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

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by pico44

But while the United States is a world power, it never really was an imperialist nation ...

I found the problem in your argument. The U.S. doesn't like to think of itself as being "imperialist" what with its former colonial history and all, but the fact of the matter was that at the height of imperialism, the U.S. was imperialist (although to a much smaller degree than, say, Britain) and that we remain enormously culturally imperialist.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by someone123

Wikipedia has this wonderful list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions

Relevant parts:

2003 invasion of Iraq by United States-led coalition
2001 invasion of Afghanistan by United States-led coalition
1994 invasion of Haiti by a multinational force (MNF) led by the United States
1991 invasion of Kuwait and southern Iraq by a coalition force of 34 nations led by the United States
1989 invasion of Panama by the United States
1983 invasion of Grenada by the United States and allied Caribbean nations
1970 invasion of Cambodia by the United States and South Vietnam
1965 invasion of Dominican Republic by United States and OAS
1962 invasions of South Vietnam by the United States
1961 invasion of Cuba by Cuban allies of the United States, particularly its CIA
<Break for WWII>
1915 invasion of Haiti by the United States
1898 invasion of the Philippines by the United States
1898 invasion of Puerto Rico by the United States
1898 invasion of Spanish Cuba by the United States
1893 invasion of Hawaii by the United States
1871 invasion of Korea by the United States
1861-1865 invasions of the Confederate States by the United States
1846 invasion of Mexico by United States
1813 invasion of Canada by United States
1812 invasions of Canada by United States
1805 invasion of Tripoli by United States and mercenaries

We could debate a few of these but the bigger picture is that you don't get a list like this by accident, especially over a period of only 200 years.

Oh yeah, that Haitian invasion in 94 was brutal. And forcing them to learn English was messy. But raping their land of all those natural resources sure made it all worth it.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

I found the problem in your argument. The U.S. doesn't like to think of itself as being "imperialist" what with its former colonial history and all, but the fact of the matter was that at the height of imperialism, the U.S. was imperialist (although to a much smaller degree than, say, Britain) and that we remain enormously culturally imperialist.

But isn't that a much more benign imperialism? So people like our movies and our cheesburgers. Is it bad to make a few bucks off of them?

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by pico44

Oh yeah, that Haitian invasion in 94 was brutal. And forcing them to learn English was messy. But raping their land of all those natural resources sure made it all worth it.

Okay, Pico, let me say this: hard imperialism (i.e. one country formally controlling another one) effectively ended in 1945. Much better to look at is the fact that for the first half of the 20th century the Philippines were a U.S. territory. We're reluctant imperialists, but we're imperialists all the same--at the time, all the great powers were.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by muppet

London had a population of 20,000 Africans by the 1700s I may add, not to mention established communities of Bengali lascars, Chinese sailors and large numbers of Jews, Irish and Huguenot refugees - the last of which its said 50% of 'native' Londoners are derived from (and another, overlapping third of Londoners have Irish ancestry). This was the beginnings of empire - when the first Emglishman set foot in India already there were 3000 Indians living in Britain.

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?

Basically what you are seeing are the rise and fall of multiculturalist waves - Roman, Saxon and medieval London were strongly foreign born, yet with intermittent waves of homogeneity as the children of these emigrants were assimilated. The apogee of assimilation was in the 1920s, where although many Londoners had foreign ancestry, much of it was lost through the generations and barely survived even in name.

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.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Okay, Pico, let me say this: hard imperialism (i.e. one country formally controlling another one) effectively ended in 1945. Much better to look at is the fact that for the first half of the 20th century the Philippines were a U.S. territory. We're reluctant imperialists, but we're imperialists all the same--at the time, all the great powers were.

Didn't the Spanish do all the messy work in the Philipines?

I am not necessarily saying we were too moral to empire-build, we just didn't need to. Our empire streches from the Atlantic to the Pacific. All the way from Canada down to Mexico.

[bricky]

One difference between the multiculturalism of cities like modern NY, Toronto, and London, on the one hand, and Ancient Rome, Alexandria, and Nanking on the other hand, is the truly global nature of immigration these days. NY has hundreds of thousands of people from East Asia, from Central and South America, from the Indian subcontinent, from Africa, etc. Ancient Rome had people from the various corners of the Roman Empire, and occasionally a bit farther out. The Roman Empire was big for it's day, but it was by no stretch of the imagination, the whole world. Good luck finding many Chinese, Maya, or (non-Ethiopian) sub-Saharan Africans in Ancient Rome or Alexandria, for instance.

