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

[bricky]

Originally Posted by brickell

Just to pile on, to argue that Rome, Alexandria or Constantinople were less diverse is to ignore the the much more diverse landscape they came from. Cultures and languages changed valley to valley, not country to country.

Yes we do live in a more mobile and modern world but we're also drawing from a much smaller pool, in my opinion.

That's a good point. There used to be a lot of local linguistic diversity, that has largely disappeared in the modern world. But all the same, I don't think the cultural differences between a Scot, Irishman, Englishman, and Huguenot 300 years ago, were greater than between an Englishman, rural Yemeni, and Nigerian today. London drew from the former groups in the old days, and draws from the latter groups now. Sometimes people overdo the idea of equivalence, or "equal time", in an effort to be fair. Sometimes things really do change, and differ in meaningful ways.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by pico44

Cute theory. So explain why french is spoken from Normandy to Cannes? But not in Milan?

Nationalism and the modern French state?


src:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_France

[pesto]

diverstiy: Rome and other ancient cities may have had people from all over (let's say 500 miles or so) but I wonder about diversity. Didn't 99.9 percent of the people (regardless of where they came from) basically eat 3 times everyday something like ground wheat and water baked; couldn't read or write; believed some odd gods determined what happened on earth and in the sky; and spent all day begging or doing the lowest menial labor? I wouldn't call that diversity. I would call if almost complete uniformity.

And in the middle ages in Europe, every town had its own time and date and local language but the only thing you could read (if you could read, which was a longshot) was the Bible and it was interpreted more or less the same for thousands of miles in all directions. Again, is this diversity?

Finally, I would also like to get numbers on how many people speak those 800 languages on a daily basis. I think there has been some puffery in the numbers as the rhetorical battle raged on. If you don't have a couple of hundred people who speak it daily at home, it doesn't count.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by 10023

For starters, you grossly overstate the historical incidence of mixed race marriage (or procreation) in the UK, which of course occurred but was extremely rare. The average Englishman does not have any black ancestry (unless your time horizon extends beyond proto-Caucasoid peoples). You come from a mixed race family but this is not typical.

It is typical (have you read NOTHING of my posts???) The mixed haplogroups of our modern world thanks to the ages of empires. Note UK:

Originally Posted by 10023

[b]In fact there was far more in the U.S. - perhaps not marriage, but certainly plenty of offspring produced by slave owners and slave women such that the majority of the African American population today is of mixed race.

Second, you ignore basic biology and genetics. You can't mix races in whatever fractions and get something in between like you're mixing oil paints. For instance, there are such things as dominant and recessive genes, etc. Both blonde hair and blue eyes, by the way, are caused by recessive genes, so to produce this result both parents must have the appropriate gene on at least one chromosome. Any significant mixing of races over long periods of time cannot produce a population with a high incidence of such recessive traits. This is why blonde hair and blue eyes are, without continued racial/ethnic segregation, basically endangered and bound to disappear from the human population at some point.

What's the point? sounds like obfuscation. -Sure I know the recessive genes thing about the blonde and blue eyes, but do you really think that someone who is 1/8 or 1/16 Black will will still appear Black?? Also its not an absolute rule - do explain the existence of my cousins...

^I really cant state this again, for the third time. People whose genes 'dilute', will have their visible features of that specific race dilute too.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by bricky

I guess we don't really disagree, but place emphasis on different points. I'll try to summarize what I'm trying to say. It's my fault that it wasn't clearer.

Differences between then (Ancient Rome, 18th C London, etc) and now (contemporary London, NY, Syndey etc):

1) raw numbers. Imagine a city of 50,000 people, that is 5% Indian. That's 2500 Indians. Imagine another city of 2,000,000 people, that is also 5% Indian. Meaning 100,000 Indians. I would argue that there is a qualitative difference in Indian communities, even though the percentages are the same. This isn't the first city's "fault". Just a statement of fact.

