U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 01-05-2012, 08:58 AM
 
Location: New York, NY
180 posts, read 184,761 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenchild08 View Post
I would say Northern California cities (i.e. Sacramento, Oakland) are more racially harmonious than SoCal cities. L.A. has one of the highest rates of segregation in the country. Although L.A. is very diverse, it is incredibly segregated. In recent years, tensions between Mexicans and native born Blacks in formerly Black majority areas have been widely publicized in the media with stories of Mexican gang bangers randomly victimizing Black people. The L.A. area is also known for being a big racist White Skinhead capital of the country as well.

The 10 most segregated urban areas in America | Slide Show - Salon.com

Afterall, the 1992 L.A. riots were fueled by racial tension between Korean business owners in L.A. ghettos along with a mostly White occupying police force dealing with a seething oppressed ghettoized Black population. All of that racial tension exploded into widespread violence not seen in decades in L.A. in 92'. Racial tensions definitely exist in Northern California cities like San Francisco. Native born Blacks, as a whole, have definitely been priced out of SF or pressured to leave due to poor conditions in The City's remaining Black neighborhoods. Oakland has become much more diverse in the past few decades. Oakland, which used to be pretty much Black majority from the 70's through the 90's at an undercounted 47%, is now one of the most (if not the most) diverse city in America with almost all races (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian) represented equally.

News Headlines

Many parts of Oakland are unusually integrated as well as you can see from this 2010 Census map study:

Infographics of the Day: How Segregated Is Your City? | Co.Design
I think there needs to be a distinction between racially harmonious and integrated. I think that the West Coast is by FAR more integrated than the East Coast. There is more diversity in each given neighborhood in San Francisco or Los Angeles compared to New York. For instance, you often find in New York, neighborhoods in the boroughs are either overwhelmingly one race - White (anything below 96th St), African-American (parts of Brooklyn and Queens are 90something percent black according to NYTimes - www.projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer (http://www.projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer - broken link), Latino (South Bronx), and Asian (Flushing, Chinatown etc.); whereas neighborhoods in SF and LA are often a little of this and a little of that.
However, when it comes to coexisting harmoniously, I don't find that there are much rivalries between the races, most likely because there is a smaller presence of gangs in New York in comparison to LA (not sure about SF). On the West Coast, there are more gangs, particularly gangs based on race. And I think that is what fuels wars against different races etc.
In the Midwest, its more of a white vs. everyone else. And while cities in the Midwest are certainly not integrated (Milwaukee is one of the most segregated cities in the U.S.), people generally keep to themselves, from what I can tell.

 
Old 01-05-2012, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
15,977 posts, read 8,631,104 times
Reputation: 5554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Apparently complex beliefs are an alien concept to you... Good to know the next time I consider spending my time debating you.
Don't be mad because you contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you tout the racial harmony of the Bay Area. On the other hand, you say that blacks and Asians really only deal with each other on a "customer basis" and that "there's no relationship between the two communities." Do you not see how those two statements are at odds with each other? If we are to take you at your word, then black-Asian relations in the Bay Area aren't really any different from black-Asian relations in DC, NYC, Minneapolis, or anywhere else. If there's "no relationship between the two communities," then what is it about the Bay Area that makes it so different from everywhere else?

Last edited by BajanYankee; 01-05-2012 at 10:35 AM..
 
Old 01-05-2012, 10:11 AM
 
171 posts, read 25,407 times
Reputation: 34
Man, this is like Stone Cold Steve Austin vs. The Rock back in the 90's, between BajanYankee & Nineties Flava. And this popcorn is off the chain!
 
Old 01-05-2012, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
15,977 posts, read 8,631,104 times
Reputation: 5554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaframalama View Post
Man, this is like Stone Cold Steve Austin vs. The Rock back in the 90's, between BajanYankee & Nineties Flava. And this popcorn is off the chain!
Too bad I can't see the pics in my browser.

But we're not even bickering. I think my line of questioning is germane to the discussion. Either blacks and Asians live together in racial harmony or there is, as Nineties Flava said, "no relationship between the two communities." Which is it?

If by "racial harmony" we mean that they simply respect each other and don't yell racial epithets at each other regularly, then pretty much all cities in the U.S. are equally racially harmonious. Hence my first few replies in this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I don't think there's an answer to the question. All cities seem to be the same to me
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
pretty much every major American city is racially harmonious (especially if that means a lack of overt and apparent racism).
And I still haven't gotten an answer about what the racially inharmonious cities are. Jackson, MS? Dallas? Memphis? I've been all over the South and haven't noticed any difference in the way I was treated by people of all races. I think people figure that if a place is full of conservative Republicans that all of the people are seething racists at heart. Well, that has not been my experience.

Last edited by BajanYankee; 01-05-2012 at 10:27 AM..
 
Old 01-05-2012, 10:34 AM
 
171 posts, read 25,407 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Too bad I can't see the pics in my browser.

