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.
It's not the same LA as the 90's though. Back then it was at least 20-25%.
People think of Nashville as an all white city where everyone is dressed like they are going to a Taylor Swift or Morgan Wallen concert.
Anyhow the cities where the black communities (not necessarily large percent of the cities' population) that are recognized:
Atlanta
DC
Detroit
Chicago
NYC
LA
Miami
Philly
Houston
Memphis
Baltimore
St. Louis
Cleveland
NOLA
Cities with a decent size community (again not a large percent of the population) that aren't recognized:
Dallas
Minneapolis
Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Indianapolis
KCMO
Charlotte
Norfolk
Jacksonville and the other FL cities
Seattle (yes, there is a prominent black community there. After all, the percentage is just slightly lower than LA)
South Los Angeles is still 27% black today, and there's a "bubble", with South LA as the core that extends from Culver in the west to North Long Beach in the east, and goes from Mid-City in the north to Carson in the south, that has a total population of ~2.555 million people in 262.83 mi², of which over 539,000 people are black...
This is the Black LA Bubble, today it is still 21.1% black. This bubble 30 years ago was likely twice that and well over 40% black...
More importantly this bubble is heavily culturally black. People have impressions of LA both ways, there are people who claim they never see any black people in LA, which is preposterous because like 40% of LA's homeless are black...
And if you go to this defined region of LA, you are effectively in a region the size of Brooklyn or Chicago, that is 21% black, absolutely impossible you're in this area and don't see black people...
There isn't this level of blackness in physical volume or cultural weight anywhere in Boston, though I'd agree Black Boston isn't really known to the US population at large. Boston is most similar to Nashville and Raleigh, cities with large and historic black communities, but tge brand of the cities are pretty whitewashed. All three are cities you kinda have to go to, to see their blackness and when you see it is kinda like "wow, there are alot of black people here"...
I was in Boston again a month ago. Always liked it there, could never live there, too cold for me. Buy its a cool place abd there are definitely plenty of us there...
Sacramento is another city whose black population flies under the radar, and as with LA, there's a "bubble" of blackness that when combined with adjoining areas is much blacker than the city singularly is. You'd go to a certain region of Sacramento and swear you see nothing but black people...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
LA was peak black in 1970 at 17%
In 1990 it was ~12% it was never that black lol.
How can you omit Boston when it black population is larger than many of these cities??? In some cases multiple times larger
As opposed to notoriously unhonky majority-white Pittsburgh Seattle and Minneapolis. Gotit.
It was named several times in the thread but I think it along with Minneapols and Indianapolis (maybe Las Vegas) are probably the *largest* populations not in the national cognizant.
I wouldn’t count any southern city as qualifying beside upper south cities like Louisville and Nashville.
At the index of size v awareness Minne Boston and Indy probably top the charts.
Boston in particular ranges from as low as 130,000 in city limits when only looking at non Hispanic non mixed race…. to as high as 775,000 in the CSA including all blacks. That’s 3/4th of a million… by far outnumbering Minneapolis and Indianapolis. Let alone Seattle.
Edit: the entire state of Connecticut is worth mention.
Boston is larger than all these cities though. Last I checked, Minneapolis has a higher black metro population than Boston. Yes, I know Boston has a high Hispanic population with African ancestry but alot of these groups probably don't identify as black and there's no way to separate the ones who have majority black dna from those who don't. Indianapolis is more black than either city by percentage. But I agree that these 3 cities have the most under the radar black populations. This seems to be changing though. I'm surprised how many black people here in the south are familiar with Minneapolis to some degree.
South Los Angeles is still 27% black today, and there's a "bubble", with South LA as the core that extends from Culver in the west to North Long Beach in the east, and goes from Mid-City in the north to Carson in the south, that has a total population of ~2.555 million people in 262.83 mi², of which over 539,000 people are black...
This is the Black LA Bubble, today it is still 21.1% black. This bubble 30 years ago was likely twice that and well over 40% black...
More importantly this bubble is heavily culturally black. People have impressions of LA both ways, there are people who claim they never see any black people in LA, which is preposterous because like 40% of LA's homeless are black...
