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.
If you read my threads, everyone knows that I have a lot of respect for SF (the city as a whole). The entire Bay doesn't do it for me as it does for others. However, if one racial group is being pushed out (as in blacks), how does that increase diversity. As it I see it, you have 4 major groups in SF: white, black, hispanic and asian. Blacks are now less than 7 pct of the population. Even with the influx of asians to nearly 33 pct, how does that 'increase' diversity. The majority, which is white, hasn't gone anywhere and their hasn't been another race to enter the fray. Therefore, it doesn't seem like the city itself is becoming more diverse. I've read recently that cities like Boston and Seattle are becoming more attractive to blacks, in ad....dition to having considerable diversity in the other three races that would signal to me that they are trending toward becoming more diverse. Thoughts?
White Caucasians and Non-White Caucasians are being push out of California for the very same reasons COL...COL...COL.......There are two things pushing the African-American out of both NorCal and SoCal ..The Almighty Dollar Bill and down South the Mexican Mafia in order to expand their's criminal enterprizes.....
Surely you jest.....Hollywood was built by Jewish Californians.....
Though not nearly the concentration or numbers of NYC; proportionally would think both Boston and Philly would have an at least comparable if not higher percentages as well to LA and probably surpassing the numbers in N CA or anywhere in Oregon or WA state. Also Miami on the East has a huge Jewish population, esp relative to size and Atlanta is actually decent sized as are both DC and Baltimore. On the whole LA slightly withstanding Jewish population is more pronounced on the East Coast based on my experience
One thing for the Bay is that the core city SF is becoming less black; maybe not any less diverse on the whole
Yes, but that only means that far flung suburbs and neighboring metro areas are increasingly diverse.
I can live with that. Blacks are leaving lots of cities, not just San Francisco.
We cannot tell people where to live because its convenient for us to brag about how diverse we are. No people move on to what they perceive to be greener pastures. More power to them.
I can understand someone wanting to trade a tiny bungalow in East Oakland for a 5-bedroom mini-mansion in Sacramento county. This is what White people have been doing for about 50 years.
Furthermore it makes total sense that our Black population is not really leaving Northern California, but moving inland. If the point of moving is to upgrade, being 100 miles from San Francisco is still preferable to being 10 miles from god-knows-where. ick.
25 years ago, Philadelphian police dropped a bomb on residents of their own city and ordered the PFD to not put out the resulting fire to cause the maximum amount of damage. I'd sure love to be black there.
... All the terrible **** that's happening in the country right now and you single out LA for something that happened 20 years ago as if the same couldn't be done to every major city in America? smh
You kind of proved my point that for every city you can pick some random thing that can make a city look horrible to a minority, so it is kind of pointless. That is why I specifically said "You can say stuff like this about every city" before I used LA as an example. I chose LA because that is an obvious example and since that poster mentioned DC, I thought I would mention a West Coast city to show that the West Coast can have similar examples. So calm your self down.
Yes, but that only means that far flung suburbs and neighboring metro areas are increasingly diverse.
I can live with that. Blacks are leaving lots of cities, not just San Francisco.
We cannot tell people where to live because its convenient for us to brag about how diverse we are. No people move on to what they perceive to be greener pastures. More power to them.
I can understand someone wanting to trade a tiny bungalow in East Oakland for a 5-bedroom mini-mansion in Sacramento county. This is what White people have been doing for about 50 years.
Furthermore it makes total sense that our Black population is not really leaving Northern California, but moving inland. If the point of moving is to upgrade, being 100 miles from San Francisco is still preferable to being 10 miles from god-knows-where. ick.
If anything, it shows black Americans have covered a huge amount of ground in terms of their economic and social positions.
The notion of black people leaving inner city America for middle-class suburbs in large numbers was unthinkable even a couple decades ago because of economic disparity. Many black people fled the rural South after slavery and found residence in big cities, where they were then relegated to specific neighborhoods, barred from employment in many sectors, etc. by unspoken codes of discrimination.
Now? Not so much. A kid who grew up in San Francisco, be it down by Hunter's Point or in Central SF or wherever else he was raised, who does well in school, goes to UCSF, moves over to Oakland like many (most?) other post-college young people, and then accepts a job near Sacramento a few years later can now say, "I want to buy a 3-bedroom starter home with a yard in a safe area with good schools so that my wife and I can raise our kids the way we see fit" without worrying how his neighbors will treat him. They'll have barbecues and talk about the Giants. Hell, his neighbors are just as apt to be Filipino or Mexican as they are white...
If anything, it shows black Americans have covered a huge amount of ground in terms of their economic and social positions.
The notion of black people leaving inner city America for middle-class suburbs in large numbers was unthinkable even a couple decades ago because of economic disparity. Many black people fled the rural South after slavery and found residence in big cities, where they were then relegated to specific neighborhoods, barred from employment in many sectors, etc. by unspoken codes of discrimination.
Now? Not so much. A kid who grew up in San Francisco, be it down by Hunter's Point or in Central SF or wherever else he was raised, who does well in school, goes to UCSF, moves over to Oakland like many (most?) other post-college young people, and then accepts a job near Sacramento a few years later can now say, "I want to buy a 3-bedroom starter home with a yard in a safe area with good schools so that my wife and I can raise our kids the way we see fit" without worrying how his neighbors will treat him. They'll have barbecues and talk about the Giants. Hell, his neighbors are just as apt to be Filipino or Mexican as they are white...
Exactly.
The Bay Area and now the surrounding Metro Areas are very diverse, highly integrated places where one will find large numbers of any number of varying ethnic and racial group in locations that would not be the norm elsewhere.
Hence anomalies like Solano County being 12% Filipino.
Thanks for the last few posts. I think I get it. Blacks are moving out (at a faster rate), Asians are moving in (at a faster rate) and Hispanics/Whites are basically remaining the same. Therefore, the 4-race matrix is losing pct points on blacks but gaining them back on Asians. Which makes the racial diversity index remain relatively the same. So, it appears to this thread, if you are white, you should feel comfortable everywhere. If you are Asian, you will feel more comfortable in the Bay Area vs. perhaps anywhere else in the country. If you are Hispanic, South Florida, LA and NY metro will be more user-friendly. And if you are black, it's more likely for you to be in the South, Chicago area (although not specifically apart of this thread) or the NE corridor.
Did I gain an accurate assesment?
On a very basic level that does not take socioeconomic class, segregation, politics, etc. into account, then yeah that's more or less accurate. When talking about individuals though (such as yourself) it doesn't really do much good to speak in generalizations. For example, if you're a black person that wants to live in a socially liberal city then many parts of the South will likely not be appealing to you no matter how black they are. If you're a working class asian person with a family and you want to raise your kids in a relatively safe area where they'll thrive academically, San Francisco is not the city for you. Ultimately it just varies... for some people, other factors will be more important than race.
IMO it's not necessarily constructive to only look at race either... socioeconomic class is a very important aspect of racial experience in our country. If I were to go along with the OP of the thread though, I'd ask you to be more specific on why you think it would be better to be black in the Chicago area than in the Bay Area besides that it has a significantly larger black population.
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.
