And then the size of foreign-born people is also important. Given the absolute size of their populations respectively, these cities will otherwise have a different ranking.
Which English-speaking city is most culturally diverse?
Josh,
In all fairness to DJ, he may not have meant that as a racist statement. If you're trying to learn (or practice) your English, then such cities may indeed be places to avoid.
I grew up in a huge Midwestern city, and personally loved the different cultures and languages--good for practicing Spanish, Russian, Chinese, etc. But I realized early on that I could not recommend it as a place to learn English by hearing native speakers--chances are, the person you meet is an immigrant (like my grandparents) or a tourist.
I always thought that the best place to go to learn a language would be either a middle-class suburb (some place where tourists had no interest and had fewer immigrants), or a smaller city.
For example, after I visited Quebec (if you wanted to learn Quebecois French): Montreal seemed heavily immigrant (plus many Anglophones), and in the old part of Quebec City, you were more likely to meet tourists. On the other hand, a town like Trois Rivieres, or some of the suburbs of Montreal or Quebec City, seemed just right.
In all fairness to DJ, he may not have meant that as a racist statement. If you're trying to learn (or practice) your English, then such cities may indeed be places to avoid.
I grew up in a huge Midwestern city, and personally loved the different cultures and languages--good for practicing Spanish, Russian, Chinese, etc. But I realized early on that I could not recommend it as a place to learn English by hearing native speakers--chances are, the person you meet is an immigrant (like my grandparents) or a tourist.
I always thought that the best place to go to learn a language would be either a middle-class suburb (some place where tourists had no interest and had fewer immigrants), or a smaller city.
For example, after I visited Quebec (if you wanted to learn Quebecois French): Montreal seemed heavily immigrant (plus many Anglophones), and in the old part of Quebec City, you were more likely to meet tourists. On the other hand, a town like Trois Rivieres, or some of the suburbs of Montreal or Quebec City, seemed just right.
Those were pretty good stats, Dude! Kudos for looking those up!
My first thought would have been New York City for sheer diversity (people from EVERYWHERE), although I know LA is supposed to now have the largest urban population of Mexican citizens outside of Mexico City. So I usually think of LA as being heavily hispanic, sure, but lacking, perhaps, in the sheer variety that NYC has to offer.
I wonder if Brits and other Europeans simply feel the presence of other types of people more acutely since they are used to historically having a much more homogenous population (hence their wonder at the relative diversity of such large cosmopolitan cities as London or Paris), while Americans and Canadians, being from immigrant countries, take such diversity more in stride. Causing Europeans to inflate their perceptions of how many immigrants or ethnicities they have now, while Americans may in fact underestimate their own. Surely there is somewhat of a psychological gulf between these two regions of the world when it comes to that subject.
My first thought would have been New York City for sheer diversity (people from EVERYWHERE), although I know LA is supposed to now have the largest urban population of Mexican citizens outside of Mexico City. So I usually think of LA as being heavily hispanic, sure, but lacking, perhaps, in the sheer variety that NYC has to offer.
I wonder if Brits and other Europeans simply feel the presence of other types of people more acutely since they are used to historically having a much more homogenous population (hence their wonder at the relative diversity of such large cosmopolitan cities as London or Paris), while Americans and Canadians, being from immigrant countries, take such diversity more in stride. Causing Europeans to inflate their perceptions of how many immigrants or ethnicities they have now, while Americans may in fact underestimate their own. Surely there is somewhat of a psychological gulf between these two regions of the world when it comes to that subject.
I read somewhere that although Los Angeles has a huge population of foreign-born residents, that percentage is overwhelmingly dominated by one or two nationalities (Mexico being the main source of immigration), which doesn't really make it as "diverse" as a city like New York, which seems to have every nationality under the sun living in her cramped quarters.
I wonder which large English-speaking city is least diverse. I suppose we'd have to limit this to cities over 0.5 million, 1 million, 2 million, etc?
What do you think of this? Type this address for a view on a smaller city. http://www.monterey.org/langcap/
I read about a year ago in a paper issued by the Mayor of London that the foreign born people here make 40 percent of the population while in New York this is 38. The article was basically a list of statistics comparing the two cities with the conclusion that London is a better place. : )
The Wikipedia entry for New York City says that nearly 170 languages are spoken there. On the other hand, more than 300 are spoken in London. However, there are probably more Latin cultures in New York than in London, and most of these cultures speak Spanish, so languages may not be the best measure for diversity. But I do think you'll hear more different foreign languages spoken on the streets of London than in any North American city.
***But I do think you'll hear more different foreign languages spoken on the streets of London than in any North American city***
Well, from my own personal experience and auditory observation I'd go so far as to say that you'd most probably hear more different foreign languages being spoken on a single street in London than in any North American city! :-) Remember this - here in the UK we are far, far closer to a much wider range of different languages, dialects and cultures than anywhere on the North American continent.
