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: 
View Poll Results: Which area is more racially diverse, Southern California or The NY Metro Area (NJ, NY, CT)
Southern California 41 42.71%
The NY Metro Area 55 57.29%
Voters: 96. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
2,629 posts, read 3,348,633 times
Reputation: 1417
Quote:
i don't know why people on city-data keep downplaying the size and diversity of the greater LA area's asian population.
I wasn't trying to downplay the influence of greater LA's Asian population. Metro LA has 10 percent Asian population. I was unable to find figures on NYC's Metro Asian population but NYC and LA cities are neck and neck in the Asian category in 2000. NYC with 11% Asian and LA with 10% Asian. I'm pretty sure the LA Metro probably has a higher percent of Asians because the State of California as a whole has a higher percent of Asians than New York. But, I doubt it's that high a difference since most of New York States Asians are concentrated in NYC area where as Cali's Asian population is far more dispersed.

Far as the diversity of Asians it's about the same between NYC and L.A.. The two cities just having different types of Asian variety.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:16 AM
 
3,369 posts, read 7,337,403 times
Reputation: 1572
It's clear that you do not understand the difference between race and ethnicity, and that you do not truly understand the census and its record-keeping. I get "bent out of shape" when people make false statements, I correct them, and then those people talk to me as if I am the one that does not understand.

I don't need to tell the United States Census anything; it does a stellar job of separating out race and ethnicity only to have the media and people like you confuse and meld the two concepts together in discussions about race and race alone.

By keeping categories of race and "Hispanic" ethnicity, of course the census can keep track of who is "Hispanic" and white (or any other race) at the same time. Of course the Census can, in press releases, talk about trends in the non-"Hispanic" white population. Many people in this country are obsessed with that number, but just because some people cite to that number does NOT mean that it is a bonafide "racial" category - it is not, and the census repeatedly and explicitly states that race and "Hispanic" ethnicity are separate concepts. '

At least have enough courtesy to admit that your initial statement that 5-6 counties in the Bay Area have "no racial majority" is incorrect, and that you should have said "majority of people who are not non-Hispanic white." Regardless of how many people you can get to stand behind you (and the US Census DOES NOT) that "non-Hispanic white" should be its own category, that doesn't change the fact that that very description melds together race and ethnicity, and that in discussions about race, it is wholly inappropriate to do so. You can make references to me about "white non-Hispanic" until the cows come home, but that will not change the fact that the Census leaves no guesswork to its readers when it states that race and ethnicity are distinct and separate concepts.

I don't mind arguing with you over ethnicity or how "Hispanic" people should be counted, but it is absolutely fruitless on your part to argue with me over a matter of fact that can be easily verified by looking at the Census numbers. I "agree to disagree" on matters of opinion and matters of opinion only. The matter of fact here is that, according to the 2007 Census numbers, Alameda County is the only county in the Bay Area with no racial majority, and this discussion will come to its natural and appropriate end when you concede that.

Last edited by crisp444; 09-10-2009 at 08:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 08:24 AM
 
Location: State College,PA
275 posts, read 363,958 times
Reputation: 214
As for the difference between race and ethnicity maybe the following will clarify it:

Race and ethnicity in the United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
24,838 posts, read 31,261,547 times
Reputation: 10516
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisp444 View Post
I get "bent out of shape" when people make false statements, I correct them, and then those people talk to me as if I am the one that does not understand.
Oh, you totally understand-but feign like you don't. After a gazillion times in SSP of seeing people explain the same thing to you over and over again-you still act like your indignant over this one issue.

Get over it.

This, is 100% fact. No fabrication whatsoever.
Quote:
Non Hispanic White Population, 2007
Alameda County 37%
Contra Costa 50%
Marin 74%
Napa 59%
San Francisco 45%
San Mateo 45%
Santa Clara 38%

Santa Cruz 62%
Solano 44%
Sonoma 68%

Custom Table - American FactFinder

And I was wrong, we don't 5 non-majority counties, we actually have6.

Solano is not considered affluent but solid middle class. The other 5 are quite affluent.
Quote:
Alameda County is the only county in the Bay Area with no racial majority, and this discussion will come to its natural and appropriate end when you concede that.
I don't really need to tell you where you can put your concession do I?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 12:17 PM
 
1 posts, read 777 times
Reputation: 10
new yorkers downplay asian diversity..they think asians are all passed as the same...yet russinas,ukrainians, etc all are nitpicked to create a sense of diversity there when u can easily just call them a bunch of white people...but then they whine and cry and say we have irish,italians..etc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 01:58 PM
 
3,369 posts, read 7,337,403 times
Reputation: 1572
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Oh, you totally understand-but feign like you don't. After a gazillion times in SSP of seeing people explain the same thing to you over and over again-you still act like your indignant over this one issue.

Get over it.