And if you go to this defined region of LA, you are effectively in a region the size of Brooklyn or Chicago, that is 21% black, absolutely impossible you're in this area and don't see black people...
There isn't this level of blackness in physical volume or cultural weight anywhere in Boston, though I'd agree Black Boston isn't really known to the US population at large. Boston is most similar to Nashville and Raleigh, cities with large and historic black communities, but tge brand of the cities are pretty whitewashed. All three are cities you kinda have to go to, to see their blackness and when you see it is kinda like "wow, there are alot of black people here"...
I was in Boston again a month ago. Always liked it there, could never live there, too cold for me. Buy its a cool place abd there are definitely plenty of us there...
Sacramento is another city whose black population flies under the radar, and as with LA, there's a "bubble" of blackness that when combined with adjoining areas is much blacker than the city singularly is. You'd go to a certain region of Sacramento and swear you see nothing but black people...
Back in 1980 both were at 66% but by 1990 Latinos had altered LAs neighborhood.
Just to an extent because there are still census tracks in the Boston area that are 90%+ black and there were many more that were 90% plus black in the last 20 years. You may not have the geographical scope of Los Angeles but there are many many people who are black in Boston who live in areas that are 70% black plus black and never really leave there.
as well as many many schools that are 70-80%+ black still- and again-many more of them just 20 years ago. In 2000 BPS was 50% black….and much higher when you exclude exam schools. OR many black Bostonians (especially African Americans) there is not much if any exposure to white people or Asian people at all. I think that may seem easy to underestimate from a visitor perspective because you’re moving throughout the metro, but the average black Bostonian moves around a lot less than a touristand might not even have a car. Most of those black neighborhoods are self-sufficient with grocery stores and everything else there’s very little reason or impetus to leave.
I think you could effectively due to the high-level of segregation especially socially and the tendency of blacks in Bsootn to live in Blacker neighborhoos than LA in general (objectively)live in a much blacker environment in Boston than you could in LA where even if it’s 21% black over a large place and it’s culturally black there’s still still going to be many more Mexicans in your vicinity than there are in Boston. What is all said and done Boston is about 3 times as black as LA as percentage (anywhere from 20% to 29% black) . And again as a growing up foundational level, there are more white students in the Los Angeles unified school district and black students whereas in Boston blacks out number 2 to 1….So I think it's very easy to get the same cultural level of Blackness living in Roxbury Dorheeter and Mattapan. Especially because you’re on the ground using public transit walking around very oftn- you get that feel..
while the brand may be like Raleigh and Nashville, actually living in Boston is nothing like Raleigh in Nashville, which are far far far far more integrated. With much less definitionand continuity of black neighborhood. When I’m there it just feels like not as cultural to me because the Black people are living very much the same as the white people going to kind of the same places and I’m there with two New York/New Jersey, people who are very pro black one from Newark one from Jersey City. They’re living in the same cul-de-sac with the white people and there’s some black part of town that are older and more lowkey but it’s not like a focal point of the black culture the way that Roxbury is a focal point of black culture for the whole Eastern Massachusetts. I also think that disjointed nature of Raleigh would it be broken up by so many stroads and freeways feels different. You’re in your car moving through faceless places.i haven’t been to Nashville at all so I’m not speaking on Nashville.
So Boston has a black white ratio of Los Angeles, but a blacker neighborhood on balance the Nashville or Raleigh objectively it seems like in Boston you’re most likely to get the blackest neighborhood to live in of all these 4. Having been to LA and Raleigh the data supports what I saw. Large swaths of South Los Angeles have very few if any white people. But it’s heavily Mexican, with black in political control.
And it’s definitely important to admit that these other three cities are much much more geographically expensive in terms of where Black people live, and in terms of the city limits in general, however I think that comes out of cost and feeling of cohesion and closeness.
I hear people either say LA had a lot of Black people and was cultural or that they see no Black people when they’re out there and it should be noted that Los Angeles has more than three times as many white people as Black people even in Boston It’s only two times as many, of course Boston’s demographics don’t extend out into the metro like LAs do.
I’ve been to Raleigh very recently I have a friend in Roxbury off Dudley Street, who lived in Nashville. One of the things she likes most about Boston is that it feels less white and more cultural than Nashville (by way of Jackson) per her own words.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 12-25-2023 at 11:29 AM..
