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.
So in relation to South Central LA, which is still 28% black with about eight black neighborhoods remaining, smaller land area than Oakland with a much larger population, this isn't an argument that favors Oakland. When you start adding peripheral cities that contribute to the urban flavor and nature of both cities (eg Inglewood, Compton, Carson, Hawthorne, etc; Emeryville, Berkeley, Alameda, Richmomd, etc) the gap becomes larger because LA's cities still have a larger black population...
Oakland is not gonna win a deep dive, face up demographic statistical argument with LA. So instead you have to resort to measuring cultural influence in other ways, which sure, can be subjective. I've been to both Oakland and LA, as you have, I lived in South LA as a kid, and contrary to your belief, I like Oakland. I think my perception though, is fair, I never have gotten a presence that Oakland "felt blacker" than LA. And I believe people that have that perception misinterpret statistics and read them without nuance, as well as mentioned before, people go to LA and don't really spend time in the part of the city where most Black Angelenos are. Oakland is significantly smaller and more intimate, so to the naked eye its simpler to acknowledge (for some, not for me) you're seeing more black people, especially given the size of LA and people are hanging out everywhere except greater South Central...
You're entitled to your opinion on who has more influence, for the life of me I don't know what there is to argue, because LA's black music history extends before hip hop and is more impactful than Oakland's; LA's black fashion was and has been historically more known in Black America; LA's black business is more renown; Black LA actually has middle to upper middle class majority black neighborhoods that people know about; Black LA on sheer size alone has produced more black athletes and entertainers of various disciplines than Black Oakland, and those celebrities tend to be more popular and influential...
So, I'm not exactly sure what the hell you, or people with your perspective, are arguing, other than misreprwnsting LA's demographics to mean something they don't really mean. But, you're entitled to your own opinions...
You aren't however, entitled to your own facts. Nothing demographically says that Oakland is blacker than LA, except surface level stats that Oakland's total population is ~23% black and LA's total population is ~8% black. With the enormous size and historical disparity between the two, it's a little weird, and frankly ignorant, to use that, those numbers, as the hill to die on, but last time, you're entitled to your own free will, brother!
Firstly, all of the blacks in LA area are in a few cities in the southern part of the county and you're comparing multiple cities to one. People from Compton dont claim LA but yet your picking and choosing your own area to compare to a unmovable boundary that is Oakland city limits. LA is bigger so it has more blacks than Oakland, Atlanta, Baltimore, New Orleans, Memphis but like I keep saying, it's not a black city.. You're trying to compare raw numbers to a per capita subject. You chose 9pct of LA land area and coincidentally, 9pct population of your choice of neighborhoods and different cities to compete with one city. Let me choose 9pct of the blackest part of Oaklands then for an even comparison because when comparing something per capita matters, not raw numbers. You're customizing parts of cities boundaries for your arguments sake instead ofn following OFFICIAL boundaries. The biggest black city in SoCal is Inglewood and when you think Inglewood you think black, naturally.
If you defending LA county on this topic and you aren't from Inglewood (black city), Compton black city) etc... then this convo is over brotha. We dont make boundaries, the government dictates that and Oakland is the only black major city in west coast.
If you wanna measure raw numbers then fine, LA has a black section in its metro area that over populates Oaklands black and oaklands white and Oaklands Hispanics etc because it's a bigger city. Oakland has a higher black population in its metro because there are more cities with higher than average black populations,
moreso than LA.
An actual black city a little closer the LA size is Chicago. That's a black city and a cousin of Oakland, New Orleans, Baltimore, Atlanta, Memphis for other major black cities who are smaller
So in relation to South Central LA, which is still 28% black with about eight black neighborhoods remaining, smaller land area than Oakland with a much larger population, this isn't an argument that favors Oakland. When you start adding peripheral cities that contribute to the urban flavor and nature of both cities (eg Inglewood, Compton, Carson, Hawthorne, etc; Emeryville, Berkeley, Alameda, Richmomd, etc) the gap becomes larger because LA's cities still have a larger black population...
