Study shows NYC home to 800 spoken languages, most linguistically diverse.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by pico44

I think an interesting stat would be: In in 1890, what percentage of residents were either foreign born, or up to 2nd generation immigrant. Wouldn't that number be like 85%? Can any other large city in history claim that?

Sure, but in 1890, most of the foreign born were still from Northern Europe (Britain, Ireland, Germany), with Southern and Eastern European immigration just starting to really ramp up. Hardly any Indians, Chinese, South Americans, etc.

Also, from what I've read, Ancient Rome and Ancient Alexandria at their peaks might just have been in the same ballpark, when it came to foreign born or 2nd generation. There really was a ton of movement (a lot of it slaves, who after a few generations managed to be set free, replaced by more slaves) around the Mediterranean to Rome. And Alexandria was probably majority ethnic Greek and Jewish, not Egyptian. In fact Egypt circa 200 BC might have been a bit like Apartheid South Africa, with a large, dominant Greek minority with institutional privileges over the local Egyptians. And with Jews thrown in at some intermediate status.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by muppet

Mate seriously learn some history before you make assumptions. Many Britons today have African or other genes, the phenomenon of genetic throwback is not uncommon (where seemingly White parents give birth to ethnic offspring).

Also London had its first Black mayor in 1913

and as for those Africans in the 1700s:

Pico's got a point though. If London *really* was so multiracial back in the day, how come British people (not to mention Londoners) looked so dang white in say 1920? Did all those African, Chinese, and Indian genes just disappear? You can't get around it. Current immigration to the Western world is just a totally different ballgame than in every other historical example.

[muppet]

seriously does noone get it??? Intermarriage???? grrr...


Im not lying ya know.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by pico44

Well everybody has Jewish people. Even New York has a few. And I assume those 20,000 Africans were in England because they were such enthusiastic slave traders. And aren't huguenots just people from northern France? And isn't Ireland that little country that almost touches England?




Is that why British people have such dark skin and thick hair?

And the reason we never see paintings or statues of asians, mediteranians, africans etc--because they instantly become assimilated and white upon entering the country?


New York is a city of immigrants. Just look at our mayors throughout history, British, Jewish, Italian, Black, Irish, Bostonian.

Mate seriously learn some history before you make assumptions. Many Britons today have African or other genes, the phenomenon of genetic throwback is not uncommon (where seemingly White parents give birth to ethnic offspring).

Also London had its first Black mayor in 1913

and as for those Africans in the 1700s:

You have to remember many of the famous slave abolitionists were Black

www.bbc.co.uk/history

www.bbc.co.uk/history, www.mla.gov.uk
Medieval

http://cgfa.acropolisinc.com

Tudor, Henry VIII's Court:


www.connections-exhibition.org

and even Queen Charlotte was said to have African ancestry (from her Portuguese side)


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http...-GBGB342GB342%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1

19th century
Death of Nelson


www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk, www.clairethornton.com

http://ecx.images-amazon.com, www.culture24.org.uk


www.black-history-month.co.uk, www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

[bricky]

Originally Posted by muppet

seriously does noone get it??? Intermarriage???? grrr...


Im not lying ya know.

I'm mixed race. I get it. Here's what I get: I'm half Indian and half white. I look mixed. If I were 1/32 Indian and 31/32 white, I wouldn't look mixed. No one is denying that London (or Ancient Rome, Nanking, Constantinople) didn't have a relative handful of Indians, Arabs, etc. But the fact that there weren't many of them, resulted in Londoners still looking pretty Northern European white, even in 1920, after all that supposed massive immigration. Now, imagine what would happen if you wait 100 years from now, 2110, London, Paris, Toronto, NY, LA... how would the typical person look? Would they look like Londoners did in 1920?

[muppet]

...and if you want Black History of Britain:

http://www.chronicleworld.org/tomsite/capsule.htm

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by bricky

Pico's got a point though. If London *really* was so multiracial back in the day, how come British people (not to mention Londoners) looked so dang white in say 1920?

Based on what? Were you in Britain in the 1920s? Or have you seen depictions of 1920s Britain produced either pre-civil rights movements or by modern film makers with a similarly limited knowledge of basic history?

[bricky]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

Based on what? Were you in Britain in the 1920s? Or have you seen depictions of 1920s Britain produced either pre-civil rights movements or by modern film makers with a similarly limited knowledge of basic history?

