Toronto's ethnocultural communities before 1945

[wild goose chase]

Virtually all Catholics were Irish at the time.

Toronto's first large minority group wasn't particularly segregated, and didn't make up a majority of any ward, but were concentrated more in the eastern part of the city and along the waterfront.

It's interesting that in terms of relative proportion of Irish, Toronto wasn't that far off from Boston at some points in history (and even today it seems like Toronto's Irish-descended population isn't small for a North American city) yet did not really form such strong Irish enclaves nor leave as enduring of a cultural legacy as in Boston.

There are St. Patrick's day parades and celebrations as in many cities with an Irish diaspora (Chicago dyes the river green), yet it seems like strong Irish-Canadian (Newfoundland's obviously a different story) identities aren't "played up" as much in a city like Toronto or other large Canadian cities for that matter than their many US counterparts, not just Boston (for example, I have rarely heard Torontonians, besides very recent immigrants claim to be very proudly Irish in the way that many Irish-Americans in Massachusetts or elsewhere do and display as many cultural markers/symbols despite being third/fourth generation etc.), so maybe it has to do with this lack of segregation early on. I wonder if early Irish immigrants as you showed in the wards integrated more easily because of less hostility towards Catholics than stateside or something else?

 

[Admiral Beez]

There is, however, much more of a tendency now to identify as English rather than (just) British among people primarily or exclusively associated with England. '

I identify as English more than British, with a recorded family tree going back at least 520 years, including my great-great.......ancestor who was beatified by the Pope in the 1980s. The English are a people, albeit like most, a people cobbled together through migration and invasions; while British is a passport.

Interestingly, my generation of the family are the first sully (as my wife laughingly calls it) the bloodlines, with myself all my first cousins back in Britain marrying non-English folk, including Chinese, Jamaican, Ukrainian, Polish and Ugandan-Indian.

 

[wild goose chase]

Thinking back to the title of this thread, the point in the OP that some of the pre-1945 (or even pre-1960s) communities are not as well-known in Toronto does seem to case now that I think of it. Many other cities in North America have made their pre-1945s communities very well known and iconic of their cities in a way Toronto doesn't, and unlike Toronto which tends to be associated with the most recent immigrants, other cities are often associated in the public's eye with past waves of immigrant even more sometimes than with the current ones, even in cases where the past waves are well assimilated. For instance, Boston is still strongly associated with the Irish even though they immigrated generations ago and the subject of culture shock between an Irish-American and actual Irish from Ireland is already commonly known enough to be almost a cliche. People associate New York city with its iconic Irish, Italian, Yiddish-speaking Jewish, Puerto Rican populations etc, though New York has people from all over the world now and continues to have a high (near 40%) foreign born population, so it's not unlike Toronto in the latter sense. Yet in these cases, the cities (in the public image) are associated with groups that are well established, even long after their immigration peaks were over (if they no longer speak the language, live in enclaves no more, or even if some of those communities had already moved to the suburbs outside the boundaries of the iconic city, such as many Italian-Americans in cities associated with Italians). Toronto on the other hand tends to have its early or mid 20th century immigrant history not as emphasized, and is more perceived as going from "mostly ancestry from the British Isles" as mentioned in the OP, to "people from all over the world" in a generation or two.

 

[King of Kensington]

It's interesting that in terms of relative proportion of Irish, Toronto wasn't that far off from Boston at some points in history (and even today it seems like Toronto's Irish-descended population isn't small for a North American city) yet did not really form such strong Irish enclaves nor leave as enduring of a cultural legacy as in Boston.

There are St. Patrick's day parades and celebrations as in many cities with an Irish diaspora (Chicago dyes the river green), yet it seems like strong Irish-Canadian (Newfoundland's obviously a different story) identities aren't "played up" as much in a city like Toronto or other large Canadian cities for that matter than their many US counterparts, not just Boston (for example, I have rarely heard Torontonians, besides very recent immigrants claim to be very proudly Irish in the way that many Irish-Americans in Massachusetts or elsewhere do and display as many cultural markers/symbols despite being third/fourth generation etc.), so maybe it has to do with this lack of segregation early on. I wonder if early Irish immigrants as you showed in the wards integrated more easily because of less hostility towards Catholics than stateside or something else?