Boston is larger than all these cities though. Last I checked, Minneapolis has a higher black metro population than Boston. Yes, I know Boston has a high Hispanic population with African ancestry but alot of these groups probably don't identify as black and there's no way to separate the ones who have majority black dna from those who don't. Indianapolis is more black than either city by percentage. But I agree that these 3 cities have the most under the radar black populations. This seems to be changing though. I'm surprised how many black people here in the south are familiar with Minneapolis to some degree.
exactly though- the question is what a place with a large black population. this is a large black population.
Also no- many Latinos DO identify as Black in Boston. I keeep saying and will keep saying this.because I know it to be very true. You’ll se murals of pan Africa and Dominican/puerto Rican flags crossed. A lot of stuff that highlights specific contributions of Afro Latinos. This is the most Afro Latino ack population in America…. At this point you will always be hard-pressed to find groups of 5+ Black people in Boston that don’t include black Latinos. if they didn’t identify as black, they wouldn’t have checked “black.” that's literally identifying as black- they have the choice to check other.
This is an area of the country that is always an outlier applying what’s normal in the rest of America culturally demographically to New England is always as futile as it gets. This is a place that has very very few African Americans and Mexicans to start. The gap between tropical Latino and tropical black culture is much smaller. Especially with Cape Verdeans there to muddy the waters and the ongoing ethnic intermixing. I know an AfroHonduran-Cape Verdean who is darker than me, speaks no Spanish, but still identifies as a Latina and a black woman…
Does *everyone identify as solely black? No- but regardless, they are fully within and integrated into the future and social settings. They're far too inflgrained in our local black culture. There's far too many of them.
We have three Afro Latino city counselors or councilors elect, Henry Santana, Julia Mejia, and Kendra Lara. (who campaigned as Kendra Hicks) Even more ran for office. I'd say these 3 people identify as black first.
Minneapolis has a higher black% in its metro but it's not a higher #
Back in 1980 both were at 66% but by 1990 Latinos had altered LAs neighborhood.
Just to an extent because there are still census tracks in the Boston area that are 90%+ black and there were many more that were 90% plus black in the last 20 years. You may not have the geographical scope of Los Angeles but there are many many people who are black in Boston who live in areas that are 70% black plus black and never really leave there.
as well as many many schools that are 70-80%+ black still- and again-many more of them just 20 years ago. In 2000 BPS was 50% black….and much higher when you exclude exam schools. OR many black Bostonians (especially African Americans) there is not much if any exposure to white people or Asian people at all. I think that may seem easy to underestimate from a visitor perspective because you’re moving throughout the metro, but the average black Bostonian moves around a lot less than a touristand might not even have a car. Most of those black neighborhoods are self-sufficient with grocery stores and everything else there’s very little reason or impetus to leave.
sorry the average LA black persons neighborhood is 19% white. Not 11%…. so identical to Boston but half as black.
So compared to LA Raleigh Nashville you're definitely in a neighborhood with a higher black-white ratio as a black Bostonian, on average. There's a higher density and there's a more defined black plurality.
exactly though- the question is what a place with a large black population. this is a large black population.
Also no- many Latinos DO identify as Black in Boston. I keeep saying and will keep saying this.because I know it to be very true. You’ll se murals of pan Africa and Dominican/puerto Rican flags crossed. A lot of stuff that highlights specific contributions of Afro Latinos. This is the most Afro Latino ack population in America…. At this point you will always be hard-pressed to find groups of 5+ Black people in Boston that don’t include black Latinos. if they didn’t identify as black, they wouldn’t have checked “black.” that's literally identifying as black- they have the choice to check other.
This is an area of the country that is always an outlier applying what’s normal in the rest of America culturally demographically to New England is always as futile as it gets. This is a place that has very very few African Americans and Mexicans to start. The gap between tropical Latino and tropical black culture is much smaller. Especially with Cape Verdeans there to muddy the waters and the ongoing ethnic intermixing. I know an AfroHonduran-Cape Verdean who is darker than me, speaks no Spanish, but still identifies as a Latina and a black woman…
Does *everyone identify as solely black? No- but regardless, they are fully within and integrated into the future and social settings. They're far too inflgrained in our local black culture. There's far too many of them.
