Time Out lists the 'world's best' cities for 2021

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Antares41

This is all very interesting. But it is known that Argentina did at one time had a sizable Afro-Argentinian population that is until the Paraguayan War ( ie: The War of the Triple Alliance ).

Yes. Uruguay and Rio Grande do Sul state have even more well-known Black communities. Blacks and the Portuguese/Spanish colonists were later overwhelmed by the massive waves of Italian/Spanish (Uruguay) and Italian/German (Rio Grande do Sul) immigrants.

Brazil was also much more Mixed/Black by the time of Paraguayan War. The first census conducted in the country was in 1872 and it showed the smallest share of White population ever recorded: only 37%.

Then Europeans started to arrive in big numbers, bringing the White population to 60% in 1940 Census. Foreigners (all Europeans/Lebanese/Japanese) also reached an all-time high by that time, over 10% of population. And since then, the share of Whites start to fall to about 40%-42% today.

[Antares41]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Yes. Uruguay and Rio Grande do Sul state have even more well-known Black communities. Blacks and the Portuguese/Spanish colonists were later overwhelmed by the massive waves of Italian/Spanish (Uruguay) and Italian/German (Rio Grande do Sul) immigrants.

Brazil was also much more Mixed/Black by the time of Paraguayan War. The first census conducted in the country was in 1872 and it showed the smallest share of White population ever recorded: only 37%.

Then Europeans started to arrive in big numbers, bringing the White population to 60% in 1940 Census. Foreigners (all Europeans/Lebanese/Japanese) also reached an all-time high by that time, over 10% of population. And since then, the share of Whites start to fall to about 40%-42% today.

Yes, all very true. I was always fascinated by the fact that many of the coastal South American countries (san Chile) have sizable Black population. But Argentina was always puzzling and never made any sense until I dove into its history and began to understand how its Black population was decimated by war and disease. Those remaining were finally assimilated to the point of being nearly non-existing. Although my understanding now is that in many countries in South America are starting to more openly embrace and acknowledgement their "African roots".

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Antares41

Yes, all very true. I was always fascinated by the fact that many of the coastal South American countries (san Chile) have sizable Black population. But Argentina was always puzzling and never made any sense until I dove into its history and began to understand how its Black population was decimated by war and disease. Those remaining were finally assimilated to the point of being nearly non-existing. Although my understanding now is that in many countries in South America are starting to more openly embrace and acknowledgement their "African roots".

I confess I don't know much about other South American countries history. Brazil is very insular, and history is focused on Brazil itself and the World (meaning Europe).

I find odd, for instance, the relatively big numbers of Blacks in Pacific coast countries like Peru and Ecuador. Their football team, for instance, is much more Black than either Indigenous/Mixed. I've never stopped to read on how/why they got there.

As I mentioned, I don't know the details on Argentina, but in Brazil, slave mortality was incredibly high. Several times higher than it was in the United States. Birth rates were also very low and the abhorrent slavery practice relied pretty much exclusively on more and more arrivals from Africa.

Indeed, at least in Brazil, people are talking more about racism, Black activism, but it's still very associated to the political left and it's not embraced by the society or even by Blacks as a whole. Mixed people in general, much more numerous, don't even see themselves as Blacks, although socioeconomically speaking, they're on the same boat.

It's nice to see things moving on the right direction though.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I confess I don't know much about other South American countries history. Brazil is very insular, and history is focused on Brazil itself and the World (meaning Europe).

I find odd, for instance, the relatively big numbers of Blacks in Pacific coast countries like Peru and Ecuador. Their football team, for instance, is much more Black than either Indigenous/Mixed. I've never stopped to read on how/why they got there.

As I mentioned, I don't know the details on Argentina, but in Brazil, slave mortality was incredibly high. Several times higher than it was in the United States. Birth rates were also very low and the abhorrent slavery practice relied pretty much exclusively on more and more arrivals from Africa.

Indeed, at least in Brazil, people are talking more about racism, Black activism, but it's still very associated to the political left and it's not embraced by the society or even by Blacks as a whole. Mixed people in general, much more numerous, don't even see themselves as Blacks, although socioeconomically speaking, they're on the same boat.

It's nice to see things moving on the right direction though.

I think Argentina is beginning to pay more attention to its slave past and history of Afro-Argentinians From what I can tell, many Argentinians weren't even aware that as recently as a century ago Argentina had a sizable population of black people. Though, if you visit Argentina now you would never know that. The country has virtually no visible black population. Brazil's black population is far more visible.

Chile also doesn't have a very visible population of black Chileans. But there are a substantial number of Haitian immigrants in Santiago.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think Argentina is beginning to pay more attention to its slave past and history of Afro-Argentinians From what I can tell, many Argentinians weren't even aware that as recently as a century ago Argentina had a sizable population of black people. Though, if you visit Argentina now you would never know that. The country has virtually no visible black population. Brazil's black population is far more visible.

Chile also doesn't have a very visible population of black Chileans. But there are a substantial number of Haitian immigrants in Santiago.