Boston received more post-Famine Irish. Another difference is that Boston was already 200 years old when the Irish came, while the Irish were basically here at the founding of the city (the Famine was only 15 years after Toronto was incorporated in 1834). The tension between Irish and Yankees lingered for a long time. From what I've read, the Irish in Boston took longer to move up the economic ladder compared to other cities such as Chicago and San Francisco.

Even today, a remarkable 40% or so of Irish in Boston say they're "only" Irish, which is remarkable given most are fourth generation or beyond at this point. There is also a swath of suburbs that are heavily Irish south of the city.

Nowhere in the US is Irish ancestry so pronounced, though there are pockets of Irishness in the New York area (in the Bronx and Yonkers in particular which also attracted more recent immigration) as well.

 

[King of Kensington]

Thinking back to the title of this thread, the point in the OP that some of the pre-1945 (or even pre-1960s) communities are not as well-known in Toronto does seem to case now that I think of it. Many other cities in North America have made their pre-1945s communities very well known and iconic of their cities in a way Toronto doesn't, and unlike Toronto which tends to be associated with the most recent immigrants, other cities are often associated in the public's eye with past waves of immigrant even more sometimes than with the current ones, even in cases where the past waves are well assimilated. For instance, Boston is still strongly associated with the Irish even though they immigrated generations ago and the subject of culture shock between an Irish-American and actual Irish from Ireland is already commonly known enough to be almost a cliche. People associate New York city with its iconic Irish, Italian, Yiddish-speaking Jewish, Puerto Rican populations etc, though New York has people from all over the world now and continues to have a high (near 40%) foreign born population, so it's not unlike Toronto in the latter sense. Yet in these cases, the cities (in the public image) are associated with groups that are well established, even long after their immigration peaks were over (if they no longer speak the language, live in enclaves no more, or even if some of those communities had already moved to the suburbs outside the boundaries of the iconic city, such as many Italian-Americans in cities associated with Italians). Toronto on the other hand tends to have its early or mid 20th century immigrant history not as emphasized, and is more perceived as going from "mostly ancestry from the British Isles" as mentioned in the OP, to "people from all over the world" in a generation or two.

Toronto was as monolithic as the narrative suggests, but it was not particularly multicultural until the 1960s. In this respect, Toronto's trajectory resembles more that of London than that of New York. London wasn't particularly multicultural in the early to mid 20th century either; only 4% were foreign born in 1951. London received good numbers of Irish immigrants in the mid-19th century and later Eastern European Jewish immigrants in the early 20th but since London was already huge they didn't make up a large percentage of the population.

 

[wild goose chase]

Toronto was as monolithic as the narrative suggests, but it was not particularly multicultural until the 1960s. In this respect, Toronto's trajectory resembles more that of London than that of New York. London wasn't particularly multicultural in the early to mid 20th century either; only 4% were foreign born in 1951. London received good numbers of Irish immigrants in the mid-19th century and later Eastern European Jewish immigrants in the early 20th but since London was already huge they didn't make up a large percentage of the population.

Another analogy or comparison I kind of had in mind was maybe one of the Australian cities like Sydney or Melbourne. In some ways despite the large geographical distance a hemisphere away, Toronto shares certain demographic features with them that are quite different from geographically closer American cities -- larger and later British migration, which also continued relatively late into the mid to latter half of the 20th century, Southern European immigration waves like Italians and Greek that was post-war and noticeably later than their American counterparts enough to still have many speakers of the language today, post-1960s Asians (East and South) being the largest visible minority rather than African or Latin American, and an overall narrative of diversity, apart from whites and aboriginals, being associated with recent immigration rather than a long-standing native-born population, as with African-Americans in the US. London or Paris also has its diversity (of ethnic minorities) being fairly new but there is still a long-standing colonial association (eg. South Asians, Afro-Caribbean in the UK, Algerians in France etc.).