But we're not even bickering. I think my line of questioning is germane to the discussion. Either blacks and Asians live together in racial harmony or there is, as Nineties Flava said, "no relationship between the two communities." Which is it?

If by "racial harmony" we mean that they simply respect each other and don't yell racial epithets at each other regularly, then pretty much all cities in the U.S. are equally racially harmonious. Hence my first few replies in this thread:





And I still haven't gotten an answer about what the racially inharmonious cities are. Jackson, MS? Dallas? Memphis? I've been all over the South and haven't noticed any difference in the way I was treated by people of all races. I think people figure that if a place is full of conservative Republicans that all of the people are seething racists at heart. Well, that has not been my experience.

I'd have to say that some areas may be more racially accepting than others, and more racially insular than others. To what degree, the mitigating factors in these, and which cities, I also believe is virtually impossible to tell. This is a purely subjective thread, attaining to the OP.
 
Old 01-05-2012, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
15,977 posts, read 8,631,104 times
Reputation: 5554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaframalama View Post
I'd have to say that some areas may be more racially accepting than others, and more racially insular than others. To what degree, the mitigating factors in these, and which cities, I also believe is virtually impossible to tell. This is a purely subjective thread, attaining to the OP.
It is completely subjective. You can't say that one city is more "racially harmonious" than another because these assessments are made entirely on anecdotal evidence. "In Oakland, blacks and Asians mix together unlike NYC where people don't even leave their building!" Or "Mobile is definitely not on the list because it's in the South!" When I was in Mobile, I saw a lot of South Asian kids hanging out with black kids at the mall. Maybe I just happened to go there on a good day. Perhaps they're all fighting on the other days and throwing dog poo at each other's houses.
 
Old 01-05-2012, 10:49 AM
rah
 
Location: San Francisco
3,097 posts, read 4,948,864 times
Reputation: 2166
This looks like your typical day in Golden Gate park...no festivals are needed to see that kind of diversity in the Bay Area:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
It has nothing to do with "Bay Area hating." If you go to any large city with a large yuppie population, you will find whites going to jazz festivals (some might even have dreds). In DC for example...



http://zingsnap.typepad.com/.a/6a011...0f93970b-500wi



http://www.thea-blast.org/wp-content...09/malcolm.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
San Francisco's black population is only 6 percent and has never exceeded 13 percent. That means that the odds of actually even seeing a black person in San Francisco are not as great as they are in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia or Detroit. The threat of black violence in the Bay Area was (is) far more existential there than it was (is) in many other cities. It's not that whites are simply more magnanimous in the Bay Area than they are anywhere else. It's just that the number of blacks there has never been large enough to create the same level of discomfort in whites.
And you continue to speak on what you know little about. Whites never had the same level of "discomfort" around blacks in SF? Than why was the Fillmore District destroyed? Hint: racism. Why did SF have crime-ridden black ghettos pop up not long after it gained most of it's black population in WWII? Hint: white flight (aka, racism). Also, you may want to read up on the Zebra Murders, in which an SF-based, radical offshoot of the Nation of Islam went around randomly murdering white people on the streets of SF, over the course several months in the 1970s. They randomly killed 16 white people (mostly with the same .32 caliber pistol, though they also used a machete a couple times), and wounded 10 more, just because they were white (or "white devils" as they put it). It literally put a stranglehold on the city because people were scared to go outside and potentially become the next victim. Tourism and the economy actually suffered from it. It sure as hell made a lot of white people feel quite a bit of "discomfort", especially the racist ones of course. Also, you know what the SFPD's response was at one point, when another Zebra Murder victim popped up? They went around SF's black neighborhoods in the middle of the night, and arrested every single man and boy they saw hanging around outside (they knew the suspects were black men)...they arrested over 500 people in one night, all innocent, and it was based on their skin color. And that was only 40 years ago. Sounds pretty damn racist and oppressive to me.

SF even had a race riot in Hunters Point, in 1966 (which including looting and shootouts with police and the national guard). Seriously, educate yourself before you make all these claims that black people had it so good in the Bay Area in comparison. They may have had it better than the deep south, but that's not saying too much, given the fact that racism was rampant throughout the nation back then.

You may also want to know that the black population in SF has a murder rate higher than Chicago or Oakland. There are less black people here than either city, but there is a ton of crime in SF's black community...it's disproportionate, even by the already disproportionately bad standards in most other black ghetto areas. So there's another reason for racist people to have "discomfort" regarding blacks in SF.

Of course California/the Bay has a much shorter history of repression against blacks compared to much of the nation though, seeing as the vast majority of them arrived during WWII to work in war industries (for example, in 1940 Oakland was only 2.8% black, and SF was only 0.8% black). It was still a very racist time though. Thankfully CA never had slaves to begin with so I would guess that overall there was probably a little less ingrained animosity against black people, compared to South Carolina or something. But there was still more than enough racial problems, regardless...the same kinds that all around the nation resulted in race riots and the transformation of black areas into high-crime ghettos.

