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 love where I live , because it is where G-d has put me. I am a mountain man and plan to spend most of my summer alone in the mountains when I am done with my software project. I love the fresh air, scenery, good coffee and many other things of the area. Seattle's scenery and coffeeshops are next to none. I've also become fond of the many kabab/gyro shops and Indian restaurants throughout the city.
On another note, I don't particularly think Seattle is that amazing culturally or that it is diverse. Does that mean I should not live here or that I hate Seattle? No! You are wrong. You seriously are fast at jumping to conclusions. If your goal is to be diverse, accepting , etc, then you can accept if someone has a different perspective on an issue.
I have grown up in the Pacific Northwest, lived here for many years. Why should I move to another part of the country? I don't believe any place in the USA is that culturally diverse, anyhow. Why sell all my possessions, move far from family and spend tons of money looking for a place in another part of the country, when I could just drive 3 hours and settle in Seattle? Well, if you truly wondered why I chose Seattle, now you know.
I am big into guns, hiking, outdoors and many other activities that go outside the realm of my religion/culture. The Pacific Northwest offers things that I couldn't have even in my traditional homeland. I take the good with the bad.
Now, as I was saying, I am just discussing about my perception of Seattle's diversity. Just because I don't think Seattle is diverse, at least culturally, doesn't mean I think it is a bad place.
Seattle people are generally polite, humble, gracious and of an even-temperament. This seems to be a universal trait I experience from most Seattlites. Being diverse isn't always even a good thing either. Sometimes they can seem a bit reserved and cold, but I know they don't mean anything bad by it. What many refer to as Seattle Freeze is a lack of understanding of the reservedness of the Scandinavian/Asian cultures that have morphed Seattle's modern culture. Like I was saying, being Jewish, I don't exactly feel safe in Little Mecca of Portland. But, I do respect that people can practice their culture openly..
Still, what I would suggest all of the idiots who think Seattle isn't diverse do is, walk down MLK way for a good few hours one day (and for fun, do it at night) and then come back and tell us all what you think .
DISCLAIMER: I take no responsibility if you are shot, beaten, robbed, or raped.
I've been all up and down MLK, the CD, little Saigon etc and never felt unsafe. The only people who ever threatened me in Seattle were in fact the kind of people you see in Aurora Avenue around 80th and parts of Capitol Hill...i.e., white meth heads or "tweekers".
That's one thing I can say about Seattle that no one can deny: here, "crackhead" is an equal opportunity employer. One can't live in Seattle for too long and not come away with the feeling that all races and people can be equally worthless.
Posting personal attacks about me, my religion or even happiness or lack of happiness in life have nothing to do with a discussion on diversity in Seattle. If you think my opinion is wrong, that is fine. BUt when you start bashing me or saying why do I live in Seattle, that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. All that leads to is an argument that should at least be settled in a PM.
I realize people are not happy that I have complaints about Seattle. My apologies.
I am discussing about my perception of the lack of diversity in Seattle. If you want to contribute by proving that I am wrong or shedding some light on the subject, I would be happy to listen. However, if you are just going to rag on me and tell me to leave Seattle, I don't think you are being helpful neither to me or anyone else in the discussion of the thread.
Thanks for understanding me. I am very much open to hearing other people's perspectives on the diversity/culture issue.
I'm not from Seattle. But white people who live in white majority areas and major cities have a different view of diversity than minorities. To most white people who have lived in white majority areas their entire lives, a place is diverse even if it is overwhelmingly white if there are a few token black, Asian or Latino faces present.
I'm from San Francisco. Another city that is often praised by upper middle class white people for its diversity. However, just like Seattle, San Francisco isn't exceptionally diverse either. San Francisco has one of the tiniest black populations of any big city in America. For a big city in California, SF also has a relatively low proportion of Latinos as well. SF is mostly white and Asian.
Rich white yuppies, hipsters, trustafarians and neo-hippies in SF love to pat themselves on the back for being so open minded and forward thinking by living amongst all the "diversity" in the most liberal county in America, yet they are hypocritically pushing poor blacks and Latinos out of historically minority-majority areas of SF through gentrification. White people in SF, as a group, have historically claimed to be so liberal, tolerant and forward-thinking than the rest of the country, yet black people, the most common inhabitants of major American cities, are almost nonexistent in the modern day Baghdad by the Bay. And these smug people would talk your ear off touting San Francisco's unparalleled "diversity" as well. Does any of this sound familiar to people in Seattle?
Oakland across the Bay bridge is actually much more diverse than San Francisco. Oakland almost has a completely equal distribution of whites, blacks, Latinos and Asians living within the city limits. But Oakland's national reputation is often solely linked to crime. Why is that? It is because whites do not hold majority status in the melting pot that is Oakland. When the tables are turned, whites feel uncomfortable being the only white person around or being one of the few only white people around. White culture is not dominant in Oakland. Oakland is a former chocolate city where the culture among even Latinos and Asians is undeniably black urban culture. White people raised in predominantly white upper middle class areas feel out of place or even unsafe in many truly diverse areas where they are collectively outnumbered by blacks, Latinos and Asians. This feeling of lack of safety on white peoples part is misguided because the vast majority of victims of violent crime in Oakland and every other big city in America just happen to be black males.