2) Then (let's use the example of Ancient Alexandria), the bulk of a city's foreign-born or ethnic minority population was from relatively nearby cultures. While there were probably some Indians, and perhaps a literal handful of Chinese, most of Alexandria's "minorities" were from Greece and Judea. Most of Rome's "minorities" were from the rest of the Roman Empire, or places adjacent. Now (let's use the example of London), it is often the case that the bulk of a city's foreign-born population is from distant cultures and places. London has something like 1 million South Asians? And several hundred thousand East Asians? Several hundred thousand people from the Middle East? You know London's demographics better than me. But suffice it to say, that there are a lot of people in London in 2010, from very far away.

3) Then (let's use the example of 18th C London), the "minorities" or foreigners from very distant places, while they existed, represented a small portion of the total population. 20,000 Africans (if that is not an exaggeration, as almost all non-census population estimates are), would represent something like 2-4% of London's population at that time. There were almost certainly a heck of a lot more Irishmen (and Heugenots) in London in the 17th or 18th C, than there were Indians, Chinese, and Africans. In today's Toronto however, the bulk of new foreigners are from culturally distant places. Not from culturally similar Europe or the US, but from China, India, etc.

Do we still disagree? I would argue that the above three points really separate diversity today, from any other case in the past. It's not Ancient Rome's "fault" that there weren't any jetliners back then. It's not 17th C Amsterdam's "fault" that it was a small city in comparison to modern Amsterdam. You can have two cities separated by time, with a similar percentage of foreigners, but very different in the distribution of immigration sources, and in the sheer volume of immigrants.

First of all we are arguing moot / different points, in answering past arguments. Also the goalposts keep being moved.

I first mentioned London's (and other cities) historical multiculturalism (at times one third- or majority foreign born) in reply to the statement that NYC was the first multicultural city, and nothing like that had been seen before.


After other people wrote in of the other empirical cities it then transpired that what was meant was NYC was the first multicultural city... that put together people from so far abroad, ...or drew people voluntarily (wtf??). (And even though these are not historical precedents). On top of that the existence of those other empirical examples were dismissed as hyperbole (eg there were no paintings??, there was no genetic evidence, there were no Black people in the 1920s).

We then wrote in detail of the multiculturalist history, as evidence - the figures, historical account, the paintings(!?), the timelines, the DNA evidence.

Once again these are dismissed as inestimates, inaccuracies, and just sheer incredulity. Also once again the goalposts move. We are suddenly no longer discussing the existence of past multicultural cities, but why these past multicultural cities, from say 1860 or 5AD cannot compare to 20th century NYC, in sheer numbers.


of course 1860 London cannot compare to modern day London (or NYC) in numbers - but that wasnt even the argument.

And btw don't either try to compare modern London to NYC (oh no... huge new kettle of fish...), that 300 claim-to-fame was counted from a single school project.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by muppet

First of all we are arguing moot / different points, in answering past arguments. Also the goalposts keep being moved.

I first mentioned London's (and other cities) historical multiculturalism (at times one third- or majority foreign born) in reply to the statement that NYC was the first multicultural city, and nothing like that had been seen before.


After other people wrote in of the other empirical cities it then transpired that what was meant was NYC was the first multicultural city... that put together people from so far abroad, ...or drew people willingly. (And even though these are not historical precedents). On top of that those other empirical examples were dismissed as hyperbole (eg there were no paintings??, there was no genetic evidence, there were no Black people in the 1920s).

We then wrote in detail of the multiculturalist history, as evidence - the figures, historical account, the paintings(!?), the timelines, the DNA evidence.

Once again these are dismissed as inestimates, inaccuracies, and just sheer incredulity. Also once again the goalposts move. We are suddenly no longer discussing the existence of past multicultural cities, but why these past multicultural cities, from say 1860 or 5AD cannot compare to 20th century NYC, in sheer numbers.


of course 1860 London cannot compare to modern day London (or NYC) - but that wasnt even the argument.

You're dealing with slippery, subjective concepts, like multiculturalism, in a forum sub-section where repping your city is why many/most people are here. So of course you will get disagreements. I don't think anyone ever said NY was the first city in the world with furiners living in it.

However, your argument seems to boil down to: NYC and Salt Lake City both have African, Asian, and Latin American communities. Therefore their multiculturalism is the same. You take no account of what source countries, in what volumes, make up their foreign populations.

