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.
You know it goes both ways, right? It's not just whites on blacks....in fact, I'd say that's quite rare these days. Unfortunately, that doesn't rectify anything and the fact remains that a.) some people/places still have a ways to go towards being mostly/completely integrated, and b.) 95%+ of ALL people would never go to said lengths to express their angst about things they don't understand....thankfully. But I've heard stories about racism and violence from just about every sect of society (and have experience of my own), so I feel like it's more of a humanity thing than a white or black thing, personally.
I'm entirely aware of that. The sad part is that a black-white relationship in a black part of Chicago likely wouldn't be tolerated either, although they might not get assaulted. My point was that from my own experience Chicago is definitely not as racially tolerant (let alone accepting) as Oakland... not by a long shot.
[quote=Nineties Flava;23426012]I'm presuming you live in a big city. Do you regularly venture outside of the city limits and into the surrounding suburbs or outer suburbs? Cities are almost always the most racially tolerant and diverse parts of their metros with the notable exception of DC and certain metros on the west coast that are diverse throughout the metro. The cultural chasm between an American city and its suburbs is generally huge, particularly when talking about race relations. IMO it's ALL about location... suburban areas are almost always on the bottom wrung of tolerance.
That first sentence is exactly what irks me about the uptick in transplants in SF... often these people are running from the most ignorant parts of the country and flocking here because they heard it's liberal/diverse/tolerant, but they bring that baggage with them.
As for the rest of the paragraph, that's an extremely large generalization you're making.[/Qoute]
I love the hippocratcy, you say that all surburbs ouside the bay area are full of racists ingnorant hicks, then you go on to say that people shouldn't make sweeping generalizations.
Once you go to LA you change. you start eating a different ethnic food at every meal. your friends consist of a asian, a mexican, a black person and a Philippine and they all are rich. You start to be very impatient while driving and you find out your boyfriend is married.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,878,949 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
I'm entirely aware of that. The sad part is that a black-white relationship in a black part of Chicago likely wouldn't be tolerated either, although they might not get assaulted. My point was that from my own experience Chicago is definitely not as racially tolerant (let alone accepting) as Oakland... not by a long shot.
See, and that's where I disagree -- I feel like being white in a black area is MORE threatening than being black in a white area (I WILL say that I wouldn't want to be black in a middle/working class white area though, because then I agree, it's hostile!). I have come to the conclusion that it's not a black or white thing but a human nature thing and/or a socio-economic thing. I have most of my extended family in Chicago and I know EXACTLY what angst you are talking about from whites towards blacks (and vice versa; blacks towards whites): my mother's side of the family is 1st generation poor/middle class Poles and Italians that are pretty open and aggressive toward black people (much to my chagrin) who grew up in Polish/Italian neighborhoods/suburbs. The richer (or if not rich, white collar and liberal) people I know in Chicago have a much more open-minded viewpoint of blacks or any minority or ethnicity for that matter.
I think....no, am SURE, that this is the result of segregation, and segregation for MANY decades. Chicago is the most segregated city in the country, along with many other Midwest and East Coast cities -- which consequently, are the most racially tense cities in the country. I think by "sticking together", and/or perpetuating stereotypes and being "black enough" or "Italian enough" is making race relations in these places much much worse.
I'm presuming you live in a big city. Do you regularly venture outside of the city limits and into the surrounding suburbs or outer suburbs? Cities are almost always the most racially tolerant and diverse parts of their metros with the notable exception of DC and certain metros on the west coast that are diverse throughout the metro. The cultural chasm between an American city and its suburbs is generally huge, particularly when talking about race relations. IMO it's ALL about location... suburban areas are almost always on the bottom wrung of tolerance.
That first sentence is exactly what irks me about the uptick in transplants in SF... often these people are running from the most ignorant parts of the country and flocking here because they heard it's liberal/diverse/tolerant, but they bring that baggage with them.
As for the rest of the paragraph, that's an extremely large generalization you're making.
I love the hippocratcy, you say that all surburbs ouside the bay area are full of racists ingnorant hicks, then you go on to say that people shouldn't make sweeping generalizations.
Which generalization, that suburban areas are almost always on the bottom wrung of tolerance? lol... I clearly said that suburbs are generally a lot less racially tolerant than their hub cities, thus why they're on the bottom wrung of tolerance for their respective region.
Is there a reason you dislike when I state the obvious?
See, and that's where I disagree -- I feel like being white in a black area is MORE threatening than being black in a white area (I WILL say that I wouldn't want to be black in a middle/working class white area though, because then I agree, it's hostile!). I have come to the conclusion that it's not a black or white thing but a human nature thing and/or a socio-economic thing. I have most of my extended family in Chicago and I know EXACTLY what angst you are talking about from whites towards blacks (and vice versa; blacks towards whites): my mother's side of the family is 1st generation poor/middle class Poles and Italians that are pretty open and aggressive toward black people (much to my chagrin) who grew up in Polish/Italian neighborhoods/suburbs. The richer (or if not rich, white collar and liberal) people I know in Chicago have a much more open-minded viewpoint of blacks or any minority or ethnicity for that matter.
I think....no, am SURE, that this is the result of segregation, and segregation for MANY decades. Chicago is the most segregated city in the country, along with many other Midwest and East Coast cities -- which consequently, are the most racially tense cities in the country. I think by "sticking together", and/or perpetuating stereotypes and being "black enough" or "Italian enough" is making race relations in these places much much worse.
I agree with a lot of what you said, particularly on segregation making the current state of race relations in Chicago worse than it should be. Where I disagree though is that its any less threatening to be black in a white area than vice versa. Like you said with white neighborhoods, it depends on the social class of the neighborhood.
Most of your typical "liberal" cities like San Francisco and Seattle are very tolerant of alternative lifestyles but are also some of the whitest major cities in the country. I would say Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York are probably the three top cities for racial diversity and tolerance.
Most of your typical "liberal" cities like San Francisco and Seattle are very tolerant of alternative lifestyles but are also some of the whitest major cities in the country. I would say Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York are probably the three top cities for racial diversity and tolerance.
San Francisco is far from being the whitest major city in the country. It's less white than LA and under 5% whiter than either Chicago or New York City.
While I agree that LA and NYC are the two most diverse big cities (500,000+) in the country, by what metric are they the most racially tolerant? IMO SF is clearly better than LA in that department.
San Francisco is far from being the whitest major city in the country. It's less white than LA and under 5% whiter than either Chicago or New York City.
While I agree that LA and NYC are the two most diverse big cities (500,000+) in the country, by what metric are they the most racially tolerant? IMO SF is clearly better than LA in that department.
No one in the US really counts Asians in the same type of minority category as Hispanics or Blacks, who've faced some of the largest adversity in US history. Having a lot of Asians doesn't count as "full of minorities" As a black person, I find that insinuation insulting.
LA, NYC, and Chicago have large amounts of poor minorities who've been persecuted throughout US history.
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.