Argentinian colonialism is an issue that should be explored more. Recently I read white colonists in the late 19th century wiped off entire tribes in Patagonia by casually killing all of them.

Argentina, Australia, Canada became so European that was easy for them to forget their colonial past. Countries like the US, Brazil, South Africa and even New Zealand have always had sizeable or even “majority-minority” as a reminder of those crimes.

[Antares41]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I confess I don't know much about other South American countries history. Brazil is very insular, and history is focused on Brazil itself and the World (meaning Europe).

I find odd, for instance, the relatively big numbers of Blacks in Pacific coast countries like Peru and Ecuador. Their football team, for instance, is much more Black than either Indigenous/Mixed. I've never stopped to read on how/why they got there.

As I mentioned, I don't know the details on Argentina, but in Brazil, slave mortality was incredibly high. Several times higher than it was in the United States. Birth rates were also very low and the abhorrent slavery practice relied pretty much exclusively on more and more arrivals from Africa.

Indeed, at least in Brazil, people are talking more about racism, Black activism, but it's still very associated to the political left and it's not embraced by the society or even by Blacks as a whole. Mixed people in general, much more numerous, don't even see themselves as Blacks, although socioeconomically speaking, they're on the same boat.

It's nice to see things moving on the right direction though.

Thanks, I appreciate your perspective.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I've never been to Liverpool or Manchester, but you can apparently get from city to city in 40 minutes by train. That brings it well into plausibility that you can live in one place and commute on a daily basis to the other place. I would consider that to be the same region.

I had a Glaswegian waiter in Edinburgh tell me he doesn't go back to Glasgow much because it's "too far." It's a 59 minute drive.

Europeans have a different concept of space. I've done many 5-hour-by-bus daytrips to New York from DC. But that's longer than London-Edinburgh on the Liner, which Brits will tell you is a journey.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by 10023

Birmingham is the second largest metro area.

There are some differences in definition between “metro area” and “urban area” here. An American CSA would be more like a metro area.

An American CSA would be like an entire British region. A London CSA would be upwards of 20 million people.

A British metro area is like our urban area, with a small veneer of countryside.

[nito]

Liverpool and Manchester are only 50km apart, and both have developed distinct cultural identities (accent, football teams, music, etc…) but they are undeniably heavily integrated as a poly-centric city region, hence the level of infrastructure (two direct trains lines, with the fastest trains <40mins, other rail lines connecting each region, three major roads, etc…). The UK Government wants to increase the level of integration further as part of a project to rival and compliment London, which is why a third high-speed high-frequency line (HS3/NPR) is being developed that would bring journey times from Manchester to each of Liverpool and Leeds to just 25mins.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

I had a Glaswegian waiter in Edinburgh tell me he doesn't go back to Glasgow much because it's "too far." It's a 59 minute drive.

Europeans have a different concept of space. I've done many 5-hour-by-bus daytrips to New York from DC. But that's longer than London-Edinburgh on the Liner, which Brits will tell you is a journey.

That's because those local urban centers have lots of things to offer. I, for instance, in a typical day never leave Downtown (just to work, but it's just outside of it). I'm aware many people in Manhattan hardly ever go out of the island.

Someone leaving in let's say Dallas suburban sprawl, unless not mind being locked at home, will have to drive long distances to do anything.

Originally Posted by nito

Liverpool and Manchester are only 50km apart, and both have developed distinct cultural identities (accent, football teams, music, etc…) but they are undeniably heavily integrated as a poly-centric city region, hence the level of infrastructure (two direct trains lines, with the fastest trains <40mins, other rail lines connecting each region, three major roads, etc…). The UK Government wants to increase the level of integration further as part of a project to rival and compliment London, which is why a third high-speed high-frequency line (HS3/NPR) is being developed that would bring journey times from Manchester to each of Liverpool and Leeds to just 25mins.

I follow the Conservative Party social media and they're always talking about developing the country outside London, so we'll definitely see lots of regional planning there. A 25 minute-commute, for instance, would completely unify the job market. The average commute in São Paulo, for instance, is 50 min according to the Brazilian Statistical Office.

And distinct cultural identities are not an obstacle for metropolitan areas formation. Hence, Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Someone leaving in let's say Dallas suburban sprawl, unless not mind being locked at home, will have to drive long distances to do anything.

False.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I follow the Conservative Party social media and they're always talking about developing the country outside London, so we'll definitely see lots of regional planning there. A 25 minute-commute, for instance, would completely unify the job market. The average commute in São Paulo, for instance, is 50 min according to the Brazilian Statistical Office.

And distinct cultural identities are not an obstacle for metropolitan areas formation. Hence, Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe.

Except Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe are actually, you know, connected.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

I had a Glaswegian waiter in Edinburgh tell me he doesn't go back to Glasgow much because it's "too far." It's a 59 minute drive.

