspé, North Shore to the Western border with Ontario. Just take a look at place names, in particular around QC, not just Montreal, and you will find Scottish, Irish and English place names.

Orthodox Jews, Dog love them, were self-secluding from a long history of persecution. The comparison is not only weak but prepostorous at best. I think you confuse Orthodox Jews with Ashkenazi Jews from North African tradition.
While there are strong differences and even opposition between European and African Jews, intermarriage is not uncommon, especially not here.

In spite of differences in religious affiliations, the mixing and intermarrying between ethnic groups has always been important, and the language context has little to do with the fact that immigrants settled here or not. You claim that the city has remained French speaking because immigration was not a major purveyor of newcomers, but that of course has to do with your hardwired belief that English is the only valid language on N.A. soil.

I think that the fact French is the dominant language with almost a million anglos in the metro probably has more of a cohesive effect by promoting the ideal of a polyglot society. Italians, Ukrainians, Portuguese will often keep using their language as well as speak both French and English.

I couldn't help noticing the irony in what you said about immigrants not leaving a mark on the culture. Tell me more. I'm curious.

[dc_denizen]

well don't take my word for it:

10. French Canadians descend from a founding population of around 10,000 French settlers who came to Canada in the 17th and 18th centuries. Less than 20 generations of high population growth and genetic isolation is reflected in the much lower levels of French-Canadian genetic diversity compared to that of French people still living in France.

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/genet...peaking-world/

It turns out that French-Canadians are often of special interest to geneticists for the same reason that French-Canadian ancestry makes genealogy a cinch: Quebec has incredibly rich archival records of births, marriages, and deaths dating back to the founding of New France. While these records aren’t perfect (they certainly exclude much of the aboriginal population and don’t account for those settlers who ventured deeper into the wilderness — I’m lookin’ at you, Francos of the Great Lakes!), they do allow scientists to link historical records with the current gene pool in a uniquely productive way. (This article provides a very scientific, if not altogether accessible, summary.)

Furthermore, the vast majority of North Americans with French-Canadian heritage descend from about 8,500 French settlers who arrived in New France between 1608 and 1759, leading to remarkable homogeneity in the population. Geneticists call this “the founder effect.” In part but not solely related to inbreeding, it is a genetic variation that appears when a very small number of individuals from a larger population set off and establish a new, discrete population of their own. With time, they become genetically distinct from the population of origin, so that today, there are genetic characteristics common among French Quebecois that are not common in France. There are higher rates in Quebec of some 30 diseases with a genetic basis, including cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, and certain types of muscular dystrophy, high cholesterol, and rickets.

https://abbypaige.com/2013/03/05/genetics/

The average (francophone) Montrealer is probably 96% genetically French. Not the case for the average white American, where you would be surprised to see more than 20% from any single European ethnic group: the result of 150 years of constant population turnover and immigration.

we never had a 'revenge of the cradle' over in the US to keep the indigenous population a majority...

[Acajack]

Francophone Canadians, Quebecers and Montrealers certainly aren't nearly as much of a Heinz 57 mix like white Americans are in many regions of their country. (Even white Anglo-Canadians aren't as much of a Heinz 57 mix as their American equivalents either, though the gap certainly isn't as wide as with francophones.)

But there is a great deal of exaggeration taking place here.

A large chunk of the old stock "French Canadian" population has some aboriginal origins, and another chunk has British Isles origins (often Irish) and a good number of people have both.

In the average person's gene pool it's often overwhelmed by ancestors of French origins which are more numerous, but it's nonetheless still there.

The "cultural" implications of this admixture are debatable, but that's also the case of the vast majority of the "Heinz 57" crowd who are more often than not "just average Americans" (even in their own description).

[Acajack]

It's also worth noting that while there was always a trickle of non-French additions to the old stock French Canadian population (I am actually a direct descendant of the phenom), a large scale diversity influx à la "Ellis Island" happened far later for us than it happened for English-speaking parts of the continent (and even the English-speaking minority in Montreal itself, in fact).

If we take the U.S. example in particular, while it has been producing anglophone Americans indistinguishable from the rest but from every (non-anglo) origin under the sun for over a century, for us the idea of totally indistinguishable Québécois francophones who have no French origins at all is a fairly new thing.

There have been totally francophone Québécois people with non-French surnames in Quebec for centuries too, but they were always the product of mixed marriages with French Canadians.

But over the past 20-25 years there has literally been an explosion of people who are not of French origins at all, but are as Québécois francophone as Joe Di Maggio was American.

In Montreal a few years ago it was estimated that 15% of the "francophone" population has no "French" origins whatsoever. The number is likely quite a bit higher today.

[Acajack]

Here is my kids' favourite comedienne: Mariana Mazza from Montreal.

Origins: Uruguyan, Lebanese, Italian and Brazilian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wIyfKNBYKI

Based on her accent and style her name could be Marie-France Tremblay.

People like her used to be extremely rare in Quebec but that's no longer the case.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

The average (francophone) Montrealer is probably 96% genetically French.

Originally Posted by Acajack

In Montreal a few years ago it was estimated that 15% of the "francophone" population has no "French" origins whatsoever. The number is likely quite a bit higher today.

Surely, the number of Francophones who are not descended from French settlers must be higher than those numbers. Montreal is nearly a quarter (23-24%) foreign born, which already excludes by definition, "old stock" French Canadians. I find it hard to believe that quarter (plus the kids of those immigrants) is pretty much still all Anglophone.

I mean, Montreal is what, a third visible minority, right now (and while there's certainly mixing between old stock French-Canadians and these minorities, most are still recent first or second generation Canadians), and I'm sure a lot of them are Francophones now. Add to that, the descendants of non-visible minority white Montrealers descended from earlier waves of immigrants (at least the ones that haven't intermarried with "old stock" French Canadians) who started off English-oriented but eventually switched to, or their kids switched to (even if reluctantly) French, and I'd imagine that the idea that 85-90-something % of Francophones are "old stock" by ancestry seems too high.