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.
But we're talking about presence. Don't you think a smaller area has something to do with that?
If you just stayed in Oakland and went nowhere else, sure. But there are probably areas of Los Angeles that are as geographically large where you'd see the same number of black people with the same or even greater frequency. Not to mention that Los Angeles has a far greater number of blacks and a higher percentage of blacks on a metro basis.
I've never lived in California, but this is what I've observed among people from there or people moving there.
I meet more black people from the LA area (obviously).
People from LA tell me to never move to the Bay because it's lame. People from the Bay generally don't have an opinion about LA one way or the other (not one I've heard anyway).
Black women say the dating scene is extremely difficult in the Bay Area. I've known several who attended Berkeley and Stanford and then moved to DC or NYC for this reason.
Most black people from the East tend to move to LA.
So I'd say it's not just the media, but it's a general perception that there's more going on for blacks in LA based on hearsay, alumni networks, etc.
LA is also a much bigger destination than Oakland for anyone for reasons separate from the racial makeup of the city. Perception also plays a role... People move where they believe there will be more opportunity. No one from outside of California thinks of Oakland as a city with opportunity, least of all black folk.
In reality though as far as the west coast goes Oakland is one of the "old" black cities... Dozens and dozens of black professional networks run through Oakland and have been for decades.
If you just stayed in Oakland and went nowhere else, sure. But there are probably areas of Los Angeles that are as geographically large where you'd see the same number of black people with the same or even greater frequency. Not to mention that Los Angeles has a far greater number of blacks and a higher percentage of blacks on a metro basis.
When you compare them by county that's not true: Alameda County (Oakland) is 12.2% black and Los Angeles County is 8.7%. They don't all just live in Oakland and Richmond either... San Leandro, Berkeley, Hayward, etc. all have significant black populations.
I think you have to go with Oakland as far as presence.
If you mention LA to the outsider with no knowledge they will think of Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Lakers, and a ton of other things before they get to black people.
Mention Oakland and I guarantee you blacks will be mentioned in the top two or three by most.
Though I think the AA reputation for both cities is based more on the past than present.
Yes, this pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Oakland today, is not at all the 'black city' that it used to be. Neither of these cities are.
LA is also a much bigger destination than Oakland for anyone for reasons separate from the racial makeup of the city. Perception also plays a role... People move where they believe there will be more opportunity. No one from outside of California thinks of Oakland as a city with opportunity, least of all black folk.
In reality though as far as the west coast goes Oakland is one of the "old" black cities... Dozens and dozens of black professional networks run through Oakland and have been for decades.
Well, that's indisputable. But as far as black "presence" is concerned, I think LA edges the Bay Area out, and that's supported by statistics as well as anecdotal evidence. You never really hear people cry "There's no black people in LA!" even though it's obviously hyperbole when they make a similar claim about the Bay Area.
When you compare them by county that's not true: Alameda County (Oakland) is 12.2% black and Los Angeles County is 8.7%. They don't all just live in Oakland and Richmond either... San Leandro, Berkeley, Hayward, etc. all have significant black populations.
Yeah, but L.A. metro has 1.2 million blacks and it's 7 percent black. The Bay Area has 471,000 blacks and it's 6.5 percent black. I don't see any getting around that fact.
The problem here is comparing a city with roughly 400,000 people to a city with roughly 4,000,000 people. That alone will lead to comparisons that just don't make sense. With that said, the black presence in both cities is decreasing as we speak. Culturally speaking, I'd say Oakland had a stronger black presence in the 60's and 70's. However, that shifted to Los Angeles in the 80's and 90's. Now? I doubt many people in others cities associate either city with black culture.
The problem here is comparing a city with roughly 400,000 people to a city with roughly 4,000,000 people. That alone will lead to comparisons that just don't make sense. With that said, the black presence in both cities is decreasing as we speak. Culturally speaking, I'd say Oakland had a stronger black presence in the 60's and 70's. However, that shifted to Los Angeles in the 80's and 90's. Now? I doubt many people in others cities associate either city with black culture.
Yeah, but L.A. metro has 1.2 million blacks and it's 7 percent black. The Bay Area has 471,000 blacks and it's 6.5 percent black. I don't see any getting around that fact.
According to the Census the LA Metro has 895,931 blacks or roughly 900,000. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the Bay Area has a stronger black presence than LA... on the metro level, it doesn't. The East Bay however does; all of the East Bay counties are more than 7% black. The North Bay that borders the East Bay also has a significant black population; Solano County (Fairfield, Suisun City, Vallejo, etc.) is 14.7% black. All this is to say that blacks are very statistically significant and otherwise on the Oakland side of the Bay.
The problem here is comparing a city with roughly 400,000 people to a city with roughly 4,000,000 people. That alone will lead to comparisons that just don't make sense. With that said, the black presence in both cities is decreasing as we speak. Culturally speaking, I'd say Oakland had a stronger black presence in the 60's and 70's. However, that shifted to Los Angeles in the 80's and 90's. Now? I doubt many people in others cities associate either city with black culture.
Do you mean cultural impact or black presence? Those aren't the same... Oakland has had a stronger black presence than LA arguably since the 50's and definitely since the 60's.
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.