We also have that in the U.S. Even though you can see Manhattan from Newark, NJ, you have people in Newark that haven't visited in NYC in years, and they'd be just as lost trying to navigate the city as a tourist from the Midwest.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

We also have that in the U.S. Even though you can see Manhattan from Newark, NJ, you have people in Newark that haven't visited in NYC in years, and they'd be just as lost trying to navigate the city as a tourist from the Midwest.

I'm from the Midwest and I have absolutely no problem navigating NYC, by foot, subway or cab, because it's a grid, and you know, there's always Google Maps. I think New Yorkers like to perpetuate the myth that NYC is difficult to get around. It's legit not difficult at all, and not to mention that we're constantly reminded by the news or mass media (literature, film, tv, magazines, pop culture nonsense) where significant cultural markers are located, let alone smaller ones.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by sentinel

there's always Google Maps.

this is a really good point.

map apps have made it orders of magnitude easier to navigate unfamiliar locales.

not just in NYC, but literally everywhere.

there'd be absolutely no possible way to track this, but i'd still be curious to know how the frequency of the phrase "excuse me, can you tell me how to get to......." has PLUMMETTED now that everyone is walking around with their very own personal map assistant in their pocket at all times.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I'm from the Midwest and I have absolutely no problem navigating NYC, by foot, subway or cab, because it's a grid, and you know, there's always Google Maps. I think New Yorkers like to perpetuate the myth that NYC is difficult to get around. It's legit not difficult at all, and not to mention that we're constantly reminded by the news or mass media (literature, film, tv, magazines, pop culture nonsense) where significant cultural markers are located, let alone smaller ones.

Obviously I'm talking about a generic tourist that is completely unfamiliar with navigating NYC.

[aaronevill]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I'm from the Midwest and I have absolutely no problem navigating NYC, by foot, subway or cab, because it's a grid, and you know, there's always Google Maps. I think New Yorkers like to perpetuate the myth that NYC is difficult to get around. It's legit not difficult at all, and not to mention that we're constantly reminded by the news or mass media (literature, film, tv, magazines, pop culture nonsense) where significant cultural markers are located, let alone smaller ones.

I work in a large, famous hotel in NYC. I can assure you, most midwestern tourists are quite bewildered and frightened about navigating NYC. It is because it is unlike anything they have ever seen or had to deal with. I grew up in suburban St. Louis which is a very anti-urban region. My parents think a strip mall is glory and Applebee's = food. This is true of almost everyone there. I have lived here for 20 years and my suburban parents still can't figure out how to get to my apartment. I deal with thousands of people every year because of my job. My parents are not unique. You are.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by aaronevill

I work in a large, famous hotel in NYC. I can assure you, most midwestern tourists are quite bewildered and frightened about navigating NYC. It is because it is unlike anything they have ever seen or had to deal with. I grew up in suburban St. Louis which is a very anti-urban region. My parents think a strip mall is glory and Applebee's = food. This is true of almost everyone there. I have lived here for 20 years and my suburban parents still can't figure out how to get to my apartment. I deal with thousands of people every year because of my job. My parents are not unique. You are.

Highly HIGHLY debatable, but I'll take it as a compliment. And nothing else

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I'm from the Midwest and I have absolutely no problem navigating NYC, by foot, subway or cab, because it's a grid, and you know, there's always Google Maps. I think New Yorkers like to perpetuate the myth that NYC is difficult to get around. It's legit not difficult at all, and not to mention that we're constantly reminded by the news or mass media (literature, film, tv, magazines, pop culture nonsense) where significant cultural markers are located, let alone smaller ones.

Yes, but you live in Chicago.

There is an ocean of difference between you and a random guy from Missouri

[Acajack]

I've been to many of the world's largest cities and of course oodles of smaller ones, and I find New York (well, Manhattan) one of the easiest places to navigate - at least to a person who's used to cities.

The grid system, the numbered streets and avenues, and the familiarity that many people around the world have with a number of landmarks really do help a lot.

I suppose it's different for Vern and Ethel from Cornhusk, Nebraska, but their main challenge isn't NYC specifically, but just that they're not used to cities in general.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Yes, but you live in Chicago.

There is an ocean of difference between you and a random guy from Missouri

"Jack Donaghy : We're going to find the perfect person for the show down here

[in Georgia]

Jack Donaghy : . Someone who represents the *Real America*.

Liz Lemon : Jack, for the 80th time, no part of America is more American than any other part.

Jack Donaghy : You are wrong. Small towns are where you see the kindness and goodness and courage of everyday Americans. The folks who are teaching our kids, running our prisons, growing our cigarettes. People who are still living by core American values.

Liz Lemon : There are plenty of core American values in New York. But there are not restaurants called "Fatty Fat Sandwich Ranch." Turn here! Turn here!"

The message from the quote above is still very true - there is really, legitimately no difference between me "and a random guy from Missouri." As Steely echoed, the internet makes information available to anyone, anytime, and yes, that includes making it easier to get around NYC, regardless of whether or not you're from Chicago, Missouri, or "Sexcriminalboat" whatever state that's in.