Which city on the West Coast has the strongest Black presence (raise, south)
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.
Just want to repost my posts from last year on this topic. Pretty irrefutable:
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
Los Angeles city: 8.5% black (pop. ~337,000)
LA metro: 6.3% black (pop. ~843,000)
LA CSA: 6.3% black (pop. ~1,176,000)
Oakland city: 23.1% black (pop. ~97,000)
Oakland metro division: 9.3% black (pop. ~264,000)
SF/Oakland MSA: 7% black (pop. ~328,000)
Bay Area CSA: 5.7% black (pop. ~496,000)
Los Angeles has 19 suburbs at or above state average black population (5.5%): Inglewood (43.6), Compton (27.0), Carson (24.7), Gardena (23.6), Hawthorne (21.6), Lancaster (20.3), Long Beach (12.0), Bellflower (10.5), Palmdale (9.9), Paramount (9.7), Pasadena (9.4), Lakewood (9.1), Culver City (8.5), Lynwood (8.2), Lawndale (7.9), Cerritos (7.4), Duarte (7.1), Norwalk (6.4), Monrovia (6.1)
Oakland has 14 suburbs at or above state average black population (5.5%): Antioch (25.3), Hercules (19.5), Pittsburg (17.1), Richmond (16.9), San Pablo (14.7), Emeryville (13.6), Pinole (11.8), San Leandro (10.3), Berkeley (9.8), Alameda (9.1), Hayward (7.4), Oakley (6.8), El Cerrito (6.7), Dublin (6.1)
Los Angeles peak black population was in the 70s; 1970 Census 17.9% of Angelenos were black, or ~503,000 population. The black population has shrunken by a full third/33% since '70...
By contrast, Oakland was at its blackest percentage in 1980 (47%), but at its blackest in raw number in 1990 Census at ~164,000 (43.9%). Oakland's black population has actually declined faster, down 41% from its '90 peak, 27 years ago...
So Oakland has always been blacker as a percentage of its population, but LA's volume has always been multiple times larger. Both cities have suffered extensive black flight....
That said, people are out of it if they think LA is light on black culture. So much of LA's black culturisms has impacted the larger LA culture that it's not associated with its root anymore; Black LA also has an outsized influence on American culture in general, given that as a proportion of its population, blacks have always been such a small percentage of the city...
I went to Weemes Elementary in the '90s for two years; I walked to school in a neighborhood that is now around 25% black. At that age, and even going back to visit in my mid and late teens, while you definitely understand that Latinos have a larger physical presence, you see black people all around you in that part of LA, and the older I've gotten I've been able to witness Black LA's influence on the country in general. I never lived in The Bay, and even though I'm originally from Northern California, I can tell you that LA has just as much pull and influence--maybe just barely slightly less--as Oakland even though LA is 5 hours south. And living and traveling around the country, growing up on the other side of the map, it's not even close--Oakland has nowhere near the resonance that LA has to Black Americans...
There is no "chocolate city" in California, and if there were, it always would have been centered around South Central LA and it's adjacent "suburbs"--between both the greater Oakland and LA areas, the two blackest suburbs (Inglewood and Compton) are in LA and are essentially extended neighborhoods of South Central; and six of the seven suburbs at least 20% black are in LA. There is literally no way to justify Oakland as having a stronger black culture--its too small, less diverse, more blacks are leaving at a faster rate, fewer blacks are moving in, and finally: LA is far more relatable across a variety of culturally relevant topics to Black Americans than Oakland!
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
I only named cities instead of CDPs but you're right, many other places could be named...
Hyphy was a local trend that never caught on anywhere outside California like that, definitely not here to the East Coast. I would liken it to LA's "crumping", except crumping was more popular nationwide than people "going dumb"...
Anything else related to Black music is going to be a landslide in favor of Los Angeles...
The Panthers were a big deal!
East Bay compared to LA is just smaller in scope, reach, and influence. When you're in these areas, I find it difficult to believe that East Bay cities, including Oakland, give off a larger culturally black presence than LA. As others have pointed out, the black spread in both areas is mostly relegated to one area each metro (Oakland and adjacent East Bay of the Bay Area; South LA and the surrounding "South Bay" suburbs around South Central). I think the size differential is what tips the scales. South Los Angeles alone is twice the size of Oakland City (well over 800,000 now), and is still at least 33-35% black--thats roughly ~265,000 blacks still in South Central, which is 2.75 times the amount in the city if Oakland--->plus South Central is directly bordered by Compton to the east and Inglewood to the west, both of which are blacker than anything in the Bay Area....
So, South Central is 51-square miles land, with nearly three times the black population as Oakland city limits in four fewer square miles of land. This is a landslide, to me...
No doubt, Oakland and surroundings is the second-most influential and "culturally black" place in the Western states, but LA is on another level here. Nobody could spend time in that 51m2 South Los Angeles, and feel the cultural impacts and presence of blacks there is to a lesser degree than in Oakland. Of course the presence in both cities is lesser than it was in yesteryear, and yet, South LA STILL has a higher percentage of blacks, as well as Latinos, which is all anybody wants to talk about in relation to LA, without pointing out that SCxLA still has a larger black population by percentage and raw numbers...