It's a conspiracy I tell you. All those hundreds of thousands of visibly mixed race Londoners from the 1920s, just airbrushed out of history.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by bricky

I'm mixed race. I get it. Here's what I get: I'm half Indian and half white. I look mixed. If I were 1/32 Indian and 31/32 white, I wouldn't look mixed. No one is denying that London (or Ancient Rome, Nanking, Constantinople) didn't have a relative handful of Indians, Arabs, etc. But the fact that there weren't many of them, resulted in Londoners still looking pretty Northern European white, even in 1920, after all that supposed massive immigration. Now, imagine what would happen if you wait 100 years from now, 2110, London, Paris, Toronto, NY, LA... how would the typical person look? Would they look like Londoners did in 1920?

omg??/ YES!

Black Britons - of the 20,000 during the 1760s, marry into a White family. Their children marry into another white family - and so on, until Black genes are so diluted the children are born blonde and blue eyed within 2 generations.

This is my family returning to the ancestral village after two generations - look at the current crop of the kids (at right) who are to have their Tan family name inscribed on the village tablet:


www.facebook.com


the third generation:

[img]
This is happening all over the UK due to the high incidences of intermarriage. The modern day Black population, although nowadays numbering in the millions is actually endangered due to intermarriage.

After a few generations, of even continued immigration, we will end up looking like Brazilians, the most genetically mixed of the worlds peoples. If however we continue mixing with the natives, we will end up looking like the natives, as in my family whose third generation is White, with little trace of Chinese features.


If however you have relatively low incidences of intermarriage (as in US), ethnic minorities will visibly multiply and grow.

[muppet]

Dont people get it?? 20,000 Black Africans in 1760, just before the abolishment of slavery, had their genes dwindled down to only a few hundred of genuine immigrants by the 1920s, after 150 years worth of intermarrying.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by muppet

Dont people get it?? 20,000 Black Africans in 1760, just before the abolishment of slavery, had their genes dwindled down to only a few hundred of genuine immigrants by the 1920s, after 150 years worth of intermarrying.

Don't you get it? 20,000 black Africans in 18th Century London (I'll take your word on the count, as there was no ethnic census back then, and people love to exaggerate numbers), is not the same as 1,000,000 blacks in NY in 1950. Or 500,000 Asians in NY in 1990. There is this little matter of both scale, and percentage.

London was already a big city - probably about 1 million people by the end of the 18th Century. You're talking 2% African. Salt Lake City today is more than that.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by muppet

Brazilians, the most genetically mixed of the worlds peoples.

You're clearly lying, we all know New Yorkers are the most diverse people in the world, and that diversity is a unique phenomenon never before seen in history

[SHiRO]

Wow, I'm absolutely amazed at the ignorance in this thread...

[bricky]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Wow, I'm absolutely amazed at the ignorance in this thread...

haha Captain "Europe" strikes again with his patented insecure* smugness!

It's amazing how there are still people in this world who disagree with you. Don't they know they're ignorant?




*now in 2010, even more insecure than ever! Go European solidarity!

[muppet]

Originally Posted by bricky

Don't you get it? 20,000 black Africans in 18th Century London (I'll take your word on the count, as there was no ethnic census back then, and people love to exaggerate numbers), is not the same as 1,000,000 blacks in NY in 1950. Or 500,000 Asians in NY in 1990. There is this little matter of both scale, and percentage.

London was already a big city - probably about 1 million people by the end of the 18th Century. You're talking 2% African. Salt Lake City today is more than that.

Im hitting my head on a wall. My point being it still had sizeable numbers of people from all over the world in the context of historical rise and falls of multiculturalism (which was the point of this thread), and in 1760, before the end of slavery (where it numbered 750,000). It took NYC another 80 years to have a similar population of Blacks I may add.

Also London was still one third foreign born in medieval times, majority foreign born in Roman and Saxon times,,, grrrr


...Like Ive been saying again and again, historically its about rise and fall of multiculturalism due to intermarrying between the waves of migration. As evidenced by the appearance and disappearance of major communities as seen in London (and given high intermarrying rates - something that is not so common in the US)

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by bricky

haha Captain "Europe" strikes again with his patented insecure* smugness!

It's amazing how there are still people in this world who disagree with you. Don't they know they're ignorant?