We have three Afro Latino city counselors or councilors elect, Henry Santana, Julia Mejia, and Kendra Lara. (who campaigned as Kendra Hicks) Even more ran for office. I'd say these 3 people identify as black first.
Minneapolis has a higher black% in its metro but it's not a higher #
quite frankly, this is how most Dominicans I know in Boston, feel or talk. and really regardless the national cognizant doesn’t know that this exists by and large and it’s not recognized so either way you feel.
My values are based on my experiences growing up in Boston as Black male, Dominican immigrant and product of public housing. I believe that representation matters, and I am determined to bring a fresh perspective to the City Council that is rooted in empathy, understanding, and a deep appreciation for the diversity of our community. Let’s create a more vibrant, equitable, and just Boston for all.
Back in 1980 both were at 66% but by 1990 Latinos had altered LAs neighborhood.
Just to an extent because there are still census tracks in the Boston area that are 90%+ black and there were many more that were 90% plus black in the last 20 years. You may not have the geographical scope of Los Angeles but there are many many people who are black in Boston who live in areas that are 70% black plus black and never really leave there.
as well as many many schools that are 70-80%+ black still- and again-many more of them just 20 years ago. In 2000 BPS was 50% black….and much higher when you exclude exam schools. OR many black Bostonians (especially African Americans) there is not much if any exposure to white people or Asian people at all. I think that may seem easy to underestimate from a visitor perspective because you’re moving throughout the metro, but the average black Bostonian moves around a lot less than a touristand might not even have a car. Most of those black neighborhoods are self-sufficient with grocery stores and everything else there’s very little reason or impetus to leave.
I think you could effectively due to the high-level of segregation especially socially and the tendency of blacks in Bsootn to live in Blacker neighborhoos than LA in general (objectively)live in a much blacker environment in Boston than you could in LA where even if it’s 21% black over a large place and it’s culturally black there’s still still going to be many more Mexicans in your vicinity than there are in Boston. What is all said and done Boston is about 3 times as black as LA as percentage (anywhere from 20% to 29% black) . And again as a growing up foundational level, there are more white students in the Los Angeles unified school district and black students whereas in Boston blacks out number 2 to 1….So I think it's very easy to get the same cultural level of Blackness living in Roxbury Dorheeter and Mattapan. Especially because you’re on the ground using public transit walking around very oftn- you get that feel..
while the brand may be like Raleigh and Nashville, actually living in Boston is nothing like Raleigh in Nashville, which are far far far far more integrated. With much less definitionand continuity of black neighborhood. When I’m there it just feels like not as cultural to me because the Black people are living very much the same as the white people going to kind of the same places and I’m there with two New York/New Jersey, people who are very pro black one from Newark one from Jersey City. They’re living in the same cul-de-sac with the white people and there’s some black part of town that are older and more lowkey but it’s not like a focal point of the black culture the way that Roxbury is a focal point of black culture for the whole Eastern Massachusetts. I also think that disjointed nature of Raleigh would it be broken up by so many stroads and freeways feels different. You’re in your car moving through faceless places.i haven’t been to Nashville at all so I’m not speaking on Nashville.
So Boston has a black white ratio of Los Angeles, but a blacker neighborhood on balance the Nashville or Raleigh objectively it seems like in Boston you’re most likely to get the blackest neighborhood to live in of all these 4. Having been to LA and Raleigh the data supports what I saw. Large swaths of South Los Angeles have very few if any white people. But it’s heavily Mexican, with black in political control.
And it’s definitely important to admit that these other three cities are much much more geographically expensive in terms of where Black people live, and in terms of the city limits in general, however I think that comes out of cost and feeling of cohesion and closeness.
I hear people either say LA had a lot of Black people and was cultural or that they see no Black people when they’re out there and it should be noted that Los Angeles has more than three times as many white people as Black people even in Boston It’s only two times as many, of course Boston’s demographics don’t extend out into the metro like LAs do.
I’ve been to Raleigh very recently I have a friend in Roxbury off Dudley Street, who lived in Nashville. One of the things she likes most about Boston is that it feels less white and more cultural than Nashville (by way of Jackson) per her own words.