[bricky]

And as someone else here said, global immigration has become the norm in much of the developed world, not the exception. How long until a city like Tokyo, or Seoul, is considered the more unique in the developed world, precisely because it so homogeneous? Just 20 years ago, having hundreds of thousands of immigrants was something special. There weren't many cities like that - NY, LA, a few others. Now it seems like every large Western European and North American city has it's teeming masses, yearning to be free, or whatever.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by bricky

One difference between the multiculturalism of cities like modern NY, Toronto, and London, on the one hand, and Ancient Rome, Alexandria, and Nanking on the other hand, is the truly global nature of immigration these days. NY has hundreds of thousands of people from East Asia, from Central and South America, from the Indian subcontinent, from Africa, etc. Ancient Rome had people from the various corners of the Roman Empire, and occasionally a bit farther out. The Roman Empire was big for it's day, but it was by no stretch of the imagination, the whole world. Good luck finding many Chinese, Maya, or (non-Ethiopian) sub-Saharan Africans in Ancient Rome or Alexandria, for instance.

And this is also part of what I originally meant to say, but never got around to it. Sure, there might might some historical evidence that maybe a few east Asians lived in ancient Rome, and of course sociologists love to run with that and claim Rome to have a HUUUUGE Asian population. But I highly doubt Rome had anything resembling NYC Chinatown.


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_York_City_Chinatown_Celebration_003.jpg

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by pico44

Wow. Lemme dumb this down for you. Forcing a bunch of Africans to join the army and shipping them up to some godforsaken place to build a wall does not an immigrant society make. Your analogy blows my mind. It just blows my mind.

The only group of people who didn't voluntarily show up in New York Harbor were the slaves. For everyone else, that is exactly what happened. They just showed up.

Wow. Lemme dumb this down for you. A person or group of persons with culture is a person or group of persons with culture, regardless of how or why they moved to a particular location. Ignoring the fact that you clearly have a severely stunted understanding of history, what you don't seem to be getting is that whether or not a person moves voluntarily has no affect on whether or no they bring their culture and language with them when they move. Whether a particular city had a high percentage of slaves or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that city is multi-cultural or not. It may affect whether or not you want to live in that city, but it has no affect on the cultures represented in that city.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by pico44

And this is also part of what I originally meant to say, but never got around to it. Sure, there might might some historical evidence that maybe a few east Asians lived in ancient Rome, and of course sociologists love to run with that and claim Rome to have a HUUUUGE Asian population. But I highly doubt Rome had anything resembling NYC Chinatown.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_York_City_Chinatown_Celebration_003.jpg

But couldn't you make an argument that the original NY immigrant story, the one we still think about today, what with the Statue of Liberty and crowded Manhattan tenements and sweatshops, was a heck of a lot closer to Ancient Rome, than to contemporary NY (or contemporary Toronto, London, Barcelona, etc)? After all, the great bulk of immigration to NY back then consisted of what we would today classify as white people. Jews, Southern Europeans, etc. Sure there were a relative very few Chinese, Indians, etc. But that was much more like Ancient Rome, with it's huge Mediterranean population, and relative handful of Indians, black Africans, etc.

Maybe NY was the first true global melting pot? Starting around 1980 or so? Along with LA? But it only took about 10-15 years for other cities to catch up, like London, Toronto, and now pretty much every large city in the Western world.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by bricky

And as someone else here said, global immigration has become the norm in much of the developed world, not the exception. How long until a city like Tokyo, or Seoul, is considered the more unique in the developed world, precisely because it so homogeneous? Just 20 years ago, having hundreds of thousands of immigrants was something special. There weren't many cities like that - NY, LA, a few others. Now it seems like every large Western European and North American city has it's teeming masses, yearning to be free, or whatever.

Well as recently as 20 years ago, we weren't really sure a highly integrated city was really a good thing. New York was widely regarded as a failed experiment as recently as the early 90s.

And thats really what it is, an experiment. Lets put everyone from everywhere in one place and see if they get along. I'm as big a believer in it as anyone, but even I will occasionally have doubts. Living here can be hard work.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by pico44

Well as recently as 20 years ago, we weren't really sure a highly integrated city was really a good thing. New York was widely regarded as a failed experiment as recently as the early 90s.

And thats really what it is, an experiment. Lets put everyone from everywhere in one place and see if they get along. I'm as big a believer in it as anyone, but even I will occasionally have doubts. Living here can be hard work.

I'm just old enough to remember prevailing wisdom in the early 90s. NY was still kind of iffy, but the big city of the future back then was LA, which was then viewed as the more multicultural of the two. In fact, (maybe from my rose tinted Junior High school student glasses), the 90s were the period of time when we were most excited about the possibilities of multiculturalism. When California and NY really were brave new worlds, things which had never existed before. Now it's.... Chinese people, big deal? What city doesn't have a large Chinese community? Mexicans? Illegal immigration. Arabs? Terrorists. Don't get me wrong, that's not my attitude. But a lot of the original excitement about multiculturalism (at least in America) seems to have subsided into worry and banality.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by bricky

Maybe NY was the first true global melting pot? Starting around 1980 or so? Along with LA? But it only took about 10-15 years for other cities to catch up, like London, Toronto, and now pretty much every large city in the Western world.