 

[wild goose chase]

Boston received more post-Famine Irish. Another difference is that Boston was already 200 years old when the Irish came, while the Irish were basically here at the founding of the city (the Famine was only 15 years after Toronto was incorporated in 1834). The tension between Irish and Yankees lingered for a long time. From what I've read, the Irish in Boston took longer to move up the economic ladder compared to other cities such as Chicago and San Francisco.

Even today, a remarkable 40% or so of Irish in Boston say they're "only" Irish, which is remarkable given most are fourth generation or beyond at this point. There is also a swath of suburbs that are heavily Irish south of the city.

Nowhere in the US is Irish ancestry so pronounced, though there are pockets of Irishness in the New York area (in the Bronx and Yonkers in particular which also attracted more recent immigration) as well.

Was the religion of the Irish immigrants relatively speaking more or less a factor in local tensions there as compared with Toronto? I know overall English Protestant Canadians were thought to be more accommodating to Catholics because of the whole historic French-English divide and all that, but since Toronto didn't really have that many Quebecois migrating anyways I'm not sure how relevant it would be if many of the people in Toronto encountered the Catholics first as immigrants.

 

[King of Kensington]

Another analogy or comparison I kind of had in mind was maybe one of the Australian cities like Sydney or Melbourne. In some ways despite the large geographical distance a hemisphere away, Toronto shares certain demographic features with them that are quite different from geographically closer American cities -- larger and later British migration, which also continued relatively late into the mid to latter half of the 20th century, Southern European immigration waves like Italians and Greek that was post-war and noticeably later than their American counterparts enough to still have many speakers of the language today, post-1960s Asians (East and South) being the largest visible minority rather than African or Latin American, and an overall narrative of diversity, apart from whites and aboriginals, being associated with recent immigration rather than a long-standing native-born population, as with African-Americans in the US. London or Paris also has its diversity (of ethnic minorities) being fairly new but there is still a long-standing colonial association (eg. South Asians, Afro-Caribbean in the UK, Algerians in France etc.).

Yup, though I guess the difference between Toronto (and Montreal) and the Australian cities is that the latter never received mass immigration of Eastern European Jews in the early 20th century. The Australian cities were probably as Anglo-Celtic as London, maybe even more so.

 

[wild goose chase]

The tension between Irish and Yankees lingered for a long time. From what I've read, the Irish in Boston took longer to move up the economic ladder compared to other cities such as Chicago and San Francisco.

I was just thinking about the question of whether or not in the past (or even now), as a general rule, ethnic communities of new immigrants faced less hardship/opposition or tensions with the locals, from moving to a city where most of the other residents are "new" too or from a city where most of the residents belong to other long-standing communities with strong ethnic identities. It makes sense to argue that tensions might be higher when "old-stock" communities meet new immigrants (like with the Irish and Yankees in Boston) because the older group perceives the newer one as disrupting/changing the established culture, yet immigrant vs. immigrant conflicts have been common too (like Italians vs. Irish in New York's history) and sometimes immigrant groups throughout history have perceived each other as competition, or even one generation of assimilated immigrants start to oppose the next wave. Toronto was a lot younger than Boston when the Irish came, but then again Sydney had the 2005 Cronulla riots between Lebanese Australians and Anglo-Celtic Australians, with the latter calling themselves the "Aussies", draping themselves in the Australian flag etc. during the riot, even though many Anglo-Celtic Australians might themselves not be many generations farther removed from Australia. So, perhaps, there is no general rule with whether assimilation is harder or easier in a "new" or "old" city.

 

[wild goose chase]

Yup, though I guess the difference between Toronto (and Montreal) and the Australian cities is that the latter never received mass immigration of Eastern European Jews in the early 20th century. The Australian cities were probably as Anglo-Celtic as London, maybe even more so.

I'm guessing that Australia was either less preferable as a destination for many non-British immigrants than North America, perhaps had more favoritism towards British immigrants or else was less convenient than North America geographically for getting onto a boat, whether for seeking opportunity or fleeing conflict.