Oakland is not gonna win a deep dive, face up demographic statistical argument with LA. So instead you have to resort to measuring cultural influence in other ways, which sure, can be subjective. I've been to both Oakland and LA, as you have, I lived in South LA as a kid, and contrary to your belief, I like Oakland. I think my perception though, is fair, I never have gotten a presence that Oakland "felt blacker" than LA. And I believe people that have that perception misinterpret statistics and read them without nuance, as well as mentioned before, people go to LA and don't really spend time in the part of the city where most Black Angelenos are. Oakland is significantly smaller and more intimate, so to the naked eye its simpler to acknowledge (for some, not for me) you're seeing more black people, especially given the size of LA and people are hanging out everywhere except greater South Central...
You're entitled to your opinion on who has more influence, for the life of me I don't know what there is to argue, because LA's black music history extends before hip hop and is more impactful than Oakland's; LA's black fashion was and has been historically more known in Black America; LA's black business is more renown; Black LA actually has middle to upper middle class majority black neighborhoods that people know about; Black LA on sheer size alone has produced more black athletes and entertainers of various disciplines than Black Oakland, and those celebrities tend to be more popular and influential...
So, I'm not exactly sure what the hell you, or people with your perspective, are arguing, other than misreprwnsting LA's demographics to mean something they don't really mean. But, you're entitled to your own opinions...
You aren't however, entitled to your own facts. Nothing demographically says that Oakland is blacker than LA, except surface level stats that Oakland's total population is ~23% black and LA's total population is ~8% black. With the enormous size and historical disparity between the two, it's a little weird, and frankly ignorant, to use that, those numbers, as the hill to die on, but last time, you're entitled to your own free will, brother!
bro everything you say makes logical sense. Its not like we on the east coast have a dog in this la v the bay fight anyway...why would we be biased?
Please stop associating Oakland with Baltimroe and New Orleans. Just stop.
Anyways earlier today I asked a few friends in a group chat these exact word “is Oakland a black capital of America” just because I wanted to see what would be said
Exact responses:
“Isn’t it like a mad Hispanic place?”
“G Eazy is from Oakland..but also MarShawn Lynch is from there and I feel like he got that energy”
“In California maybe”
“Naw”
“I don’t know enough about Oakland tbh”
Granted all these people are from NY NJ and CT
But honestly Oakland is more like a large New Haven Connecticut, Jersey City NJ, or Silver Spring Maryland.
Also Chicago is not a BLACK city. It’s is important to us and a hub of black culture but it has just as many whites and Latinos (more of them actually) and its a city of huge historic and cultural importance to them as well. You gotta view things from a holistic perspective. You can be a city of importance and cultural stature to black people without being a black city (Chicago New York LA-on average they’re only about 20% Black)
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 03-25-2020 at 08:57 PM..
Please stop associating Oakland with Baltimroe and New Orleans. Just stop.
Anyways earlier today I asked a few friends in a group chat these exact word “is Oakland a black capital of America” just because I wanted to see what would be said
Exact responses:
“Isn’t it like a mad Hispanic place?”
“G Eazy is from Oakland..but also MarShawn Lynch is from there and I feel like he got that energy”
“In California maybe”
“Naw”
“I don’t know enough about Oakland tbh”
Granted all these people are from NY NJ and CT
But honestly Oakland is more like a large New Haven Connecticut, Jersey City NJ, or Silver Spring Maryland.