So you're somewhat right, in that California experienced less racism against blacks in total, seeing as it had almost no black people for around a century (it's kind of hard to be racist against black people when there are few of them around, right?)...BUT much of what CA did experience was just as bad as what you'd find elsewhere in the nation, aside for the south (which had Jim Crow laws, and obviously a history of extreme racism that was born out of slavery).
 
Old 01-05-2012, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Austin, Texas
2,561 posts, read 1,982,062 times
Reputation: 2343
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
This looks like your typical day in Golden Gate park...no festivals are needed to see that kind of diversity in the Bay Area:





And you continue to speak on what you know little about. Whites never had the same level of "discomfort" around blacks in SF? Than why was the Fillmore District destroyed? Hint: racism. Why did SF have crime-ridden black ghettos pop up not long after it gained most of it's black population in WWII? Hint: white flight (aka, racism). Also, you may want to read up on the Zebra Murders, in which an SF-based, radical offshoot of the Nation of Islam went around randomly murdering white people on the streets of SF, over the course several months in the 1970s. They randomly killed 16 white people (mostly with the same .32 caliber pistol, though they also used a machete a couple times), and wounded 10 more, just because they were white (or "white devils" as they put it). It literally put a stranglehold on the city because people were scared to go outside and potentially become the next victim. Tourism and the economy actually suffered from it. It sure as hell made a lot of white people feel quite a bit of "discomfort", especially the racist ones of course. Also, you know what the SFPD's response was at one point, when another Zebra Murder victim popped up? They went around SF's black neighborhoods in the middle of the night, and arrested every single man and boy they saw hanging around outside (they knew the suspects were black men)...they arrested over 500 people in one night, all innocent, and it was based on their skin color. And that was only 40 years ago. Sounds pretty damn racist and oppressive to me.

SF even had a race riot in Hunters Point, in 1966 (which including looting and shootouts with police and the national guard). Seriously, educate yourself before you make all these claims that black people had it so good in the Bay Area in comparison. They may have had it better than the deep south, but that's not saying too much, given the fact that racism was rampant throughout the nation back then.

You may also want to know that the black population in SF has a murder rate higher than Chicago or Oakland. There are less black people here than either city, but there is a ton of crime in SF's black community...it's disproportionate, even by the already disproportionately bad standards in most other black ghetto areas. So there's another reason for racist people to have "discomfort" regarding blacks in SF.

Of course California/the Bay has a much shorter history of repression against blacks compared to much of the nation though, seeing as the vast majority of them arrived during WWII to work in war industries (for example, in 1940 Oakland was only 2.8% black, and SF was only 0.8% black). It was still a very racist time though. Thankfully CA never had slaves to begin with so I would guess that overall there was probably a little less ingrained animosity against black people, compared to South Carolina or something. But there was still more than enough racial problems, regardless...the same kinds that all around the nation resulted in race riots and the transformation of black areas into high-crime ghettos.

So you're somewhat right, in that California experienced less racism against blacks in total, seeing as it had almost no black people for around a century (it's kind of hard to be racist against black people when there are few of them around, right?)...BUT much of what CA did experience was just as bad as what you'd find elsewhere in the nation, aside for the south (which had Jim Crow laws, and obviously a history of extreme racism that was born out of slavery).
According to these guys the south isn't as bad as San Francisco.


James Baldwin Take This Hammer Part 1 - YouTube
 
Old 01-05-2012, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
15,977 posts, read 8,631,104 times
Reputation: 5554
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
This looks like your typical day in Golden Gate park...no festivals are needed to see that kind of diversity in the Bay Area:
That was a typical day in Meridian Hall Park. Next.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
So you're somewhat right, in that California experienced less racism against blacks in total, seeing as it had almost no black people for around a century (it's kind of hard to be racist against black people when there are few of them around, right?)...BUT much of what CA did experience was just as bad as what you'd find elsewhere in the nation, aside for the south (which had Jim Crow laws, and obviously a history of extreme racism that was born out of slavery).
Simple question.

In which scenario is racial tension likely to be greater:

2.2 million blacks (21% of the total population) or
47,000 blacks (6% of the total population)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
You may also want to know that the black population in SF has a murder rate higher than Chicago or Oakland. There are less black people here than either city, but there is a ton of crime in SF's black community...it's disproportionate, even by the already disproportionately bad standards in most other black ghetto areas. So there's another reason for racist people to have "discomfort" regarding blacks in SF.
No, I really didn't want to know that. But it's not surprising...San Francisco is known for killers.



http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Page...pson-glove.jpg
 
Old 01-05-2012, 01:40 PM
 
171 posts, read 25,407 times
Reputation: 34
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.


Closed Thread

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top