If you're going to put 1980 as the starting point, cities throughout SE Asia were global melting pots at least a hundred years before that. SE Asia is historically diverse due to the influence of East Asian traders and Islam, but it took it to a whole new level from the 18th century on (Europeans showed up in the 16th century, but were much less interested in empire building at that point). SE Asia was historically underpopulated due to a variety of factors, when the British, Dutch, and Portuguese moved in there wasn't enough local labor for the plantation style economy they wanted to build, so they brought in millions upon millions of Indian and Chinese laborers. Cities like Jakarta, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and even Bangkok (though to a much lesser degree) had and continue to have huge populations of migrants and their descendants from all over the world. From Thais and Malays, to aboriginal peoples, to Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnames, to Indians of all ethnicities, Arabs, subsaharan Africans, Europeans, etc. And those large immigrant communities have been prominent in SE Asian cities for hundreds of years.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by bricky

But couldn't you make an argument that the original NY immigrant story, the one we still think about today, what with the Statue of Liberty and crowded Manhattan tenements and sweatshops, was a heck of a lot closer to Ancient Rome, than to contemporary NY (or contemporary Toronto, London, Barcelona, etc)? After all, the great bulk of immigration to NY back then consisted of what we would today classify as white people. Jews, Southern Europeans, etc. Sure there were a relative very few Chinese, Indians, etc. But that was much more like Ancient Rome, with it's huge Mediterranean population, and relative handful of Indians, black Africans, etc.

Maybe NY was the first true global melting pot? Starting around 1980 or so? Along with LA? But it only took about 10-15 years for other cities to catch up, like London, Toronto, and now pretty much every large city in the Western world.

I would say new York became a true global melting pot before 1980. Chinatown was huge when I first visited New York in 1980. And Latinos were already here as well. I'm trying to find some historical numbers.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by muppet

Yep I think lauded would be a better word. NYC at the height of its immigration at the turn of the century was still only 40% foreign born, a figure superseded by many cities in the past and in the following years.

This is totally misleading.

First, NYC is currently 40% foreign-born, so I don't know why you need to go back to 1900. And the % foreign-born was even higher in 1900.

Second, there are very few cities in history with comparable (and obviously documented) rates of foreign-born migration, and absolutely none in a comparably sized city. A city of 500.000 with a similar foreign-born percent as a city of 8.4 million isn't remotely comparable.

Third, % foreign-born isn't remotely a proxy for either diversity or languages. I could have a 100% foreign-born city with no demographic or linguistic diversity.

Fourth, the U.S. is a gigantic country, and the % foreign-born will always be different than in a tiny country with no hinterlands. One can't compare foreign-born in Mumbai and then Singapore.

Fifth, NYC is a unique case in that the largest 20th century "foreign" migration was from a U.S. territory (Puerto Rico), and therefore it's largest migrant group doesn't even count.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

If you're going to put 1980 as the starting point, cities throughout SE Asia were global melting pots at least a hundred years before that. SE Asia is historically diverse due to the influence of East Asian traders and Islam, but it took it to a whole new level from the 18th century on (Europeans showed up in the 16th century, but were much less interested in empire building at that point). SE Asia was historically underpopulated due to a variety of factors, when the British, Dutch, and Portuguese moved in there wasn't enough local labor for the plantation style economy they wanted to build, so they brought in millions upon millions of Indian and Chinese laborers. Cities like Jakarta, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and even Bangkok (though to a much lesser degree) had and continue to have huge populations of migrants and their descendants from all over the world. From Thais and Malays, to aboriginal peoples, to Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnames, to Indians of all ethnicities, Arabs, subsaharan Africans, Europeans, etc. And those large immigrant communities have been prominent in SE Asian cities for hundreds of years.

There is a qualitative difference between Singapore and KL in 1880, and NY and LA in 1980. Different ballgame. 1980 (or 1975, or whatever), really was the start of a whole new world.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by bricky

I'm just old enough to remember prevailing wisdom in the early 90s. NY was still kind of iffy, but the big city of the future back then was LA, which was then viewed as the more multicultural of the two. In fact, (maybe from my rose tinted Junior High school student glasses), the 90s were the period of time when we were most excited about the possibilities of multiculturalism. When California and NY really were brave new worlds, things which had never existed before. Now it's.... Chinese people, big deal? What city doesn't have a large Chinese community? Mexicans? Illegal immigration. Arabs? Terrorists. Don't get me wrong, that's not my attitude. But a lot of the original excitement about multiculturalism (at least in America) seems to have subsided into worry and banality.

I pretty much agree. LA was certainly the city of the future, particularly in the 80s, when New York was just starting to turn things around.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This is totally misleading.

First, NYC is currently 40% foreign-born, so I don't know why you need to go back to 1900. And the % foreign-born was even higher in 1900.

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?

[muppet]

............