Maybe I should post some photos of black or Indian people in Salt Lake City, to show that it's just like London or NY?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by muppet

Also once again the goalposts move. We are suddenly no longer discussing the existence of past multicultural cities....

You mean just like how we suddenly stopped talking about New York in 2010, the actual topic of the original post, and started talking about anyplace but New York? Bummer...

[muppet]

^in short

1. one person makes a blanket statement.

2. People disagree and mention other examples.

3. That person dismisses these examples and changes the goalposts, going on about how super specialist NYC was (when noone even denied that), by adding new criteria. The multiculturalism now had to be voluntary (??), and had to be more diverse eg from entirely different continents.

4. People back up their examples and fend off the accusations of non existence.

5. Person nitpicks at the arguments, ignores the points made or refuses to believe them, adds other accusations and issues - and yet again changes the goalposts. Now the multiculturalism has to be backed up by large modern day numbers, and that people are trying to compare 20th century NYC with say, 1860 London. He adds these arguments are due to European one-upedness.

6 *edit (just added)
People accuse us of arguing irrelevant points (when we're not the ones 1. changing the goalposts, or 2. throwing out accusations.)

[muppet]

Originally Posted by fflint

You mean just like how we suddenly stopped talking about New York in 2010, the actual topic of the original post, and started talking about anyplace but New York? Bummer...

No, how people kept asserting NYC was the first multicultural city in history, which was the actual argument after the first post.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by bricky

You're dealing with slippery, subjective concepts, like multiculturalism, in a forum sub-section where repping your city is why many/most people are here. So of course you will get disagreements. I don't think anyone ever said NY was the first city in the world with furiners living in it.

However, your argument seems to boil down to: NYC and Salt Lake City both have African, Asian, and Latin American communities. Therefore their multiculturalism is the same. You take no account of what source countries, in what volumes, make up their foreign populations.

Maybe I should post some photos of black or Indian people in Salt Lake City, to show that it's just like London or NY?

No my argument does not boil down to that. Dont put words in my mouth. plus youve missed my point again.

basically Im fending off accusations and stupid blanket statements, that are probably completely irrelevant to the argument. Maybe people should not keep throwing those accusations out eh?

[Vangelist]

This thread is hilarious. Also kind of bizarre, but the first "multicultural" city in history, Persepolis (capital of the first multicultural empire, remember?) hasn't even been mentioned yet...not to mention Delhi, Takshashila, Samarkand, Patliputra, or Ctesiphon. Or Balkh, capital of Bactria, particularly, when what is now Afghanistan *was* the center of the cross-currents of Western Civilization & Eastern Civilization: a lot more organically multicultural than some Western metropolis like Rome or Alexandria. Can you name any other Persian-Greek-Indian city? Which subsequently became Islamic, ruled by Arabs, Turks and Mughals, but retained its unique heritage until the Taliban posed a threat to its treasures. Not to mention the birthplace of Zarathustra AND Rumi, the capital of the Asian Hellenistic (the Seleucid and Greco-Bactrian) and Indo-Hellinistic (Kushan) kingdoms, a major stop on the Silk Road to China, and home to many famous Buddhist shrines, monasteries and temples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkh

But Xian or Nanking, diverse? What? If one has to name a Chinese city for the sake of being PC, it should at least be something like Kashgar

[muppet]

^careful now, thats ripe breeding ground for comparing it to voluntary immigrants or modern day NYC.

[muppet]

Jeez all Ive spent on this entire thread is fending off accusations, I havent even mentioned the actual thing about this thread I initially intended to add (as reminder in case we've all forgotten, about the 800 languages). And to be honest Im worried to.

[10023]

Originally Posted by muppet

^I really cant state this again, for the third time. People whose genes 'dilute', will have their visible features of that specific race dilute too.

But you act as this is like mixing colors of paint. It's not.

There is a gene or genes that control a certain physical trait. You have two of them (one from each parent). There is no such thing as having 1/16 of the gene for (to use the same example), blue eyes. You either have two genes for blue eyes (in which case your eyes will be blue), or one (in which case there is a possibility your children's will be but yours will not), or none (in which case neither you nor any of your descendants will have blue eyes).