.........
Sacramento
The only reason someone would say Seattle has a stronger black presence than Sac is if they are blindly considering Seattle's black musical legacy. Which, to be sure, Seattle does have a surprising amount of black influence...it doesn't have a stronger black presence than Sacramento...
Phoenix and Vegas have been siphoning California blacks for the better part of two decades. That's the only justification for believing they have a greater black presence than Sac...
Does anybody actually think of Vallejo? Lol...I was there in April. Nothing special...
Amongst large cities, if you were ranking California cities in terms of black culture, it's 1 LA, 2 Oakland, 3 Sacramento. Sac is a distant third, but who else are you putting third? Fresno?
Vallejo is small and would have to be spoken in context of the larger East Bay region. I guess I could see an argument for Long Beach 3rd if you want to seperate it, but it is in LA County and to me is part of LA's black core, and I'm still not sure the black presence there is greater than in Sac...
Outside of California, you have to go as far East as Texas to start encountering higher levels of black culture than California cities. Phoenix and Vegas deserve mention for their black growth rates, but as mentioned thieves relatively new. I'm not sure the black culture in those areas is as high or as interwoven into the cultural fabric yet as it is in larger Cali cities...
Oakland was a black city and also a well respected city known for being home to the black population that stood up to racism and racist politics (Black Panthers). But ever since the 80s I do think LA has been the more influential city. A lot of people outside of California know and respect the black population in LA more.For me personally I do not think a city being black really means anything. LA is a world class city and the highest percentage of blacks in a world class city in America is like 30 something percent which happens to be Chicago. So using LA's black percentage as a weakness is silly to me.
Overall I chose Oakland because of its positive history and fight for black people.
Oakland was a black city and also a well respected city known for being home to the black population that stood up to racism and racist politics (Black Panthers). But ever since the 80s I do think LA has been the more influential city. A lot of people outside of California know and respect the black population in LA more.For me personally I do not think a city being black really means anything. LA is a world class city and the highest percentage of blacks in a world class city in America is like 30 something percent which happens to be Chicago. So using LA's black percentage as a weakness is silly to me.
Overall I chose Oakland because of its positive history and fight for black people.
I don't think one black person in America respects LA blacka more than Oaklands. I mean how could they. L.A. represents everything that blacks dont give af about for the most part
I only named cities instead of CDPs but you're right, many other places could be named...
Hyphy was a local trend that never caught on anywhere outside California like that, definitely not here to the East Coast. I would liken it to LA's "crumping", except crumping was more popular nationwide than people "going dumb"...
Anything else related to Black music is going to be a landslide in favor of Los Angeles...
The Panthers were a big deal!
East Bay compared to LA is just smaller in scope, reach, and influence. When you're in these areas, I find it difficult to believe that East Bay cities, including Oakland, give off a larger culturally black presence than LA. As others have pointed out, the black spread in both areas is mostly relegated to one area each metro (Oakland and adjacent East Bay of the Bay Area; South LA and the surrounding "South Bay" suburbs around South Central). I think the size differential is what tips the scales. South Los Angeles alone is twice the size of Oakland City (well over 800,000 now), and is still at least 33-35% black--thats roughly ~265,000 blacks still in South Central, which is 2.75 times the amount in the city if Oakland--->plus South Central is directly bordered by Compton to the east and Inglewood to the west, both of which are blacker than anything in the Bay Area....
So, South Central is 51-square miles land, with nearly three times the black population as Oakland city limits in four fewer square miles of land. This is a landslide, to me...
No doubt, Oakland and surroundings is the second-most influential and "culturally black" place in the Western states, but LA is on another level here. Nobody could spend time in that 51m2 South Los Angeles, and feel the cultural impacts and presence of blacks there is to a lesser degree than in Oakland. Of course the presence in both cities is lesser than it was in yesteryear, and yet, South LA STILL has a higher percentage of blacks, as well as Latinos, which is all anybody wants to talk about in relation to LA, without pointing out that SCxLA still has a larger black population by percentage and raw numbers...
People do not think about blacks when they think of LA and its 6pct black population lol. Oakland is predominantly black still at 28pct. and thinks about blacks when the workd Oakland is mentioned. Theres no african American dominated city west of the mississippi that is close to the size of oakland
Oakland has a stronger black presence than New York City as well because it boils down to the percentage and size of a city compared to a mega city like Los Angeles.
But with that being said,Los Angeles overall has a stronger black influence in most categories"
I don't think one black person in America respects LA blacka more than Oaklands. I mean how could they. L.A. represents everything that blacks dont give af about for the most part
Just some advice, you probably shouldn't speak for black people if you aren't black yourself...
LA has way more appeal to the average person of any background. Many, many, many people, blacks and otherwise, have chosen LA over Oakland...
