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.
SF's black population is arguably the most marginalized on the entire West Coast. However, blacks are not the only marginalized population in SF... pacific islanders and SE Asians are also similarly marginalized and live in the same neighborhoods as blacks. It's not so much racial segregation as it is socioeconomic.
I used to live in SF. The other thing I've noticed is that there aren't that many blacks to begin with in SF. Most of the blacks (esp middle class blacks) live in the east bay (Oakland, Hayward, San Leandro). In terms of integrating with others in SF, there were a few times I was able to mingle with other races. But for the most part it seemed like Frisco was for skaters, hipsters, young professionals, Asians, and gays. Not blacks (no matter what your style is).
I have lived in Houston for more than 5 years now and I can say that it is by no means integrated (socially). I see black white couples when I go to the mall or certain neighborhoods but not that many friendships as the OP posted. Neighborhood wise you can live anywhere, and I believe that is true for any major urban city.
I haven't lived in california but I have visited a lot (East bay and Southern CA (SD)) and I was able to see (even with that brief visit) blacks friended with others.
I would have to agree with the op on the California cities and Houston. But I don't know if things will be different if I had lived in california.
I think Detroit is probably the least integrated. Although parts of the city are integrated, Philadelphia fairs pretty poorly too.
There have been studies on this (measuring black vs white). Milwaukee was the most segregated metro area (in order: Milwaukee, NYC, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Birmingham, Los Angeles).
3. Seattle ( minorities are sooo sparse that they can't make up an entire community. Also asians tend to integrate well whith caucasians)
Worst
1. detroit
2. baltimore
3. Chicago
I have to admit that this "Seattle is too white to have racism" BS is just that....BS. Seattle isn't the "Emerald City" anymore and I'd say it's fairly culturally and racially diverse.....moreso than some people's favorite examples of "diverse" cities (like Detroit or San Antonio). Time to start finding a different city to hark on for being "too white", IMO.
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,092,866 times
Reputation: 1028
I'd argue for most cities in the Midwest and Northeast being placed near the bottom. (St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Boston, Kansas City, Milwaukee, etc.)
I also would not say that Los Angeles is fantastic easier.
I think people just have different ideas of segregation and integration.
My idea is not that someone lives in a separate neighborhood,but how well they get treated when they do have to migle with other races.
When I was in the south,in Nc,I lived around whites. They were my neighbors. But for some reason,many resented the fact I had a middle class income and career. They didn't care that I lived next to them,they just didn't want me making more money than them.
Now Nj,I couldn't rent a home in white areas without bring scrutinized,but they did seem to appreciate the fact I didhave a middle class income and some encouraged me to go for more.
People are also lumping in all minorities again.
LA may be great for Mexicans and whites,but bad for blacks.(I also hear Houston is lke that)
A relative of mine that was in Hs in Seattle told me the whites and Asians would mingle with each other but not blacks.
In Boston,I read its the opposite. Whites are racist to Asians in that city.(from what I read)
In Atlanta,I read its the Mexicans who get discriminated against.
As far as everyone getting along,the only city I saw like that was Nyc.
Even though the neighborhoods are segregated(which they always were) people still treat you with respect even though you don't live around them.
(I do think Nyc can be anti white,so even then I'm not sure.)
I used to live in SF. The other thing I've noticed is that there aren't that many blacks to begin with in SF. Most of the blacks (esp middle class blacks) live in the east bay (Oakland, Hayward, San Leandro). In terms of integrating with others in SF, there were a few times I was able to mingle with other races. But for the most part it seemed like Frisco was for skaters, hipsters, young professionals, Asians, and gays. Not blacks (no matter what your style is).
People have said San Francisco is one of the best, but I've heard that blacks tend to be marginalized and tucked away in that city. How true is this?
Blacks aren't the only "minority". I notice the OP puts S.F. as one of the worst, but Berkeley as one of the best. This depends on which minorities one has in mind re: integration. African Americans are not integrated in Berkeley. Asians and Latinos are, but that's true of San Francisco as well. In Berkeley, AA's are in West Berkeley. In San Francisco, they're mostly in Hunter's Point, maybe Daly City, and scattered around town a bit. I think SF and Berkeley are equal on the integration scale, whether on the "good" side or the "worst" list. I'd be interested in knowing the OP's reasons for listing them on opposite sides.
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.