Ironically, Oakland is a much better city for black people to live in than San Francisco, as a whole. Oakland boasts many affluent black-majority upper class and upper middle class neighborhoods. On the other hand, blacks in San Francisco are confined to dilapidated housing projects and abject poverty as a group.
I'm not from Seattle. But white people who live in white majority areas and major cities have a different view of diversity than minorities. To most white people who have lived in white majority areas their entire lives, a place is diverse even if it is overwhelmingly white if there are a few token black, Asian or Latino faces present.
I'm from San Francisco. Another city that is often praised by upper middle class white people for its diversity. However, just like Seattle, San Francisco isn't exceptionally diverse either. San Francisco has one of the tiniest black populations of any big city in America. For a big city in California, SF also has a relatively low proportion of Latinos as well. SF is mostly white and Asian.
Rich white yuppies, hipsters, trustafarians and neo-hippies in SF love to pat themselves on the back for being so open minded and forward thinking by living amongst all the "diversity" in the most liberal county in America, yet they are hypocritically pushing poor blacks and Latinos out of historically minority-majority areas of SF through gentrification.
Oakland across the Bay bridge is actually much more diverse than San Francisco. Oakland almost has a completely equal distribution of whites, blacks, Latinos and Asians living within the city limits. But Oakland's national reputation is often solely linked to crime. Why is that? It is because whites do not hold majority status in the melting pot that is Oakland. White people raised in predominantly white upper middle class areas feel out of place or even unsafe in many truly diverse areas where they are collectively outnumbered by blacks, Latinos and Asians. This feeling of lack of safety on white peoples part is misguided because the vast majority of victims of violent crime in Oakland and every other big city in America just happen to be black males.
Ironically, Oakland is a much better city for black people to live in than San Francisco, as a whole. Oakland boasts many affluent black-majority upper class and upper middle class neighborhoods. On the other hand, blacks in San Francisco are confined to dilapidated housing projects and abject poverty as a group.
Yet, every last inch of San Francisco is a "nice place" because rich white people said so.
For those who've never lived in the Bay Area, the above post is 1000% true!
I generally leave San Francisco out of these diversity discussions because that city just fails miserably. But it likes to pretend.
Oakland is indeed very misunderstood and is rare among cities; it's races are almost equally represented, it's a friendly city and is rather well integrated. It's also said to have the best climate in the US according to NOAA. That last part of course is subjective but either way it's a rare gym of a city. If you truly want integrated America, that's the place to be.
I have recently had discussions here about Tacoma and in many ways sounds like a smaller version of Oakland. it too has often been portrayed negatively (the nickname Tacomton comes to mind). However, as I learn more about it, it seems more and more a place I might want to live.
Let me be clear, while I will say Tacoma may be Seattle's Oakland, I am not saying that Seattle is Tacoma's SF. Seattle still has a higher black percentage than SF and like I said about San Diego, the blacks in Seattle just seem to have more presence. Asians seem to have the same amount of presence in Seattle they do in Oakland. Seattle only really lacks a Latino presence. I mean one that's apparent, I know they're there physically. However, Seattle has a stronger native American presence as does all of the Pacific Northwest so it's diversity is unique to it.
I'm not from Seattle. But white people who live in white majority areas and major cities have a different view of diversity than minorities. To most white people who have lived in white majority areas their entire lives, a place is diverse even if it is overwhelmingly white if there are a few token black, Asian or Latino faces present.
I'm from San Francisco. Another city that is often praised by upper middle class white people for its diversity. However, just like Seattle, San Francisco isn't exceptionally diverse either. San Francisco has one of the tiniest black populations of any big city in America. For a big city in California, SF also has a relatively low proportion of Latinos as well. SF is mostly white and Asian.
Rich white yuppies, hipsters, trustafarians and neo-hippies in SF love to pat themselves on the back for being so open minded and forward thinking by living amongst all the "diversity" in the most liberal county in America, yet they are hypocritically pushing poor blacks and Latinos out of historically minority-majority areas of SF through gentrification. White people in SF, as a group, have historically claimed to be so liberal, tolerant and forward-thinking than the rest of the country, yet black people, the most common inhabitants of major American cities, are almost nonexistent in the modern day Baghdad by the Bay. And these smug people would talk your ear off touting San Francisco's unparalleled "diversity" as well. Does any of this sound familiar to people in Seattle?