This, is 100% fact. No fabrication whatsoever.




I don't really need to tell you where you can put your concession do I?
I know a lot more about race and ethnicity than most people who post on this website, and I actually read much of the census, including its explanations and comments on the actual data. I find it quite amusing when people who don't even know what the census says or how its data are collected try to argue with me over something that the census spells out very clearly. I have no problem with the United States Census; I have a problem with the people who try to talk about its statistics without understanding them and people who relay incorrect and misleading information to others on public message boards.

Again, some government employment forms and many private sector informational forms have a "white non-Hispanic" category (of course I am aware of this!); the census, however does not. You and I know very well that "white non-Hispanic" is not a true racial category because many white people are excluded from that term.

That chart you posted is true information; it lists the percentage of non-Hispanic whites in Bay Area counties. The problem with you posting this is that you made one purported factual statement (which turns out to be false, as demonstrated by 2007 Census statistics) and then tried to support it with good data - but the wrong data. I asked for an orange and you gave me a nectarine.

I gladly admit when I'm wrong (and I shouldn't have said that you manipulated the data, because you did not - you just posted the wrong data), but I do not back down when I am correct on a factual issue that is backed by empirical Census data.

Demographic statistics on the Bay Area's population speak volumes about the area's diversity; you simply did not need to say that those counties have no racial majority to make your point. I understand that it's frustrating as hell to be impeached like I have done to you, but that's what you get when you try to tell me I'm incorrect about something that could be easily verified by clicking on the link to an official government source which I supplied in my very first message to you about this topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
24,838 posts, read 31,261,547 times
Reputation: 10516
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisp444 View Post
I know a lot more about race and ethnicity than most people who post on this website, and I actually read much of the census, including its explanations and comments on the actual data. I find it quite amusing when people who don't even know what the census says or how its data are collected try to argue with me over something that the census spells out very clearly. I have no problem with the United States Census; I have a problem with the people who try to talk about its statistics without understanding them and people who relay incorrect and misleading information to others on public message boards.

Again, some government employment forms and many private sector informational forms have a "white non-Hispanic" category (of course I am aware of this!); the census, however does not. You and I know very well that "white non-Hispanic" is not a true racial category because many white people are excluded from that term.

That chart you posted is true information; it lists the percentage of non-Hispanic whites in Bay Area counties. The problem with you posting this is that you made one purported factual statement (which turns out to be false, as demonstrated by 2007 Census statistics) and then tried to support it with good data - but the wrong data. I asked for an orange and you gave me a nectarine.

I gladly admit when I'm wrong (and I shouldn't have said that you manipulated the data, because you did not - you just posted the wrong data), but I do not back down when I am correct on a factual issue that is backed by empirical Census data.

Demographic statistics on the Bay Area's population speak volumes about the area's diversity; you simply did not need to say that those counties have no racial majority to make your point. I understand that it's frustrating as hell to be impeached like I have done to you, but that's what you get when you try to tell me I'm incorrect about something that could be easily verified by clicking on the link to an official government source which I supplied in my very first message to you about this topic.
Enjoy your time out there on that ledge then.

Because regardless as to what ever other used toilet paper you choose to spew, this will still be true:
Quote:
Non Hispanic White Population, 2007
Alameda County 37%
Contra Costa 50%
Marin 74%
Napa 59%
San Francisco 45%
San Mateo 45%
Santa Clara 38%

Santa Cruz 62%
Solano 44%
Sonoma 68%

Custom Table - American FactFinder

And I was wrong, we don't 5 non-majority counties, we actually have6.

Solano is not considered affluent but solid middle class. The other 5 are quite affluent.
Anything else?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 03:51 PM
 
3,369 posts, read 7,337,403 times
Reputation: 1572
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Enjoy your time out there on that ledge then.

Because regardless as to what ever other used toilet paper you choose to spew, this will still be true:


Anything else?
How disrespectful. After I took all the time to gather Census numbers and politely explain to you why your statement was incorrect, you tell me this? What a sore loser you are. Apparently the six forumers who gave me reputation points on this thread alone beg to differ with your assessment of my writing and argumentation.

Last edited by crisp444; 09-10-2009 at 04:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
24,838 posts, read 31,261,547 times
Reputation: 10516
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisp444 View Post
How disrespectful. After I took all the time to gather Census numbers and politely explain to you why your statement was incorrect, you tell me this? What a sore loser you are.
Excuse me Mr. Concession Impeachment? Whose talking disrespect now??

LOL--good joke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2009, 04:15 PM
 
3,369 posts, read 7,337,403 times
Reputation: 1572
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Excuse me Mr. Concession Impeachment? Whose talking disrespect now??

LOL--good joke.
"Concession" and "impeachment" are terms that are embraced by the legal community. Disrespect is using ad hominem attacks to distract from the issue at hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 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. The time now is 03:56 AM.

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