Also Chicago is not a BLACK city. It’s is important to us and a hub of black culture but it has just as many whites and Latinos (more of them actually) and its a city of huge historic and cultural importance to them as well. You gotta view things from a holistic perspective. You can be a city of importance and cultural stature to black people without being a black city (Chicago New York LA-on average they’re only about 20% Black)
Popularity doesnt matter... also Chicago had more blacks than any other race but I think it might have got surpass recently liked how Oakland did. Only reason YOU FEEL we can't mention them cities with New Orleans or Baltimore it's because those cities didn't get gentrified but before that they were BOTH BLACK MAJORITY CITIES LIKE BALTIMORE AND NEW ORLEANS
Firstly, all of the blacks in LA area are in a few cities in the southern part of the county and you're comparing multiple cities to one. People from Compton dont claim LA but yet your picking and choosing your own area to compare to a unmovable boundary that is Oakland city limits. LA is bigger so it has more blacks than Oakland, Atlanta, Baltimore, New Orleans, Memphis but like I keep saying, it's not a black city.. You're trying to compare raw numbers to a per capita subject. You chose 9pct of LA land area and coincidentally, 9pct population of your choice of neighborhoods and different cities to compete with one city. Let me choose 9pct of the blackest part of Oaklands then for an even comparison because when comparing something per capita matters, not raw numbers. You're customizing parts of cities boundaries for your arguments sake instead ofn following OFFICIAL boundaries. The biggest black city in SoCal is Inglewood and when you think Inglewood you think black, naturally.
If you defending LA county on this topic and you aren't from Inglewood (black city), Compton black city) etc... then this convo is over brotha. We dont make boundaries, the government dictates that and Oakland is the only black major city in west coast.
If you wanna measure raw numbers then fine, LA has a black section in its metro area that over populates Oaklands black and oaklands white and Oaklands Hispanics etc because it's a bigger city. Oakland has a higher black population in its metro because there are more cities with higher than average black populations,
moreso than LA.
An actual black city a little closer the LA size is Chicago. That's a black city and a cousin of Oakland, New Orleans, Baltimore, Atlanta, Memphis for other major black cities who are smaller
Bro what the **** are you talking about? You keep talking about who's a "black city" and who isn't, my counter has never been that LA is a "black city"...
If you want to compare a similar ratio of both cities, be my guest, but let me illustrate how downright idiotic that argument would be. South LA accounts for roughly 11% of the geographic land area of LA. If you wanted a comparable ratio, do you know what ~11% of Oakland's land area is? Roughly 6 square miles. So be my guest, find the blackest 6-sq mile area in Oakland, it is still gonna be dwarfed by the equivalent 11% South LA across the board...
You're gonna remain disappointed; West Oakland has a total land area of 5.9 sq miles and is 40.2% black, very well probably the blackest 6 mi² area in Oakland. So, sure, 40% black West Oakland is a larger proportion that 28% black South Central, then you realize you are comparing a population of fewer than 11,000 black people to ~225,000 black people, and you're arguing that the place with fewer than 11,000 black people has a stronger presence of black history and culture than the place with ~225,000 of us. Tough sell, my guy...
North O is slightly smaller geographically and isn't anywhere close to 40% black. East O is big as hell, you could try to find a 6-square mile pocket, it won't be 40% black, but feasibly the blackest ~11% pocket of East Oakland could be 35% black. And you're still only talking about somewhere between 9-10,000 blacks in that blackest ~11% of East O.....I have a feeling you arent going to realize that if you took the blackest 6-square mile sliver of South LA, its gonna be more than 50% black with many more people packed into that 6 mi² than any 6 mi² in Oakland------->it doesn't matter how you want to correlate the numbers, they can't be distorted that Oakland wins a statistical debate in any sense...
So again, then you're left to subjective measuring of black culture in other methods, which again, I think anyone being honest has to look at it and question how and where exactly Black Oakland outperforms Black LA in anything. You said politics, you're gonna have to be specific for me here, but I won't outright dismiss it. Because the black history is deeper in LA, blacks are doing better economically in LA, blacks have a much deeper reputation and impact in any of the creative disciplines, on and on and on...
Furthermore I've pointed out numerous times that the city of Oakland and South Central Los Angeles are about the same geographical size, yet South LA dwarfs Oakland in anything black and white, regarding the blackness of both within that geographical area. That's an apples to apples, I'm not sure what you're not getting here...
Concerning the surrounding cities, Inglewood and Compton aren't the only cities with notable black populations around LA, and the reason I've included them is because those surrounding cities are part of the same cultural fabric of the heart if Black Los Angeles. But I did the same thing with Oakland by talking about its surrounding cities that are part of the urban fabric, so again its apples to apples...
