The US is a widely diverse country, including internally. Milwaukee is quite segregated, Sacramento isn't. There is a wide spread, depending on where you are. Overall, the US is about average diversity compared to other countries.

> Overall, the US is about average diversity compared to other countries.

I don't think that's accurate. Europe is almost entirely European, Asia is almost entirely Asian, Africa is almost entirely African. Even Wisconsin at 86.5% white is less white than most European countries. And Milwaukee itself is 40% black and 17.3% Latino.

The countries that come anywhere close to the US on diversity are predominantly the other countries in the Americas.

You're musunderstanding segregation and ethnicity. For instance, Milwaukee is widely regarded as the most segregated city in America. Their overall population total isn't the issue; its that neighborhoods within the city are overwhelmingly uniform.

Of course Asia is full of Asians; but they represent an incredible diversity of ethnicities. In some areas, they are geographically mixed, in others not.

Diversity and segregation are two different things. If you had a city that was 100.0% Vietnamese then there would be no "segregation" within that city but it also isn't particularly diverse. And adding an equal number of Hawaiians wouldn't reduce the diversity even if there was 100% segregation between them.

Moreover, if you can bisect Asians into Japanese and Koreans etc. then you can bisect whites into Irish and German, Latinos into Colombians and Venezuelans, blacks into Jamaicans and Haitians etc. And if you're going to play that game then why aren't the racially segregated areas still internally diverse in the same way? Certainly they are as much as the countries that consist almost entirely of that category of people are.

Yes, you are correct, diversity and segregation are two different things, which is why I broke them out.

My original comment was to explain how the statement, "Knowing that the US is probably one of the most segregated countries . . . " is incorrect.

> I don't think that's accurate. Europe is almost entirely European, Asia is almost entirely Asian, Africa is almost entirely African

This has to be sarcasm, right?

If not, this view is very wrong because it views diversity in a manner that's purely and literally skin deep.

When people talk about diversity, the diversity they want is typically cultural, but race and culture are strongly correlated. There aren't a lot of ethnic Africans who are culturally Japanese or ethnic Europeans who are culturally African American.

Which means there aren't a lot of people of any race who are culturally Japanese in Africa or culturally African American in Europe.

Trust me, if it's culture you're interested in, Europe has more established cultural differences between white peoples from completely different language groups within small European countries than between African Americans and non-African Americans, and we didn't even have to impose Jim Crow laws to achieve this.

> Trust me, if it's culture you're interested in, Europe has more established cultural differences between white peoples from completely different language groups within small European countries than between African Americans and non-African Americans, and we didn't even have to impose Jim Crow laws to achieve this.

The category "white people in America" has that level of cultural diversity inside of it. It includes millions of first generation immigrants from all of those places. Plus millions of people descended from those cultures who over the past centuries have developed them into something uniquely American, melding them in a thousand cities with the cultures of all the other immigrant populations that have come here since then.

And we can't pretend that no country in Europe has ever sinned. Or any country anywhere for that matter.

If you factor in economics that picture gets worse for the US relative to most countries. The divide between rich and poor is large and growing.

Right behind France and it’s Parisian suburbs, no monsieur?

Absolutely.

Segregation is probably a more chronic problem there than it is or was ever here.

  But Saint-Denis is not a rich neighborhood.

  It's what the French call a "banlieue."

  Literally translated, the word means "suburb," but 
  it has come to be associated with the depressed, mostly 
  immigrant neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city
  where unemployment is high and opportunity scarce.

  "If you look at the situation of people, you 
  understand the path they have taken to become a 
  terrorist or whatever you call it," Villain told 
  CBS News correspondent Vladmir Duthiers. "Exclusion 
  makes the terrorist, in my opinion."

  .
  .
  .

  The French government does not keep statistics 
  based on race or religion, but surveys have found 
  unemployment is as high as 30 percent in these immigrant 
  neighborhoods.[1]

[1] Les Banlieues: Searching for the seeds of terror

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-banlieues-seeds-of-terror...

I wonder if you've ever even been to Saint-Denis?

Segregation in France is absolutely nothing like what you see in America where, outside three or four major cities, different races, no matter how rich or poor, are absolutely cordoned off from one another and do not ever attend the same schools [1]. If you actually go to Saint-Denis you will find everything from Russian Jews to Moroccan Muslims to Nigerians to good ol' fashioned ("from before Napoleon took over the world") French families. It's an extremely diverse hood, the kind you'd only saw 30 years ago in America's largest cities.

[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/3/5/17080218/school-segregation-get...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/16/segreg...

I saw a study a couple years back remarking on how job applicants without french last names would have far fewer call backs.