What I posted was accurate given South Los Angeles is the epicenter and heartbeat of Black LA, and all the areas within this bubble I defined are contiguous with South Los Angeles...
I find it hard to believe that Boston proper has more of a black cultural presence than Los Angeles when South Los Angeles proper, meaning the city neighborhoods, not adjoining contiguous jurisdictions, is significantly larger than Boston...
Boston in 2020 had a population of ~676k in 48.3 mi² of land, and ~22% black---->that was ~149k black people. South Los Angeles in 2020 had a population of ~820k in ~51.4 mi², and was ~27% black---->that's ~221k black people. That's not only a physical difference of ~72k black people (48% higher), that's a more densely housed black population. I'll absolutely disagree with this assertion that Boston feels blacker in any respect, it's smaller and has fewer black people in that footprint...
When you add in the fact there are more of us in suburban LA than suburban Bean I think it's noticeable to the naked eye that the gap widens...
People who claim they see no Black people in LA instantly out themselves as being unfamiliar with Black Los Angeles when you literally have a region of the city of LA that is larger than Boston with more black people in volume and ratio. And substantially so at that...
I'm not about to brag about segregated neighborhoods as in the overwhelming majority of segregated black hoods across the country they are underfunded and mistreated in civil services, representation, and quality of life resources. Congratulations if this isn't the case in Boston, but it is true if most of the US. So if Boston has more 70%+ neighborhoods something is missing, these neighborhoods must be tiny because objectively, supported by data, South LA proper is substantially blacker, and anecdotally, I feel has more cultural presence and looks blacker on the ground...
So one answer probably is that Boston is more segregated than LA which is a hell of a feat because ~68% of Black Angelenos live in South LA. Los Angeles is certainly segregated and that's how you get to the average black person in LA living in a 23-24% black neighborhood, so the fact that Boston is seemingly more segregated than this, isn't really cause for applause. Though if some of these areas are self-supporting, good for us and good for them (and contrary to popular belief these kind of neighborhoods exist in California too)...
I'm telling you from having lived in LA, family in different regions of LA, and a basic familiarity with the city, the average Angeleno has minimal interaction with white people, Black Bostonians are gonna have more. If 68% of Black Angelenos live in South Central, and South Central is ~3% white, that's 7 in 10 Black Angelenos that rarely interact with white people. Not at school, not at church, not at work; of course the further our into the city you go there are more and more white people, and fewer of us. Bit your stats about LA being 3x white than black isn't really relevant as the average Black Angeleno has minimal interaction with white people...
South LA is 27% black, 3% white. The adjoining jurisdictions that make up Black LA's contiguous bubble, many of them also have fewer white people than us, and sometimes overwhelmingly so like in the case of South LA...
Also contrary to popular belief there are Afro-Latinos in California (I have family in Sacramento that are Black Ricans), though of course this is less than out east...
What I do agree is that if someone is immersed in black community in Boston or LA you get the same degree of experience, because large cities with large communities tend to have this in common. My baseline disagreement would be that calling Boston blacker is only factual if you exclude real life nuances that one can see and draw data and experience from. The entire city of Boston is smaller with fewer black people, and less densely populated to boot, than South Los Angeles alone. It's not blacker and I don't think anyone familiar with Black LA would really say it is, Boston isn't Detroit or Memphis we're talking about lmao...
That was on LA, I'm gonna touch on your Raleigh point next!
Back in 1980 both were at 66% but by 1990 Latinos had altered LAs neighborhood.
Just to an extent because there are still census tracks in the Boston area that are 90%+ black and there were many more that were 90% plus black in the last 20 years. You may not have the geographical scope of Los Angeles but there are many many people who are black in Boston who live in areas that are 70% black plus black and never really leave there.
as well as many many schools that are 70-80%+ black still- and again-many more of them just 20 years ago. In 2000 BPS was 50% black….and much higher when you exclude exam schools. OR many black Bostonians (especially African Americans) there is not much if any exposure to white people or Asian people at all. I think that may seem easy to underestimate from a visitor perspective because you’re moving throughout the metro, but the average black Bostonian moves around a lot less than a touristand might not even have a car. Most of those black neighborhoods are self-sufficient with grocery stores and everything else there’s very little reason or impetus to leave.