I'm convinced your reading comprehension is terribly low and/or you're too bitter to admit you're wrong about anything, since its evident that Oakland can't win the numbers argument with LA. Good talking to you, you have a good night, Black Man!
bro everything you say makes logical sense. Its not like we on the east coast have a dog in this la v the bay fight anyway...why would we be biased?
Bruh, I have no clue...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
Please stop associating Oakland with Baltimroe and New Orleans. Just stop.
Anyways earlier today I asked a few friends in a group chat these exact word “is Oakland a black capital of America” just because I wanted to see what would be said
Exact responses:
“Isn’t it like a mad Hispanic place?”
“G Eazy is from Oakland..but also MarShawn Lynch is from there and I feel like he got that energy”
“In California maybe”
“Naw”
“I don’t know enough about Oakland tbh”
Granted all these people are from NY NJ and CT
But honestly Oakland is more like a large New Haven Connecticut, Jersey City NJ, or Silver Spring Maryland.
Also Chicago is not a BLACK city. It’s is important to us and a hub of black culture but it has just as many whites and Latinos (more of them actually) and its a city of huge historic and cultural importance to them as well. You gotta view things from a holistic perspective. You can be a city of importance and cultural stature to black people without being a black city (Chicago New York LA-on average they’re only about 20% Black)
The fact that we are even in here debating Oakland as a national black capital is hurting my brain lol. And trust me on this, the only people in California with this inflated view of Oakland would be Bay Areans who are Anti-LA by default, and people like Tion who aren't Bay Areans but are Anti-LA all the same. The majority of Californians aren't going to argue that Oakland has a stronger black culture than LA because it doesn't take a lot of research to poke holes and sink that ship...
Again though, I can understand people with a city like Seattle on the poll list. Which, to be fair, Seattle is regionally important in it's own right, but the OP but Seattle on a poll in lieu of Oakland/The Bay and LA, which should be a crime lol. But that should be the extent of the argument for Oakland...
This idea that Oakland belongs in the same conversation as cities like New Orleans is odd as hell, unless again, we're specifying something. Oakland doesn't have anywhere near the black legacy as Nola, and no one outside of crazed Bay Areans view Oakland as more than what it actually is, the black capital of Northern Cali...
Crazy thing is these threads have shown a number of people feel this way, which just highlights how misinformed posters on CD can be, and how misinformed people are of black history and culture in Los Angeles...
Bro what the **** are you talking about? You keep talking about who's a "black city" and who isn't, my counter has never been that LA is a "black city"...
If you want to compare a similar ratio of both cities, be my guest, but let me illustrate how downright idiotic that argument would be. South LA accounts for roughly 11% of the geographic land area of LA. If you wanted a comparable ratio, do you know what ~11% of Oakland's land area is? Roughly 6 square miles. So be my guest, find the blackest 6-sq mile area in Oakland, it is still gonna be dwarfed by the equivalent 11% South LA across the board...
You're gonna remain disappointed; West Oakland has a total land area of 5.9 sq miles and is 40.2% black, very well probably the blackest 6 mi² area in Oakland. So, sure, 40% black West Oakland is a larger proportion that 28% black South Central, then you realize you are comparing a population of fewer than 11,000 black people to ~225,000 black people, and you're arguing that the place with fewer than 11,000 black people has a stronger presence of black history and culture than the place with ~225,000 of us. Tough sell, my guy...
North O is slightly smaller geographically and isn't anywhere close to 40% black. East O is big as hell, you could try to find a 6-square mile pocket, it won't be 40% black, but feasibly the blackest ~11% pocket of East Oakland could be 35% black. And you're still only talking about somewhere between 9-10,000 blacks in that blackest ~11% of East O.....I have a feeling you arent going to realize that if you took the blackest 6-square mile sliver of South LA, its gonna be more than 50% black with many more people packed into that 6 mi² than any 6 mi² in Oakland------->it doesn't matter how you want to correlate the numbers, they can't be distorted that Oakland wins a statistical debate in any sense...
