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.
I'd say Los Angeles. One friend from Philly described SoCal as "free wheeling." I loved that. Slightly more so than San Francisco and the Bay Area. The Bay Area just wears "tolerance" on its sleeve better.
I have heard that Sacramento is actually the most diverse city in the US. Isn't that funny, for a "cow town?" It's a relatively small metro area, but every kind of person from all over lives there, so it IS believable, though most of the smaller ethnic groups do not have an identifiable neighborhood. It certainly has large Chinese, Vietnamese, black, Hispanic and Russian areas.
Someone said Honolulu. That's a head-scratcher, since the locals have had the derisive word "howli" (sp), describing a white person, in their vocabulary for quite a while.
Seattle has not had enough time to be racially tolerant. They have no minorities out there. If seattle had the amount of minorities near it in the way SF does to Oakland or the way Manhattan beach does to Inglewood, Seattle would be a way different place.
I find it odd when people from Seattle try to preach racial tolerance....everyone is asian and white, over there.
I beg to differ. Unless you've been to Seattle you're just another armchair philosopher looking at statistics on the web
If you've ever been to the Leschi neighborhood or in the Rainier Valley, heard the Ethiopian and Nigerian etc etc etc in the US's MOST DIVERSE ZIP CODE (check it out, the US Census Bureau backs me up), then you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
IMO, the most racially tolerant cities in order are as follows.
1. Sacramento
2. Oakland
3. San Francisco
Is it a wonder they are all within a 80 mile radius of one another in Northern California?
Sacramento is very racially integrated. Characteristics here is that people just "get along". They don't impose their values or culture on others, and they are respectful of other peoples' boundaries. Odd for a capitol, people here are generally apolitical and a bit oblivious to "social issues". Sacramento is very solidly middle class, and I think because of that, it's a very realistic and excellent model of racial integration for the rest of America. Simply because it is a "regular" city with most people focused on family, work, football on weekends, etc. There are a lot of different people here and they just get along.
Oakland is very well integrated. It is much more political than Sacramento and is known as a bastion of leftist and Black Nationalist politics. Nevertheless, Oakland also has a large Asian population, as well as a very liberal White population. Oakland does have some major poverty, but I think that's also part of what makes it more "real", as far as having many working class folks living side by side.
San Francisco is a bastion of tolerance and racial integration, but just not as seamlessly as the other two. While SF preaches a lot about tolerance, the fact is, that it is a very elitist city. San Franciscans tend to be very aware about social issues, and can also be quite intellectually snobby. I think people who are conservative socially will especially feel this. In addition, SF, whether by culture or by economics, has essentially priced out a lot of poorer minorities, who tend to be mostly Black and Hispanic. So the city is very much a White and Asian world despite its enormous and visible diversity (most of the people you see in SF on a daily basis probably are from outlying towns or tourists). However, overall, I would still rank SF near the very top in tolerance because it is a place that ACTIVELY seeks to be tolerant and embracing of all races.
I lived in Los Angeles for five years. I did not put it on this list because I really felt it was a mixed bag. Coming from Norcal, it certainly felt far more racially stratified and segregated. Yes, there are many races, yes, it is the most, if not, second most diverse city in terms of the amount of ethnicities you have in the US, and yes, you do see a lot of interaction between races, but it just didn't feel as harmonious or seamless as compared to a Norcal city. In Los Angeles, you are just as likely to see negative as well as positive interactions between races, and the distrust between different ethnicities is also far higher than in Norcal. Perhaps this has something to do with living in such a big, competitive city where stress levels are so high. But LA did not feel very harmonious racially.
However, I believe Los Angeles is probably still a far more tolerant and progressive place than the vast majority of the US. Just not as much as Norcal.
As a San Francisco resident I would say this is a very liberal city. But it's easy to be tolerate when you don't have to interact with different races. Take the Mission for instance, the hipsters ignore the latinos and the latinos ignore the hipsters. In 5 years Valencia will be just like union street but with tattoos. I was at Amnesia in the Mission on Wed night for the jazz jam and gypsy jam. Some girl tried to take my picture as I was listening to the music. I asked her why and she said she wanted to put the pic on facebook. If informed her that I was not her friend and that she probably doesn't know any black people anyway. I was the only black dude there. So here I am in the Mission in a packed bar and I could count the people of color on one hand. I would say that 85% of Oakland or Sacramento wins as far as the Bay area is concerned. I can't blame SF or the tech industry for pricing people out. But people like my friend from Jordan who owns a store here would rather live outside of SF. As a side note there was an article on the front page of the Chronicle last week that noted how the family exodus was leaving SF whiter and more asian. I think that is fine, but don't call SF a diverse city. nothttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/09/MNQ91NI428.DTL
I would imagine Minneapolis and San Francisco would be among the most racially tolerant.
Sorry, Minneapolis is politically correct and "Minnesota Nice." I don't see it as tolerant. I can hardly see some "lip-service liberal" Scandinavian family breaking bread with some newly arrived Peruvian family on the block, let alone talk to them. Minneapolis and Seattle are liberal in the same kind of way - I'll tolerate you, just stay out of my way and my life.
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.