This weird fetish you have with both black people and Los Angeles is unsavory...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tspoon91
People do not think about blacks when they think of LA and its 6pct black population lol. Oakland is predominantly black still at 28pct. and thinks about blacks when the workd Oakland is mentioned. Theres no african American dominated city west of the mississippi that is close to the size of oakland
Oakland is 22.9% black as of Census estimates in 2017. Los Angeles is 8.7% black. Oakland has one of the highest declining black populations in the entire country. I've detailed pretty thoroughly why LA has a much stronger black presence, in my previous posts. While you're entitled to disagree, there is no justifiable reason to believe that Oakland has a stronger black presence, when you succinctly dive into the metrics...
Black person from the east coat here. No one thinks of LA as a black city, it’s understood there are just enough blacknpeople all throughout the region and a large black population in south la and the surrounding areas. Oakland is known to be blacker but most black people have a better understanding of the demographic reality of those cities in general than white Americans who think of the 80s...LA is where young blacks people go to try and be famous, if notnatlanta. Certainly not a hot bed for black anything other than Black celebrity life.
That being said nobody thinks about Oakland...-Black peoole of a younger generation only know Oakland for the Pack and ’Vans’ they associate the Bay with diversity in general not so much black culture. Nothing in California or the West Coast scream black culture. Right now the first and biggest Bay Area rapper I know is GEazy...there’s Saweetie from Sacramento and she’s half Filipina. This younger generation of black people didn’t grow up on the Oakland Black Panther Party or even Too Short/Digital Underground. And because we’re so far from California it’s not even common knowledge.
Hard to hold Oakland to this standard of being a black Mecca when ya literally only exactly as black as Boston, and Boston has a couple much blacker suburbs.. I get Boston is on the east coast but my point is being on the same plane with Boston doesn’t bode well for what was once a ‘black mecca’...
People do not think about blacks when they think of LA and its 6pct black population lol. Oakland is predominantly black still at 28pct. and thinks about blacks when the workd Oakland is mentioned. Theres no african American dominated city west of the mississippi that is close to the size of oakland
Predominately black at 28%???
Also oaklands largest ethnic group is now white people..Hispanics might be second
Black person from the east coat here. No one thinks of LA as a black city, it’s understood there are just enough blacknpeople all throughout the region and a large black population in south la and the surrounding areas. Oakland is known to be blacker but most black people have a better understanding of the demographic reality of those cities in general than white Americans who think of the 80s...LA is where young blacks people go to try and be famous, if notnatlanta. Certainly not a hot bed for black anything other than Black celebrity life.
That being said nobody thinks about Oakland...-Black peoole of a younger generation only know Oakland for the Pack and ’Vans’ they associate the Bay with diversity in general not so much black culture. Nothing in California or the West Coast scream black culture. Right now the first and biggest Bay Area rapper I know is GEazy...there’s Saweetie from Sacramento and she’s half Filipina. This younger generation of black people didn’t grow up on the Oakland Black Panther Party or even Too Short/Digital Underground. And because we’re so far from California it’s not even common knowledge.
Hard to hold Oakland to this standard of being a black Mecca when ya literally only exactly as black as Boston, and Boston has a couple much blacker suburbs.. I get Boston is on the east coast but my point is being on the same plane with Boston doesn’t bode well for what was once a ‘black mecca’...
That nut tspoon is the one who is using words like "mecca". The object of the thread isn't about mecca, it's about which city has the strongest black presence. But for clarification, the East Bay, Greater LA, and increasingly Vegas, are, relatively speaking, seen as the black meccas on the West Coast, for their broad appeal to blacks across a variety of platforms...
You're terribly mistaken, I mean completely erroneous, that you believe LA is "not a hot bed for black anything other than black celebrity life". Completely wrong, and I think it's important to separate the distinction between what we consider national meccas (Atlanta, DC), and what LA offers in comparison...
I've been and lived up and down the East Coast. You're right, Oakland is not really on anyone's radar about anything. Which if you go back and read some of the past remarks in this thread, makes it even more ridiculous to claim Oakland has a stronger black cultire than LA. People may not view LA as a national black mecca, but the argument can be made that it is one; while maybe not on the same scale as Atlanta or DC, LA definitely has influence for blacks around the nation. Everywhere I've libed, between NY and Atlanta, I've known someone black who either moved to LA or wanted to, and in some of my residences, I have known (relatively speaking) many blacks with ties to LA...
The same cannot be said of Oakland to nearly the same extent. I want to add that both LA and The Bay are extremely diverse, but on the whole, Greater LA is way more black "inviting" than The Bay. Though South LA is the centerpiece, there are clusters of black communities across the LA region. In the Bay Area, it's EastBay or bust. North Bay, South Bay, San Francisco (most especially the city of San Francisco) are on the whole not very inviting to blacks and have an astonishingly limited black presence...
To reiterate though, Oakland and the greater East Bay is a hotbed of strong black culture, so it's irrelevant whether someone on the East Coast realizes it or not, as that isn't the question that was asked. Clearly there is some naivete about both LA and Oakland, and I'm going to double down on something I've said for years on here, that LA is criminally underrated on this board, and wildly misunderstood. I don't blame you for your perception, I've certainly met people in person who share your views. But it is a narrow perception, no question about it...
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.