I think you could effectively due to the high-level of segregation especially socially and the tendency of blacks in Bsootn to live in Blacker neighborhoos than LA in general (objectively)live in a much blacker environment in Boston than you could in LA where even if it’s 21% black over a large place and it’s culturally black there’s still still going to be many more Mexicans in your vicinity than there are in Boston. What is all said and done Boston is about 3 times as black as LA as percentage (anywhere from 20% to 29% black) . And again as a growing up foundational level, there are more white students in the Los Angeles unified school district and black students whereas in Boston blacks out number 2 to 1….So I think it's very easy to get the same cultural level of Blackness living in Roxbury Dorheeter and Mattapan. Especially because you’re on the ground using public transit walking around very oftn- you get that feel..
while the brand may be like Raleigh and Nashville, actually living in Boston is nothing like Raleigh in Nashville, which are far far far far more integrated. With much less definitionand continuity of black neighborhood. When I’m there it just feels like not as cultural to me because the Black people are living very much the same as the white people going to kind of the same places and I’m there with two New York/New Jersey, people who are very pro black one from Newark one from Jersey City. They’re living in the same cul-de-sac with the white people and there’s some black part of town that are older and more lowkey but it’s not like a focal point of the black culture the way that Roxbury is a focal point of black culture for the whole Eastern Massachusetts. I also think that disjointed nature of Raleigh would it be broken up by so many stroads and freeways feels different. You’re in your car moving through faceless places.i haven’t been to Nashville at all so I’m not speaking on Nashville.
So Boston has a black white ratio of Los Angeles, but a blacker neighborhood on balance the Nashville or Raleigh objectively it seems like in Boston you’re most likely to get the blackest neighborhood to live in of all these 4. Having been to LA and Raleigh the data supports what I saw. Large swaths of South Los Angeles have very few if any white people. But it’s heavily Mexican, with black in political control.
And it’s definitely important to admit that these other three cities are much much more geographically expensive in terms of where Black people live, and in terms of the city limits in general, however I think that comes out of cost and feeling of cohesion and closeness.
I hear people either say LA had a lot of Black people and was cultural or that they see no Black people when they’re out there and it should be noted that Los Angeles has more than three times as many white people as Black people even in Boston It’s only two times as many, of course Boston’s demographics don’t extend out into the metro like LAs do.
I’ve been to Raleigh very recently I have a friend in Roxbury off Dudley Street, who lived in Nashville. One of the things she likes most about Boston is that it feels less white and more cultural than Nashville (by way of Jackson) per her own words.
I only know Nashville as a visitor the same way I know Boston, so I'll make this point specifically about Raleigh since I live here...
It's true that Raleigh seems more integrated than Boston, but untrue that there's less definition of a black neighborhood...
South Raleigh's largest demographic plurality is black---->40% black, 35% white, 16% Hispanic. Within this, Southeast Raleigh is 61% black...
East Raleigh similarly is 46% black, 32% white, 17% Hispanic. Blacks are the plurality, and within both the East and Southeast, there are a number of black neighborhoods, businesses, and cultural festivities...
Also, Raleigh is somewhat segregated too, the difference is black Raleighites live in more integrated hoods. But Raleigh follows an east/west segregation pattern----->72% of Black Raleighites live in Southeast, East, or Northeast Raleigh. This number balloons to 75% of Black Raleigh if you include Downtown, which is 24% black...
This means there are huge areas on the western portions of Raleigh with few to almost no black residences, and could provide some similarities to Black Boston. And again I find it inconsequential that Black Bostonians more rely on public transportation because believe it or not, most Raleighites aren't just familiar with the entire city lol. They stick to their own insular neighborhoods quite often...
I can forgive you for not knowing where the cultural heartbeat is here, because you don't live here. The same way if I'm in Boston, I don't know that city without a local tour quide...
The Rock Quarry Road corridor in Southeast is the spine of Black Raleigh, there's a ton of blackness and cultural from that avenue and it's arteries. Raleigh feels different to you, Boston feels different to me. It's all relative, brodie. I know where we are in Raleigh the same way you know where we are in Boston...