*now in 2010, even more insecure than ever! Go European solidarity!

Stop trolling.

There are a hundred Captain Americas on here, including obviously you. I didn't say anything about Europe, just amazed at ignorant people who don't know or deny American imperialistic history or the fact that immigration and multiculturalism existed before 1624 when New York was founded by the Dutch.
There are a dozen cities in the world that can make the same claims as New York regarding # of languages spoken and diversity and there are hundreds who can in a historical equivalent context.

I advise you to drop the attitute...

[bricky]

Originally Posted by muppet

Im hitting my head on a wall. My point being it still had sizeable numbers of people from all over the world in the context of historical rise and falls of multiculturalism (which was the point of this thread), and in 1760, before the end of slavery (where it numbered 750,000). It took NYC another 80 years to have a similar population of Blacks I may add.

Also London was still one third foreign born in medieval times, majority foreign born in Roman and Saxon times,,, grrrr


...Like Ive been saying again and again, historically its about rise and fall of multiculturalism due to intermarrying between the waves of migration. As evidenced by the appearance and disappearance of major communities as seen in London (and given high intermarrying rates - something that is not so common in the US)

There are different levels to everything. If you add a grain of sand, one grain at a time, when do you get a mountain? Maybe that's what we're arguing about here. I'm saying that the immigration levels in the contemporary developed world, are just on a whole different level, than anything that came before.

And by the way, I don't mean it in some sort of USA USA number 1 way (as Shiro always means it with everything, with "Europe"). London in 2010 is right up there. So are Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, etc. Widespread global immigration is a point common today to almost every large city in the Western world.

[muppet]

note the periods:

http://www.chronicleworld.org/tomsite/capsule.htm

1555 onwards: RISE

""Certain black slaves" arrive from Africa with John Lok; and marks beginning of continuous Black presence in London.
Late 16th century, opening up of West African trade. Africans became part of London's population in seafaring centres like Deptford."

1596-1601: FALL

"Fear of increased black population in London and other towns leads to Royal proclamation by Queen Elizabeth I to arrest and expel all "Negroes and blackamores" from her kingdom."


1700s RISE

"First era of large scale settlement of blacks in Britain.
Significant presence of Black people brought as slave-servants of returning ex-colonial officials, traders, plantation owners, andmilitary personnel.

Growing evidence of Black presence in the northern, eastern and southern areas of London.

In addition, there were small number of free slaves and seamen from West Africa and South Asia.

Black Londoners number 10,000-15,000 of the nation's 20,000 black people. London by now home to communities of Blacks, and of Jews, Irish, Germans, and Huguenots."


early 1800s FALL

"Parliament abolishes slavery throughout the British Empire.

Steady decline in numbers and visibility of London's black population as fewer blacks were brought by West Indian planters and restrictions on immigrants from Africa."

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by bricky

I'm saying that the immigration levels in the contemporary developed world, are just on a whole different level, than anything that came before.

Absolutely not true and anyone with a grain of historical sense would acknowledge this.
London and Amsterdam were 60% foreign born in their Golden Ages (for Amsterdam that was around 1650), almost double from what they are now (and what New York is now!)

And by the way, I don't mean it in some sort of USA USA number 1 way (as Shiro always means it with everything, with Europe). London in 2010 is right up there. So are Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, etc. Widespread global immigration is a point common today to almost every large city in the Western world.

Oh stop pretending...I'm not the one bringing up "Europe", you did in a most trollish way. I hope for you that none of the other mods catch that. If I see you baiting someone other than myself like that I'd suspend rather than just delete in case of a repeat offender...

[bricky]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Absolutely not true and anyone with a grain of historical sense would acknowledge this.
London and Amsterdam were 60% foreign born in their Golden Ages (for Amsterdam that was around 1650), almost double from what they are now (and what New York is now!)


Oh stop pretending...I'm not the one bringing up "Europe", you did in a most trollish way. I hope for you that none of the other mods catch that.

Dude I don't post a lot, but I read sometimes. And you are as big a nationalist (or regionalist??) as anyone else on this site.

London and Amsterdam in their Golden Ages did not have the global immigration, both in source cultures, and volumes, that London and Amsterdam have today. Again, I'm not making this into a European or American thing. As you do with everything. I'm making this into a then and now thing.