Oakland across the Bay bridge is actually much more diverse than San Francisco. Oakland almost has a completely equal distribution of whites, blacks, Latinos and Asians living within the city limits. But Oakland's national reputation is often solely linked to crime. Why is that? It is because whites do not hold majority status in the melting pot that is Oakland. When the tables are turned, whites feel uncomfortable being the only white person around or being one of the few only white people around. White culture is not dominant in Oakland. Oakland is a former chocolate city where the culture among even Latinos and Asians is undeniably black urban culture. White people raised in predominantly white upper middle class areas feel out of place or even unsafe in many truly diverse areas where they are collectively outnumbered by blacks, Latinos and Asians. This feeling of lack of safety on white peoples part is misguided because the vast majority of victims of violent crime in Oakland and every other big city in America just happen to be black males.
Ironically, Oakland is a much better city for black people to live in than San Francisco, as a whole. Oakland boasts many affluent black-majority upper class and upper middle class neighborhoods. On the other hand, blacks in San Francisco are confined to dilapidated housing projects and abject poverty as a group.
Yet, every last inch of San Francisco is a "nice place" because rich white people said so. Its all in the eye of the beholder.
I am not white, not from Seattle originally and moved here from a more "diverse" place...and guess what? Seattle is more diverse than the places with "on paper" diversity I've been to.
What I mean is this: In Jersey City for example, there is much more "racial and ethnic diversity" than in Seattle. There is a white neighborhood, a black neighborhood, a Latino neighborhood, an Indian neighborhood...only issue is they never leave their neighborhoods. In Seattle, on the other hand, there really aren't any purely ethnic neighborhoods. Blacks, Asian, Latinos etc are pretty spread out over the city and live together, work together, and even *gasp!" hang out together.
In Seattle, you have white people with "one or two 'token' black friends, and a 'token' black brother-in-law and a 'token' mixed niece and a 'token' black co-worker..." while on the East Coast, you have white people who may occasionally work around blacks (no choice) but never hand out with any and live far from them and will move if someone with so much as a deep tan ends up living in the house next door.
In short, I for one think that a place that is 80% white with other groups evenly mixed in is much more diverse than a place that is 50% white, 15% black and 35% Latino and they all live in different neighborhoods.
That, and in Seattle I am not the "thing that should not be" I was in the NYC/New Jersey area because I'm mixed.
Quote:
And in a first-of-its-kind tabulation, the state's mixed-race population is just under 4 percent, or 213,519 people. That's above the national average of 2.4 percent
Seattle is hardly culturally diverse. I think culturally, it is one of the most uniform and undiverse cities in the country, if not the world. Let's compare Seattle to London. London is a city of many cultures, not only many ethnicities. In addition to all the various Anglo/Celtic cultures of the natives, there is a variety of cultures of various immigrants who have lived in the city for generations. Unlike Seattle, the people still live in their neighborhoods, speak their languages, dress in their traditional clothing, eat their traditional foods. People say that living in London is like living in several countries at once. Actually, there is some issues with some groups of people in London, IMO, such as neighborhoods that now enforce certain religious laws. Perhaps, London, has gone off the deep end. But, all and all, I think people feel more free to practice their native cultures and religions in a city like London than a city like Seattle.
Seattle, on the other hand, may have a variety of ethnic groups, but they all are very uniform in their mindset and culture. In effect, there is almost no cultural diversity. Whereas in London, the Indian women dress in sarees /salwar kameez and Pakistani and Middle Eastern men will wear their traditional gowns and hats, in Seattle all the Indian guys and girls where trendy t-shirts and jeans. I am amazed at despite the large Indian population here, I never see a person in their traditional dress. The only cultural area in all of Seattle is the Rainier Beach area and it is because of the Somalian community, who still practices their culture. Basically, everyone follows the same Seattle
What was hard for me is when I attended a synagogue in Seattle, how I felt like a foreigner around my own Jewish people who seem to act very much on par with other Seattlites. Jewish people are usually very social, outgoing, upright and a bit crude at times, but many of the people at the synagogue were very quiet, reserved, anti-social, modest and strangely polite. This is the same feeling I get from other Seattlites. It wasn't until I attended a Yiddish type of synagogue with a New York Rabbi that I felt the zest, liveliness and cultural traits of Jewish community I am use to.
Here is a scene in London.. You would almost think it could be India. You will most likely never be able to see anything like this walking down the street in Seattle.
Once again, I don't know how to describe.
I would respect nobody gets mad or emotional at me for my observation. I'm just giving my observations. I have traveled around the world and this is how I have perceived Seattle so far, but I am opened to change my mind.
Um, melting pot?
If you want culture(s), tradition(s), and all that goes with them, maybe somewhere that prides itself on being one of the more forward-thinking places in the world isn't the place for you.
I'd rather have a place with less culture and more cohesion, over somewhere with more culture and fragmented neighborhoods.
In my experience, places without "my culture" around are places where it's much easier for me to simply BE MYSELF.
If you want culture(s), tradition(s), and all that goes with them, maybe somewhere that prides itself on being one of the more forward-thinking places in the world isn't the place for you.
I'd rather have a place with less culture and more cohesion, over somewhere with more culture and fragmented neighborhoods.
In my experience, places without "my culture" around are places where it's much easier for me to simply BE MYSELF.
^This +1. You somehow read my thoughts and posted them
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.
.
hang out together. 
