The Irish

[WislaHD]

Muslims again are not a cultural group. Its a religion. Italians and germans were cultures (other nationalities). Why do people constantly mix the 2 up?

Why do people constantly insist on placing western world concepts such as 'nationality' and 'ethnicity' on the rest of the world? Especially on places like the Middle East where they do not strictly apply?

Why do you think Iraqi forces fled when ISIS approached Mosul? The Iraqi army had no affiliation with the Iraqi state beyond their loyalty to Saddam Hussein. Shia and Kurdish soldiers had no reason to defend a Sunni city.

 

[King of Kensington]

1) The majority of Scotch-Irish Americans aren't Celts

They're certainly not. The so-called Celtic Thesis is pseudo-history nonsense.

 

[King of Kensington]

C) Toronto was probably the WASPiest city in the world in the late 19th-early 20th century. Don't underestimate the conflict between protestants (old guard) and Catholics (almost every immigrant).

London and most cities in England would have been WASPier 100 years ago. Or do you just mean North American major cities? Then that's probably true.

 

[King of Kensington]

To answer my own question, London was about 5% Irish Catholic, 2% German and 2% Jewish in 1901. So Toronto would have been a bit more diverse in terms of percentages (much more Irish for instance) but hardly dramatic. Liverpool and Glasgow would had higher percentages that were Irish Catholic than Toronto and pretty much every major US city except Boston. US cities weren't especially diverse before 1900 either - the big difference being large German immigrants in major cities.

By 1931, Toronto was 7% Jewish, while London was about 3-4%. However in sheer numbers London's Jewish and Irish populations would have far larger and they certainly formed significant ethnic enclaves. Toronto of course couldn't match the large Jewish/Italian populations of New York or the Poles in Chicago for instance that arrived in the early 20th century.

 

[wild goose chase]

B) Immigration patterns used to involve entire towns coming over, with the process taking decades. One difference now is the desire of some second-generation Canadians to return, but the raw numbers are tiny.

Second generation return migration to ancestral homelands probably happened in the past too, but I'm not sure what the stats would be like compared to now. Return migration is way more common among the first generation since they've got firsthand experience of the homeland though -- I know among immigrants, return rates could be high in some groups even in the 19th century or 20th century, such as among Italian Americans.

C) Toronto was probably the WASPiest city in the world in the late 19th-early 20th century. Don't underestimate the conflict between protestants (old guard) and Catholics (almost every immigrant).

London and most cities in England would have been WASPier 100 years ago. Or do you just mean North American major cities? Then that's probably true.

Wouldn't some places in say, British Columbia, fit the bill? Or what about Australian or New Zealand cities?

To answer my own question, London was about 5% Irish Catholic, 2% German and 2% Jewish in 1901. So Toronto would have been a bit more diverse in terms of percentages (much more Irish for instance) but hardly dramatic. Liverpool and Glasgow would had higher percentages that were Irish Catholic than Toronto and pretty much every major US city except Boston. US cities weren't especially diverse before 1900 either - the big difference being large German immigrants in major cities.

By 1931, Toronto was 7% Jewish, while London was about 3-4%. However in sheer numbers London's Jewish and Irish populations would have far larger and they certainly formed significant ethnic enclaves. Toronto of course couldn't match the large Jewish/Italian populations of New York or the Poles in Chicago for instance that arrived in the early 20th century.

What Toronto couldn't match in terms of non-British Isles European immigrants (including what stateside some would have called "ethnic whites" in the 20th century) in the early 20th century, Toronto made up by receiving more in the mid and later 20th century. Also, Britain and France were surprising diverse even despite being seen as "Old World" nations -- in the 20th century they received immigration not only from other European countries but also from their former colonies (you'll see third and fourth generation Arab or Algerian French and Jamaican and Pakistani British, that you'd be hard pressed to find even in Montreal or Toronto). Sometimes non-US locations can have their immigration histories underestimated -- for example, few North Americans often realize how much Italian immigration Argentina got.

In terms of diversity, Toronto also lacked some of the pre-1965, but still 20th century non-European migration components of US cities (eg. the Puerto Ricans of New York, other Hispanics such as Mexicans in some US cities, and of course the Great Migration, which was internal to the US) but did have a small Caribbean wave similar to New York's.

 

[WislaHD]

Sometimes non-US locations can have their immigration histories underestimated -- for example, few North Americans often realize how much Italian immigration Argentina got.

All of Latin America received heavy immigration. Latin American countries are just like the USA or Canada, they have large diasporas of various immigrant groups. There are over 1 million Lebanese people in Venezuela for one example.

What people don't realize, is that Argentina was as wealthy per capita as Canada or United States back in 1910. For a prospective European immigrant, Argentina was as suitable of a country to immigrate to as North America, economically speaking.

 

[King of Kensington]

Yeah, Argentina and Canada were actually quite comparable a century ago, in terms of wealth, economies etc.

I believe around 50% of all Argentinians have Italian ancestry.