Even with some intermarriage (which was extremely rare), the existence of 20,000 Africans in 18th century England would result in scarcely a drop in the general gene pool, and even that would not permeate the entire population due to differences in social class, limits to migration, etc.

The hybridization in your map is not the result of European colonialism either, but thousands upon thousands of years of nomadic movements between central Asia and Europe. And at the end of the day everyone has some African genes because that's where humans evolved. But the idea that England is a mixed race society is ridiculous.

[ocman]

If only one guy in NYC speaks a dying language, does that really count as "languages spoken?" A better survey would be the number of languages spoken in true communities of the city. One guy in NYC originally from Watevaoucalliak who speaks Nevaherdofitese means nothing to most people.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by 10023

Second, you ignore basic biology and genetics. You can't mix races in whatever fractions and get something in between like you're mixing oil paints. For instance, there are such things as dominant and recessive genes, etc. Both blonde hair and blue eyes, by the way, are caused by recessive genes, so to produce this result both parents must have the appropriate gene on at least one chromosome. Any significant mixing of races over long periods of time cannot produce a population with a high incidence of such recessive traits. This is why blonde hair and blue eyes are, without continued racial/ethnic segregation, basically endangered and bound to disappear from the human population at some point.

The frequency of these 2 specific recessive alleles (blond and blue eyed) stay constant over time. There's no evidence that they'll eventually go extinct with interracial breeding.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by 10023

But you act as this is like mixing colors of paint. It's not.

There is a gene or genes that control a certain physical trait. You have two of them (one from each parent). There is no such thing as having 1/16 of the gene for (to use the same example), blue eyes. You either have two genes for blue eyes (in which case your eyes will be blue), or one (in which case there is a possibility your children's will be but yours will not), or none (in which case neither you nor any of your descendants will have blue eyes).

Even with some intermarriage (which was extremely rare), the existence of 20,000 Africans in 18th century England would result in scarcely a drop in the general gene pool, and even that would not permeate the entire population due to differences in social class, limits to migration, etc.

The hybridization in your map is not the result of European colonialism either, but thousands upon thousands of years of nomadic movements between central Asia and Europe. And at the end of the day everyone has some African genes because that's where humans evolved. But the idea that England is a mixed race society is ridiculous.

Mate even if youre right, can you at least decide on your points you would like to make?

First the UK had no historical Black populations as by now the Brits would have a sizeable chunk of the population be visibly Black - or now those 20,000 by 1860 would have been 'scarcely a drop' (AS HAD BEEN MY ARGUMENT ).

Firstly it was said they didnt exist because their genetic legacy would be visible today. And now its being said even if they did exist their genetic legacy would be invisible anyway.

ps why do you assume intermarriage was extremely rare? Also going on your theaory, you do realise there are alot of naturally tanned, dark haired, Mediterranean looking Britons, not just the pale blondes of stereotype?

[10023]

Originally Posted by muppet

Mate even if youre right, can you at least decide on your points you would like to make?

First the UK had no historical Black populations as by now the Brits would have a sizeable chunk of the population be visibly Black - or now those 20,000 by 1860 would have been 'scarcely a drop' (AS HAD BEEN MY ARGUMENT )

I've never disagreed that London is a multi-ethnic and diverse city.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that everyone in the UK is slightly mixed because of those 20,000 18th century Africans. This isn't true. At least not any more true than any human population on earth because of rare intermarriage (or more often, the first part of "raping and pillaging") over thousands of years of pre-modern history.

[10023]

double post

[muppet]

Originally Posted by 10023

I've never disagreed that London is a multi-ethnic and diverse city.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that everyone in the UK is slightly mixed because of those 20,000 18th century Africans. This isn't true. At least not any more true than any human population on earth because of rare intermarriage (or more often, the first part of "raping and pillaging") over thousands of years of pre-modern history.

No no no. Ive not said that - my point in all this (going back to the argument) was in reply to 'where's all the ancestors of the Black people then??'.

My answer was the genes are 'diluted' or effectively negligible due to the sudden stop of immigration in the following periods (the repetitive stages of multiculturalism followed by assimilation). This isnt even relevant to the thread, but its fending off previous accusations.