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.
Uhhh, Los Angeles by a few miles. What a question. Any question that has "capital" and "West Coast" in it will will automatically be Los Angeles except maybe technology.
The LA area still has more than 1 million black people for now, while Oakland has only 100k and fast declining. Not to mention the gangster/West Coast rap style started in LA.
What does West Coast Gangster Rap have to do with a black presence? Is black culture limited to rap now?
What does West Coast Gangster Rap have to do with a black presence? Is black culture limited to rap now?
It's just an example of one aspect of black culture that has lately come out of LA, not that its the most important part. I personally have no real dog in this fight because I despise the West Coast, but if I were forced to move west, I'd really only live around LA (even if a job elsewhere pays more).
If people on CD can't see how a place with more than 1 million black people has been more impactful and more of a presence on black culture than an area with less than 500,000 blacks and a city that has only a little more than 100,000 black people, then I don't know what to say.
California Black Demographics
LA: 1,230,023 Oakland area: 471,566
Using the percentage logic, that means that Memphis must be more of a Black capital than Atlanta or NYC is. In the real world though, when I think of a Black Californian, I think of Los Angeles.
But this thread is not about 'Black Californian'---this thread is about how strong the Black presence is inside cities and their local metropolitan area.
NOT which is the most powerful over the entire West Coast. Clearly that would be Los Angeles.
As far as how present Blacks are over the entire city, Oakland over LA by quite a margin but its easier to conquer 56 square miles than 500.
Now in the areas of Los Angeles where Blacks are dominant, those areas are far more Black than similar areas in Oakland, which tend to be a bit more diverse.
I think you have to go with Oakland as far as presence.
If you mention LA to the outsider with no knowledge they will think of Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Lakers, and a ton of other things before they get to black people.
Mention Oakland and I guarantee you blacks will be mentioned in the top two or three by most.
Though I think the AA reputation for both cities is based more on the past than present.
In the real world though, when I think of a Black Californian, I think of Los Angeles.
I tend to agree with this.
I've never lived in California, but this is what I've observed among people from there or people moving there.
I meet more black people from the LA area (obviously).
People from LA tell me to never move to the Bay because it's lame. People from the Bay generally don't have an opinion about LA one way or the other (not one I've heard anyway).
Black women say the dating scene is extremely difficult in the Bay Area. I've known several who attended Berkeley and Stanford and then moved to DC or NYC for this reason.
Most black people from the East tend to move to LA.
So I'd say it's not just the media, but it's a general perception that there's more going on for blacks in LA based on hearsay, alumni networks, etc.
I think you have to go with Oakland as far as presence.
If you mention LA to the outsider with no knowledge they will think of Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Lakers, and a ton of other things before they get to black people.
Mention Oakland and I guarantee you blacks will be mentioned in the top two or three by most.
Though I think the AA reputation for both cities is based more on the past than present.
I'm not so sure about that. On the East Coast, I'm not sure that many people really know that much about Oakland. The first thing to come to mind would probably be the Raiders. The second thing would be "California." And I'm thinking about any random non-black New Yorker I see on the street. More educated people might bring up the Panthers. Blacks would obviously bring that up and possibly mention Too $hort, MC Hammer and Hanging with Mr. Cooper. I think Northern California is typically associated with Asians more than anything else so I'm not sure if people would list "black" anything when mentioning either city. I mean, I meet a lot of people who don't think of DC (aka the "Chocolate City") as a "black" city, little less a city with fewer blacks that's 2,500 miles away.
This is just my suspicion. One way to know for sure is to go to the NYC forum and ask, "What are the first three things that come to mind when you think of Oakland?" (keeping in mind that people on C-D are probably more intellectually curious than the typical American). Seeing that I come across people who have never even heard of Howard or even know that it's in Washington, DC, I would not be surprised if many people fail to make the connection between Oakland and black culture.
At any rate, I don't think that's the best way of looking at it. There are a host of things that would come up before "black culture" if you say "NYC" to the average person. They'd probably mention the Statue of Liberty, World Trade Center, Brooklyn Bridge, MTV, Carnegie Hall, etc., etc. and get to black people/hip hop shortly after taxi cabs, pizza, subways and bagels. That said, I don't think too many people would argue that Oakland has a stronger black presence than NYC simply because someone might make the connection between "black" and Oakland before they make the same connection with "black" and NYC.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 02-21-2013 at 10:27 AM..
California Black Demographics
LA: 1,230,023 Oakland area: 471,566
Using the percentage logic, that means that Memphis must be more of a Black capital than Atlanta or NYC is. In the real world though, when I think of a Black Californian, I think of Los Angeles.
That's also because Oakland is a considerably smaller city than LA. Draw a 400 square mile area around Oakland and you tell me if the whole area is "black" and it most likely will not be.
I don't know why these is some obsession on City Data on making Northern California as relevant as Southern California when the real world evidence proves that the former is nowhere near as relevant as the latter in any sphere except maybe technology. Is it political correctness?
That's also because Oakland is a considerably smaller city than LA. Draw a 400 square mile area around Oakland and you tell me if the whole area is "black" and it most likely will not be.
But we're talking about presence. Don't you think a smaller area has something to do with that?
We're not talking about who has contributed more or anything like that. We're strictly talking presence.
I think you have to go with Oakland as far as presence.
If you mention LA to the outsider with no knowledge they will think of Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Lakers, and a ton of other things before they get to black people.
Mention Oakland and I guarantee you blacks will be mentioned in the top two or three by most.
Though I think the AA reputation for both cities is based more on the past than present.
Compton's well known by most people outside of California because of rap music. But most people living in Compton now is Hispanic. But Compton was historically a black city.
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.