 

[King of Kensington]

Wouldn't some places in say, British Columbia, fit the bill? Or what about Australian or New Zealand cities?

Yes - though was Van a "major city" then? BC had the most British immigrants per capita among Canadian provinces.

And Australia/NZ yes was more Anglo-Celtic than Canada, including Ontario, even then. Canada received sizable continental European immigration in the early 20th century (albeit dwarfed by the numbers in the US), but Australia/NZ did not. It was around 95% British/Irish until after WWII.

 

[wild goose chase]

Canada received sizable continental European immigration in the early 20th century (albeit dwarfed by the numbers in the US), but Australia/NZ did not. It was around 95% British/Irish until after WWII.

Despite the US having had more continental European immigration than Canada which in turn had more than Australia/NZ, surnames like Smith, Brown and Williams are shared among the most common last names in these countries.

In the US, English and Spanish names top the list of the most common few dozen surnames. In Canada, English, French/Quebecois and Asian/Chinese surnames top the list. And in Australia and New Zealand, it is mostly English names, though the latter, like Canada has some Asian names further down the list.

Names that are continental European, such as German, Italian etc. don't seem to show up, but this could be because they are more evenly divided or split among various linguistic origins. Additionally, many Americans with some continental European names like Germans, Scandinavians, etc. anglicized their last names, and African Americans often have English-origin last names too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_common_surnames_in_North_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_common_surnames_in_Oceania

http://allaboutcities.ca/comparing-cities-through-surnames/

All of Latin America received heavy immigration. Latin American countries are just like the USA or Canada, they have large diasporas of various immigrant groups. There are over 1 million Lebanese people in Venezuela for one example.

Latin American diversity seems often overlooked because North Americans often consider Latin Americans/Hispanics as a single "group" (including on the US and Canadian censuses), regardless of ethnic/ancestral origins.

This seems especially the case in the states, where demographic stats are often reported by separating the Hispanic group from non-Hispanic groups (be they black, white, Asian etc.), regardless of "race".

 

[wild goose chase]

Yes - though was Van a "major city" then? BC had the most British immigrants per capita among Canadian provinces.

I wonder if the fact that British Columbians (and to an extent other Canadian westerners) are more likely to descend from immigrants who arrived from overseas just a couple to few generations ago, than eastern Canadians who went west, seems to explain why there doesn't seem that many Canadians whose families are spread very wide across the country from coast to coast (eg. British Columbians with cousins who are Nova Scotians) compared to in the States, where you often hear more about someone living in California visiting family in Pennsylvania or vice versa.

While in the US, the narrative of the west being settled by easterners who seek the excitement and allure of the frontier looms large in the national consciousness, in Canada the two coasts (or the coast and the interior of the country), seem far more disconnected.

 

[JGHali]

Plenty of Nova Scotians (and other Maritimers and Newfoundlanders) have family around the country (the reverse also being true of course).

 

[King of Kensington]

I wonder if the fact that British Columbians (and to an extent other Canadian westerners) are more likely to descend from immigrants who arrived from overseas just a couple to few generations ago, than eastern Canadians who went west, seems to explain why there doesn't seem that many Canadians whose families are spread very wide across the country from coast to coast (eg. British Columbians with cousins who are Nova Scotians) compared to in the States, where you often hear more about someone living in California visiting family in Pennsylvania or vice versa.

While in the US, the narrative of the west being settled by easterners who seek the excitement and allure of the frontier looms large in the national consciousness, in Canada the two coasts (or the coast and the interior of the country), seem far more disconnected.

Yes, I think that assessment is basically correct. In the 1931 census for example only 20-25% of the population in the western provinces were made up of Canadian-born with both parents born in Canada. While in the States, migrants from "back east" played a bigger role. However Ontarians were significant enough for the "Ontario accent" to spread westward. Of the western provinces, the Ontario accent was strongest in Manitoba.

Alberta and BC did get lots of eastern transplants later, but that was after WWII.

 

[WislaHD]

While in the US, the narrative of the west being settled by easterners who seek the excitement and allure of the frontier looms large in the national consciousness, in Canada the two coasts (or the coast and the interior of the country), seem far more disconnected.

It is funny, because the Prairies were largely settled by recent migrants to Ontario who then headed west. (Like Ukrainians)

Plenty of Nova Scotians (and other Maritimers and Newfoundlanders) have family around the country (the reverse also being true of course).

Nowadays this is probably more common, especially Maritimers who went looking for work in Alberta. But I think wild goose chase was thinking more about older waves of cross-country migration.

 

[animatronic]

I believe around 50% of all Argentinians have Italian ancestry.

They also picked up a few Germans in the late 1940s.

 

[Johnny Au]

A few things:

Brazil and Peru have quite large Japanese populations.

Note that not all Chinese immigrants are from China! Countries as disparate as Thailand and Jamaica both have significant Chinese populations and both groups have immigrants to Canada bypassing China completely.