I guess Canada benefits from being so close to the US for appeal so that immigrant waves were often shared between them in North America (as they are even today where people still often say Canada loses skilled immigrants to the US through brain drain). But I do wonder why in some cases Canada and the US have their immigrant waves' peak coincide at the same time (eg. Eastern European Jews in Canada and the US) which might be expected, but in other cases their peaks don't (like Italians or perhaps Greeks in Canada, which peaked more in sync with Australia's peak than that of the US). I get that say 1920s American big cities must have seemed much more opportunity-rich than their, at the time far smaller, Canadian counterparts so I can see why many groups preferred the former, but I don't get what would make 1950s and 1960s Canada (or Australia for that matter) still enticing to some groups, say a would-be Italian emigrant, when cities south of the border no longer were.

 

[King of Kensington]

Policy. The US put up restrictions in 1924 which cut off the flow of eastern and southern European immigration, while Canada and Australia had more liberal immigration policies in the postwar years. Also it isn't accurate to say Italians stopped immigrating to the US, it received something like 500,000 Italian immigrants after WWII, though this was more skewed to the New York area than the mass migration of the early 20th century. Most Italian neighborhoods in NYC today are heavily populated by those from the postwar wave and their descendants.

It's not as if Italians planning to emigrate just decided around 1950 they now preferred Canada and Australia and no longer wanted to go to the US.

 

[the lemur]

I identify as English more than British, with a recorded family tree going back at least 520 years, including my great-great.......ancestor who was beatified by the Pope in the 1980s. The English are a people, albeit like most, a people cobbled together through migration and invasions; while British is a passport.

So someone whose background is say, English and Welsh, or Scottish and English, doesn't get to call themselves British?

 

[the lemur]

I'm guessing that Australia was either less preferable as a destination for many non-British immigrants than North America, perhaps had more favoritism towards British immigrants or else was less convenient than North America geographically for getting onto a boat, whether for seeking opportunity or fleeing conflict.

Australia opened its doors to Commonwealth citizens after WW2 because there was a belief that the country needed more people if it were ever in danger of being invaded. The program to encourage immigration included subsidizing the cost of travel to Australia and was extended to people from other countries in Europe (Italy, Greece, Turkey, the Netherlands, etc.) throughout the 1950s and '60s. However, immigration was restricted to whites only until the 1970s.

Fun fact: beneficiaries of this program included members of the Bee Gees, the Easybeats and AC/DC, as well as 2 prime ministers and Hugh Jackman's parents.

 

[wild goose chase]

It seems like in general, since the US has long been the most attractive place for would-be immigrants, Canada was often seen as a "second option" instead. There was/is a perception that immigrants used Canada as a stepping stone to get to the US or that Canada receives immigrants who would have otherwise gone stateside but couldn't.

I know Canada trying to compete with the US for attracting immigrants or even just enticing many skilled/educated people, immigrant or otherwise, to stay put (I still remember talk of the "brain drain" with Canadian doctors in the 90s), has long been a "thing". There's been a long history of enticing people to "consider Canada" whose target destination would be the US otherwise (whether it be selling the Last Best West to prospective settlers back when the US frontier already closed, or more recent campaigns like Jason Kenney's "Pivot to Canada" ads in Silicon Valley).

I wonder if there is an immigration wave that actually chose or arrived at Canada first over the US, or an example of a diaspora whose Canadian members arrived earlier than its American members? Most immigrant waves tend to have the US community be either older (eg. Italian Americans/Canadians), or close to similar in the time they arrived (Chinese Americans /Canadians) to seek opportunity in North America.

 

[King of Kensington]

Note also that in the late 19th century net migration to Canada was actually negative as so many (immigrants and Canadian-born alike) departed to the US.

ETA: Maybe the Irish could be said to be an "older" group in Canada than the US. The Newfoundland Irish immigrated well before the Famine years, between 1750 and 1830.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Newfoundlanders