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 don't think there's much a point in arguing what "large" means in this context. Look what happened when people tried to distinguish among "large," "medium" and "small" metros.
Suffice it to say that Milwaukee's Black population is not sufficiently large to propel it into the conversation with cities like New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, DC, Dallas, Houston, Miami or St. Louis. You can say "B, b, But those are the cities with the largest Black populations!!!" but that's sort of the point. People tend to pay attention to the Russell Westbrooks and Derrick Roses of the world, not the Langston Galloways.
Very corny(let me stop) and its Black population isn't small. So, what is it? Medium and if so, like another poster mentioned, what is the cutoff?
I guess what's the cut-off then? Memphis is solidly black, yet has a black population under 500K. Is it relevant? What about Little Rock?
The Memphis MSA has a Black population of 606,872. Few cities have a Black population larger than 500,000.
Little Rock is another city that we don't really "hear about." Since the Black communities in these cities are now supposedly so high profile, then I expect the next thread on "Black" cities to include a lot more discussion about them and less about Atlanta, DC, Houston, NYC, LA, Philly, Dallas, the Bay Area, Chicago, etc.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 05-28-2015 at 02:20 PM..
It's stupid to argue over what is "large." My point was that it doesn't have a large enough Black population to attract the type of attention Detroit or Baltimore gets. The same is true of Indianapolis and Cincinnati (which also has a high Black %).
Seattle and Charlotte both have "large" Italian populations when compared to all 388 metropolitan statistical areas in the United States. There are only around 30 or so that have a higher absolute number and/or percentage. But in reality, nobody thinks of those cities as having "large" Italian populations. Usually, people only say this about New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, New Haven and a few other places. We don't look at the Top 50, 75 or 100 metros and say they all have "large" Italian populatiins because they have more Italians than Lubbock, Texas.
I generally agree with this. Usually the cities we hear about in this context have something going for them in terms of history, cultural institutions, size, and/or economic/population growth patterns and cities like Milwaukee are generally not among those cities.
Thank you. I thought it was a very straightforward, non-controversial point.
It's stupid to argue over what is "large." My point was that it doesn't have a large enough Black population to attract the type of attention Detroit or Baltimore gets. The same is true of Indianapolis and Cincinnati (which also has a high Black %).
Seattle and Charlotte both have "large" Italian populations when compared to all 388 metropolitan statistical areas in the United States. There are only around 30 or so that have a higher absolute number and/or percentage. But in reality, nobody thinks of those cities as having "large" Italian populations. Usually, people only say this about New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, New Haven and a few other places. We don't look at the Top 50, 75 or 100 metros and say they all have "large" Italian populatiins because they have more Italians than Lubbock, Texas.
That comparison doesn't hold water, as the difference is that there is data to back up Milwaukee's Black population in relation to others, while Seattle and Charlotte aren't thought of at all in terms of a "large" Italian population in any way, shape or form. My point is simple in terms of metrics that have been posted and that are available in order to view this in relative terms.
That 50, 75, 100 metro statement was about the list you made. That's all.
It isn't an argument, but I'm just curious as to what you consider to be large. No one said that the top 50, 75 or 100 Black metro populations are large, but when a metro is in the top 6-8% in the country in terms of absolute numbers/population, what would you consider it to be?
The Memphis MSA has a Black population of 606,872. Few cities have a Black population larger than 500,000.
Little Rock is another city that we don't really "hear about." Since the Black communities in these cities are now supposedly so high profile, then I expect the next thread on "Black" cities to include a lot more discussion about them and less about Atlanta, DC, Houston, NYC, LA, Philly, Dallas, the Bay Area, Chicago, etc.
To be honest, it would be nice to talk about other areas besides the 10-15 it seems that Black folks are relegated to in order to be "successful" or however one would put it. Why not mention the small mostly Black middle class area in suburban Harrisburg or the Black professionals in Columbus?
That comparison doesn't hold water, as the difference is that there is data to back up Milwaukee's Black population in relation to others, while Seattle and Charlotte aren't thought of at all in terms of a "large" Italian population in any way, shape or form. My point is simple in terms of metrics that have been posted and that are available in order to view this in relative terms.
And there isn't data to back up Seattle's Italian population in relation to others? Are there 29 metro areas with a larger Italian population than Seattle's? I doubt it. Since its Italian population is much larger than the hundreds of metros below it, why wouldn't you say it has a "large" Italian population. If your whole entire exercise involves looking at the full list of 388 metropolitan statistical areas, and then taking the Top 50, then why wouldn't it be?
If you're going to say that Milwaukee has a large Black population because it is bigger than that of Fresno, Grand Rapids, Omaha, Worcester, Albany, Hartford, El Paso, Dayton, Stockton, Colorado Springs, Boise, Wichita, Ogden, Des Moines, Provo, Salt Lake City, Scranton, Youngstown, Santa Rosa, Reno, Asheville, Killeen, Waco, Myrtle Beach, Wilmington, Salem, Spartanburg, Boulder, Lubbock, Duluth, Erie, Laredo, Cedar Rapids, Hagerstown, Appleton, Burlington, Springfield, Florence, Lake Charles, Athens, Redding and many others, then why not say the same about Seattle's Italian population in relation to these same MSAs? Against this type of competition, yes, it will indeed shine in an absolute sense (and even on a percentage basis). But realistically, nobody's going to say it has a "large" Italian population. The same is true of Milwaukee.
This is sort of like having a conversation in the barbershop about whether Darko Milicic is a good player. Most people would say he's not, but if you point out that he's a better player than everyone on C-D and 99% of the rest of the human population, then you'd have a point (I guess). In such discussions, however, most people understand that "good" is based on starting from the Top of the NBA food chain on down. When people say Darko is "sorry," they are comparing him to the likes of Dwight Howard, Nene and the Gasol brothers, not you or me.
To be honest, it would be nice to talk about other areas besides the 10-15 it seems that Black folks are relegated to in order to be "successful" or however one would put it. Why not mention the small mostly Black middle class area in suburban Harrisburg or the Black professionals in Columbus?
That's not a question for me. That's a question for all of the C-D posters who fail to mention it in their posts and all of the Essence, Ebony and Jet Magazine writers who don't do full page exposes on Harrisburg's Black community. I went to college with a girl who's now a journalist. Perhaps I can persuade her to write an article on Biloxi's Black middle class.
It isn't an argument, but I'm just curious as to what you consider to be large. No one said that the top 50, 75 or 100 Black metro populations are large, but when a metro is in the top 6-8% in the country in terms of absolute numbers/population, what would you consider it to be?
I honestly don't have a precise figure in mind. If we look at the size of the cities that hog up all the attention in these discussions...
New York - 3,642,666
Atlanta - 1,819,012
Chicago - 1,705,910
Washington - 1,558,245
Philadelphia - 1,327,925
Miami - 1,225,013
Houston - 1,086,242
Dallas - 1,044,036
Detroit - 1,018,009
Los Angeles - 1,003,285
Baltimore - 823,993
Memphis - 618,429
St. Louis - 541,429
Bay Area - 478,494
New Orleans - 427,208
Boston - 419,693
Maybe "large" in absolute terms would be anything more than 400,000. And by "large," I mean enough people to register in the minds of the average Black person. Pittsburgh has around 220,000 Black people, and having grown up in Philly, I can tell you that a lot of people there are surprised to find out there are Black people there at all. They are kind of an "unknown" over there.
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.