So again, then you're left to subjective measuring of black culture in other methods, which again, I think anyone being honest has to look at it and question how and where exactly Black Oakland outperforms Black LA in anything. You said politics, you're gonna have to be specific for me here, but I won't outright dismiss it. Because the black history is deeper in LA, blacks are doing better economically in LA, blacks have a much deeper reputation and impact in any of the creative disciplines, on and on and on...
Furthermore I've pointed out numerous times that the city of Oakland and South Central Los Angeles are about the same geographical size, yet South LA dwarfs Oakland in anything black and white, regarding the blackness of both within that geographical area. That's an apples to apples, I'm not sure what you're not getting here...
Concerning the surrounding cities, Inglewood and Compton aren't the only cities with notable black populations around LA, and the reason I've included them is because those surrounding cities are part of the same cultural fabric of the heart if Black Los Angeles. But I did the same thing with Oakland by talking about its surrounding cities that are part of the urban fabric, so again its apples to apples...
I'm convinced your reading comprehension is terribly low and/or you're too bitter to admit you're wrong about anything, since its evident that Oakland can't win the numbers argument with LA. Good talking to you, you have a good night, Black Man!
You sound salty that Black Americans aren't even noticable on the LA population numbers. You cant have 9pct black and talk about a black city with black presence. LA has black population due to sheer size of city but its black population is low and the black culture doesnt reign supreme in the city. Blacks couldnt be the bulk population in LA but they did in Oakland. The largest group of people in Oakland were blacks. Just because they're different sizes doesnt mean they aren't comparable that's why per capita exists. Blacks have a higher per capita in Oakland than they do in LA by a long shot and a higher per capita on a metro level too. By your description there is a stronger black population in a LA than in New Orleans, Baltimore, Oakland, Memphis because south LA and nearby cities have more blacks than those cities but yet your comparing sections of a large city to smaller major cities where black culture is the face of their city. LA black presence isnt as strong as Oaklands period. They might reach out with boys in the hood movies and gain popularity but its presence isnt felt in it's own city except in certain areas of the city. LA has more white culture, mexican culture and asian culture than Black. Oakland had black culture and still does and it dominates Oakland. LA has more black people, Oakland has higher percentage and had blacks as majority. LA never has. That's like saying a person who is 9ct black is more black than a man who was 47 pct black lol. Oakland is a major city that has had 4 professional sports team in NBA, MFL, MLB, NHL and is the most diverse city in US, was most exciting city in 2013, 5th in world for places to visit by NY times and is a stand alone city without having to draw personal boundaries for bias sake in argument. Oakland has its infamous years but the good outweighs the bad so I wont even speak on the infamous years.
Also I just seen another poll about west coast black presence that had around 255 votes nd Oakland blew every city out of the water with 183 cites out of the 255 with LA having like 30 something votes
This idea that Oakland belongs in the same conversation as cities like New Orleans is odd as hell, unless again, we're specifying something. Oakland doesn't have anywhere near the black legacy as Nola, and no one outside of crazed Bay Areans view Oakland as more than what it actually is, the black capital of Northern Cali...
Crazy thing is these threads have shown a number of people feel this way, which just highlights how misinformed posters on CD can be, and how misinformed people are of black history and culture in Los Angeles...
No, these people know what their talking about and know Oakland as a real black city who influenced black america and culture in the best way for decades. People know no matter how big a neighborhood is that if that population isnt the dominant of its city then its out of the discussion for black capitals.
London has more blacks than inglewood but which do you think has a stronger black presence, ,,? London?? Didnt think so because Inglewood is black dominant and london is not regardless if you slice sections of London to compare against a whole city of Inglewood
Maybe I should've been clear earlier. When I talk about major cities I'm talking PRINCIPAL CITIES WITH A POPULATION OVER 250,000 by official definition. THE CORE CITIES OF THEIR METRO/REGION. THE LEADING CITY
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.