Well, from my own personal experience and auditory observation I'd go so far as to say that you'd most probably hear more different foreign languages being spoken on a single street in London than in any North American city! :-) Remember this - here in the UK we are far, far closer to a much wider range of different languages, dialects and cultures than anywhere on the North American continent.
One thing I think that people may be forgetting about North American cities is that their white populations are more diverse than those of London.
I don't quite understand that last comment - the "white population" of London is pretty much mega diverse, especially now that so many "white immigrants" have come over to London (and, indeed, pretty much the rest of the UK as well, for that matter) from the countries of Continental Europe, mostly within the EU. There are now many small communities of various nationalities all living together in separate little colonies, as many share accommodation as it is a whole lot cheaper for them to do that as they, presumably, share all expenses. So there are Little Latvias, Little Polands, Little Estonias, Little Slovakias, Little Lithuanias, Little Czech Republics and lots of other Littles all over London (and other metro areas of the UK) - and all of them are Europeans, and therefore white. In addition to all these people are all the other ethnic groups living in similar circumstances. I'd say that makes for quite a diverse cities, wouldn't you?
>>I grew up in a huge Midwestern city, and personally loved the different cultures and languages--good for practicing Spanish, Russian, Chinese, etc. But I realized early on that I could not recommend it as a place to learn English by hearing native speakers--chances are, the person you meet is an immigrant (like my grandparents) or a tourist.<<
I would not necessarily call the Midwest the most diverse of places, even in larger cities. While the cities are more diverse than rural areas, which are *extremely* European American in character, they really are not very diverse either when compared with the likes of, say, New York.
The most important factor with larger Midwestern cities is that they are very ghettoized outside of the European American majority culture while the European American majority culture, and said ghettoized groups are generally not very diverse internally either. For instance, here in Milwaukee the population is sharply divided into European American*, black, and hispanic blocs, which both have little interaction or intermixing with each other while internally having little cultural diversity today. (Yes, you may interact with people of other groups in one's daily life, but you are not that likely to actually know all that many people belonging to another group, and you most definitely do not belong to the same culture as them at all.)
* Note that I am counting assimilated ethnically East Asian and American Indian populations as well as more affluent middle-class blacks into such in this particular context, even though they still often maintain distinct differences culturally from the European American population here, as they primarily interact with European Americans and other assimilated members of the same group in everyday life rather than with, say, the distinct black or hispanic groups.
At the same time, the European American population is internally very assimilated today even if it does not completely fit in with the national American culture completely. For instance, in the case here in Milwaukee, the European American population is very assimilated today, desite at one time having sharp internal social divisions along ethnic lines, even though it has a distinct local culture from the national American culture as a whole. For instance, while there are still lingering remains of a separate Italian American culture within Milwaukee, particularly on the East Side, the days where there were separate German and Polish Catholic churches here are long gone.
I would not necessarily call the Midwest the most diverse of places, even in larger cities. While the cities are more diverse than rural areas, which are *extremely* European American in character, they really are not very diverse either when compared with the likes of, say, New York.
The most important factor with larger Midwestern cities is that they are very ghettoized outside of the European American majority culture while the European American majority culture, and said ghettoized groups are generally not very diverse internally either. For instance, here in Milwaukee the population is sharply divided into European American*, black, and hispanic blocs, which both have little interaction or intermixing with each other while internally having little cultural diversity today. (Yes, you may interact with people of other groups in one's daily life, but you are not that likely to actually know all that many people belonging to another group, and you most definitely do not belong to the same culture as them at all.)
* Note that I am counting assimilated ethnically East Asian and American Indian populations as well as more affluent middle-class blacks into such in this particular context, even though they still often maintain distinct differences culturally from the European American population here, as they primarily interact with European Americans and other assimilated members of the same group in everyday life rather than with, say, the distinct black or hispanic groups.
At the same time, the European American population is internally very assimilated today even if it does not completely fit in with the national American culture completely. For instance, in the case here in Milwaukee, the European American population is very assimilated today, desite at one time having sharp internal social divisions along ethnic lines, even though it has a distinct local culture from the national American culture as a whole. For instance, while there are still lingering remains of a separate Italian American culture within Milwaukee, particularly on the East Side, the days where there were separate German and Polish Catholic churches here are long gone.
<<I don't quite understand that last comment - the "white population" of London is pretty much mega diverse, especially now that so many "white immigrants" have come over to London (and, indeed, pretty much the rest of the UK as well, for that matter) from the countries of Continental Europe, mostly within the EU.>>
<<I'd say that makes for quite a diverse cities, wouldn't you?>>
Of course I agree that London is a diverse city; all the cities mentioned in this thread are very diverse. However, it's going to be tough to convince me that the white population of London is as diverse as that of New York, Los Angeles or Toronto, where the ENTIRE white population is descended from immigrants.
<<I'd say that makes for quite a diverse cities, wouldn't you?>>
Of course I agree that London is a diverse city; all the cities mentioned in this thread are very diverse. However, it's going to be tough to convince me that the white population of London is as diverse as that of New York, Los Angeles or Toronto, where the ENTIRE white population is descended from immigrants.