Which city on the West Coast has the strongest Black presence (people, downtown)
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.
Well, that's what I said. I don't know what more you expect me to say after I've already said that Oakland would have the advantage when looking at the city limits alone.
There's definitely a balancing act at work. If you have a large city like New York that had more blacks than the entire state of California at one time, and you have a city with far fewer raw numbers but a higher percentage, it's hard to say what the magic formula would be for determining which city has the strongest "black presence." Oakland, for example, has a higher percentage of blacks than NYC, but few would say it has a stronger black presence. Birmingham, on the other hand, has such a high percentage of blacks that many people would say that it has an advantage over NYC in that regard (and has generations of black families and culture to boot). There's no mathematical formula that's going to provide a right answer here.
Points taken, but I dont think its that complicated.
So which city would you say has a stronger black presence: Charlotte (35%, 263,000) or New York (23%, 1.9 million)?
If 'stronger' is defined by size and proportion to the entire population, then Blacks are a larger, more visible group in Charlotte-that is indisputable, 35 is larger than 23.
Presence within a geographic area is most easily defined by how visible a group is.
Now I understand where your coming from, but I still dont think its that complicated.
If 'stronger' is defined by size and proportion to the entire population, then Blacks are a larger, more visible group in Charlotte-that is indisputable, 35 is larger than 23.
But is it really that simple? Yes, Charlotte has a higher percentage, but it's not that much higher given the absolute numbers at issue. 1.9 million is a whole lot larger than 263,000. Charlotte doesn't really feel "super" black like Atlanta or Birmingham given its much lower percentages. And NYC's black population is so extremely large that it often seems that blacks are all over the place. If being immersed in black culture and a black "presence" was really your thing (and that was most important to you), then I'm not sure if this decision would be so cut and dried.
Do you mean cultural impact or black presence? Those aren't the same... Oakland has had a stronger black presence than LA arguably since the 50's and definitely since the 60's.
I get the feeling we are circling wagons here. I don't see how we can compare the cities simply due to size. And after that how are we defining "black presence" anyway? We can't be talking numbers. So are we talking influence? Are we talking politics? Are talking pop culture? The idea of black presence (outside of sheer numbers) in this thread seems to be a moving target.
As an example, no California city can compare to Atlanta. It has a long history of black luminaries that come from the city. It has been the cite of many Civil Rights struggles. Its significance to African American culture goes all the way back to the Civil War. And on top of all that it still has a comparatively large black population in both percentage and raw numbers. New Orleans is another example.
While both Oakland and Los Angeles have their share of black historical highlights its nothing like that. So that is why this conversation is odd to me. No one is confusing LA or Oakland with being black "meccas" today.
According to the Census the LA Metro has 895,931 blacks or roughly 900,000. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the Bay Area has a stronger black presence than LA... on the metro level, it doesn't. The East Bay however does; all of the East Bay counties are more than 7% black. The North Bay that borders the East Bay also has a significant black population; Solano County (Fairfield, Suisun City, Vallejo, etc.) is 14.7% black. All this is to say that blacks are very statistically significant and otherwise on the Oakland side of the Bay.
Right, but LA Metro comprises a city that is nearly 500 square miles of it's "proper" and "incorporated" cities and then an area that expands over 60 miles north through Palmdale and Lancaster and about 40 miles east to the fringes of Montclaire/SanBdo Cnty. and about 42 miles south to the fringes of Orange County.. That's a HUGE swath of land. Even 900,000 or 1,200,000 is not large when you take into account that it is comprised of 87 cities surrounding the second largest city in the US which has a population of 4,000,000.
If 'stronger' is defined by size and proportion to the entire population, then Blacks are a larger, more visible group in Charlotte-that is indisputable, 35 is larger than 23.
Presence within a geographic area is most easily defined by how visible a group is.
Now I understand where your coming from, but I still dont think its that complicated.
My household of 4 is 100% black. I guess that means my house is more of a black cultural hub and center than all of New York City
Well, that's what I said. I don't know what more you expect me to say after I've already said that Oakland would have the advantage when looking at the city limits alone.
There's definitely a balancing act at work. If you have a large city like New York that had more blacks than the entire state of California at one time, and you have a city with far fewer raw numbers but a higher percentage, it's hard to say what the magic formula would be for determining which city has the strongest "black presence." Oakland, for example, has a higher percentage of blacks than NYC, but few would say it has a stronger black presence. Birmingham, on the other hand, has such a high percentage of blacks that many people would say that it has an advantage over NYC in that regard (and has generations of black families and culture to boot). There's no mathematical formula that's going to provide a right answer here.
And I'd even argue that numbers alone aren't the most relevant factor. One must also take history and culture into account. Cities today that are attracting large numbers of Blacks don't necessarily have the cultural hallmarks that still serve as defining features and points of pride for us today, such as longstanding Black political leadership, historically important Black neighborhoods, Black institutions, music, art, cuisine, etc.--at least to the same degree as the more notable historic Black population centers do.
And I'd even argue that numbers alone aren't the most relevant factor. One must also take history and culture into account. Cities today that are attracting large numbers of Blacks don't necessarily have the cultural hallmarks that still serve as defining features and points of pride for us today, such as longstanding Black political leadership, historically important Black neighborhoods, Black institutions, music, art, cuisine, etc.--at least to the same degree as the more notable historic Black population centers do.
Oakland has all of the above, and unlike many historically black cities it's just as culturally vibrant now.
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.
