Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To get back on the topic, what is the percentage of Italo-Irish-Polish-Jewish-Puerto Ricans in the Chicago MSA?
I think the Italian/Irish/Polish/Jewish population made up about 21% of the MSA and 41% of the Non-Hispanic, White population. I did a post on this recently. Gotta look for it.
Voila.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Boston - 48.9% of White, non-Hispanic population (36.1% of MSA)
Chicago - 40.1% of White, non-Hispanic population (21.9% of MSA)
New York - 61.7% of White, non-Hispanic population (28.8% of MSA)
Philly - 50.3% of White, non-Hispanic population (32.4% of MSA)
I didn't include Puerto Ricans for this. But Chicago's PR population is not that big relative to its MSA so it wouldn't make that much of a difference.
In cases where I can use data to make a point, I'd rather do that because perception can often differ drastically from the reality. For example, we learned that the plurality of domestic transplants to the DC Metro area come from the Southeastern U.S. It's a fact. But if you relied wholly on anecdotal evidence, then most people would probably say there were more migrants from the Northeast. People have also said "You act like White Catholics are the only people in Philadelphia," which is something I've never said, btw. But the data shows that White Catholics and Jews constitute the majority of non-Hispanic Whites in Philadelphia and NYC. Fact. Data is way more fun and interesting because it can expose the biases in our perception of things.
Is there a perception that white Catholics and Jews aren't a majority of the non-hispanic whites in Philly and NYC? I thought that was rather obvious and well-known. While I do you think you accurately represent how "white ethnic" both are, I do think you overemphasize the fact. Especially among younger people, any differences between "white ethnic" and other whites are fast disappearing, with the more relevant distinction being class rather than cultural. In the previous generation, it would be common for say, Italian-American to socialize mainly with each other and mainly marry each other. I think that's mostly gone. I wonder if your prespective might be because ethnic whites are more distinctive in the remaining "native" city neighborhoods as opposed to well-off suburbs of similar ethnicities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
In case you were interested, Italians, Irish, Poles, Jews and Puerto Ricans represent 36% of the Philadelphia MSA. African Americans make up 20%. Asians make up about 5%. So at the end of the day, we're not talking about a very "Anglo"/Protestant population in the metro area. And I only point this out because I get so much flack for focusing on these specific groups. If they make up the majority of the population, why wouldn't I?
I'm surprised it's only 36%. That leaves 39% of the population. That's a lot of white protestants.
After years of hearing Chicago and Philly were a lot alike, I'd have to say I disagree, they feel nothing alike. Philly is possibly the best representation of almost unfiltered old school east coast city, people way different, street layouts way different and more historic. Chicago is more of a midwestern amalgamation with a bit more of a white collar/big downtown presence. I'd say Chicago has more in common with New York (which isn't that much) but... more similar. I can think of a few areas that are similar. Can't say the same for Philly and Chicago.
As for the "italian" presence... the italian presence in Philly is significantly more noticeable, and almost negligible or a thing of the past in Chicago.
After years of hearing Chicago and Philly were a lot alike, I'd have to say I disagree, they feel nothing alike. Philly is possibly the best representation of almost unfiltered old school east coast city, people way different, street layouts way different and more historic. Chicago is more of a midwestern amalgamation with a bit more of a white collar/big downtown presence. I'd say Chicago has more in common with New York (which isn't that much) but... more similar. I can think of a few areas that are similar. Can't say the same for Philly and Chicago.
As for the "italian" presence... the italian presence in Philly is significantly more noticeable, and almost negligible or a thing of the past in Chicago.
Would you at least say that there is a mutual respect between the two cities?
How bout we just "simplify" this to say Portland, ME is the Deep North, Boston the North, NYC and Philly the Mid-Atlantic North, Bmore, DC and Richmond the Mid-Atlantic South, Atlanta the South and Birmingham the Deep South haha.
Maybe the best similarities are they were both heavily industrial, and are large, dense cities with parts of the city with very high violent crime rates and decay issues while the city center and large parts of the city are doing well. In general, Chicago felt like a city that was somewhat better off; the good areas of Chicago are wealthier than the good areas of Philly. But the bad areas of Philly are at least as bad as Chicago's. Philadelphia is much poorer income-wise overall, though.
Other cities:
1) New York City; much more dense and no longer has similar levels of decay and crime but is a bit post-industrial and gritty
2) Boston; not much decay, lower crime
3) San Francisco; few poor areas, almost no decay, not as much of an industrial city
4) DC; never was a big industrial city, less decay
5) Los Angeles, newer and decentralized, less decay and crime
6) Baltimore, far fewer decent areas, poorer
Is there a perception that white Catholics and Jews aren't a majority of the non-hispanic whites in Philly and NYC? I thought that was rather obvious and well-known. While I do you think you accurately represent how "white ethnic" both are, I do think you overemphasize the fact. Especially among younger people, any differences between "white ethnic" and other whites are fast disappearing, with the more relevant distinction being class rather than cultural. In the previous generation, it would be common for say, Italian-American to socialize mainly with each other and mainly marry each other. I think that's mostly gone. I wonder if your prespective might be because ethnic whites are more distinctive in the remaining "native" city neighborhoods as opposed to well-off suburbs of similar ethnicities?
We've had this conversation before. Never have I said the NYC is full of Vito Andolinis speaking Italian while tossing pizza dough up in the air. However, I have said that...
The historically larger white ethnic populations in the Northeast (as well as some of the ethnic populations in the Hispanic and Black community) have resulted in a heightened ethnic consciousness compared to other regions. And this is a salient characteristic of the region that can express itself politically in important ways in the right contexts. During the 2008 Democratic primary, for example, we observed a White Catholic vote that was quite distinct from the Protestant vote in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. And this vote was critical to our (Obama) failures there. So the differences I often talk about are a tad bit more substantive than pizza pies and water ice.
As far as differences on an individual level are concerned, I think there are some. I once asked you how you thought I, as the child of an immigrant, would differ in speech, behavior or dress from the average white person (or black person). What would make me different (phenotype aside)? You never responded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I'm surprised it's only 36%. That leaves 39% of the population. That's a lot of white protestants.
That's not what I meant nei. I said that I'm often criticized for focusing on these specific groups as if they were a minority in the region. The criticism is made as if my attention should really be focused on upper middle class Millenials residing in posh suburbs and hip urban enclaves. Their complaint is that I focus too much on these groups whereas my complaint is that there's often too much focus on a narrow demographic residing in a few select neighborhoods in most of these places. My perspective, if anything, has been shaped more by attending a Philadelphia public school that drew in kids from all over the city. So if my view of the city is more influenced by the city's outer neighborhoods rather than its trendier areas, you now know why.
After years of hearing Chicago and Philly were a lot alike, I'd have to say I disagree, they feel nothing alike. Philly is possibly the best representation of almost unfiltered old school east coast city, people way different, street layouts way different and more historic. Chicago is more of a midwestern amalgamation with a bit more of a white collar/big downtown presence. I'd say Chicago has more in common with New York (which isn't that much) but... more similar. I can think of a few areas that are similar. Can't say the same for Philly and Chicago.
Do you think Chicago is more similar to New York because of the larger white-collar presence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