Nashville has a similar dynamic, and tge general similarity between Raleigh, Boston, Nashville is that all three are thought of as "white" cities while having unassumingly large and prominent black community. I accept your friend's opinion, but I'd also say that if she was truly ingrained in Black Nashville culture, there's no way she missed it. I've only experienced Nashville as a visitor, never a resident, and it's noticeable to the naked eye there's plenty of black folk there...
In the end none of these cities, Boston, Los Angeles, Nashville, Raleigh, are super, super integrated with black folk evenly dispersed across the city. They all have some level of segregation and you gotta know people, who know where to guide you too, to fully experience The Culture in any of them. But it's in all of them and urs why all have community not cognizant on a national scale....
Sacramento is truly apart from any of these cities, in that we live all over Sacramento, but the drawback with that is that there is not a single majority black neighborhood in Sacramento. But the integration means we are in more areas of Sac relative to what we are in the other cities. Sacramento has a large black population though, so there is still a "cultural center" of Black Community in Sacramento but it more aptly fits your descriptions of black people living around more integration than any of the other cities we are talking about...
What I posted was accurate given South Los Angeles is the epicenter and heartbeat of Black LA, and all the areas within this bubble I defined are contiguous with South Los Angeles...
I find it hard to believe that Boston proper has more of a black cultural presence than Los Angeles when South Los Angeles proper, meaning the city neighborhoods, not adjoining contiguous jurisdictions, is significantly larger than Boston...
Boston in 2020 had a population of ~676k in 48.3 mi² of land, and ~22% black---->that was ~149k black people. South Los Angeles in 2020 had a population of ~820k in ~51.4 mi², and was ~27% black---->that's ~221k black people. That's not only a physical difference of ~72k black people (48% higher), that's a more densely housed black population. I'll absolutely disagree with this assertion that Boston feels blacker in any respect, it's smaller and has fewer black people in that footprint...
When you add in the fact there are more of us in suburban LA than suburban Bean I think it's noticeable to the naked eye that the gap widens...
People who claim they see no Black people in LA instantly out themselves as being unfamiliar with Black Los Angeles when you literally have a region of the city of LA that is larger than Boston with more black people in volume and ratio. And substantially so at that...
I'm not about to brag about segregated neighborhoods as in the overwhelming majority of segregated black hoods across the country they are underfunded and mistreated in civil services, representation, and quality of life resources. Congratulations if this isn't the case in Boston, but it is true if most of the US. So if Boston has more 70%+ neighborhoods something is missing, these neighborhoods must be tiny because objectively, supported by data, South LA proper is substantially blacker, and anecdotally, I feel has more cultural presence and looks blacker on the ground...
So one answer probably is that Boston is more segregated than LA which is a hell of a feat because ~68% of Black Angelenos live in South LA. Los Angeles is certainly segregated and that's how you get to the average black person in LA living in a 23-24% black neighborhood, so the fact that Boston is seemingly more segregated than this, isn't really cause for applause. Though if some of these areas are self-supporting, good for us and good for them (and contrary to popular belief these kind of neighborhoods exist in California too)...
I'm telling you from having lived in LA, family in different regions of LA, and a basic familiarity with the city, the average Angeleno has minimal interaction with white people, Black Bostonians are gonna have more. If 68% of Black Angelenos live in South Central, and South Central is ~3% white, that's 7 in 10 Black Angelenos that rarely interact with white people. Not at school, not at church, not at work; of course the further our into the city you go there are more and more white people, and fewer of us. Bit your stats about LA being 3x white than black isn't really relevant as the average Black Angeleno has minimal interaction with white people...
South LA is 27% black, 3% white. The adjoining jurisdictions that make up Black LA's contiguous bubble, many of them also have fewer white people than us, and sometimes overwhelmingly so like in the case of South LA...
Also contrary to popular belief there are Afro-Latinos in California (I have family in Sacramento that are Black Ricans), though of course this is less than out east...
What I do agree is that if someone is immersed in black community in Boston or LA you get the same degree of experience, because large cities with large communities tend to have this in common. My baseline disagreement would be that calling Boston blacker is only factual if you exclude real life nuances that one can see and draw data and experience from. The entire city of Boston is smaller with fewer black people, and less densely populated to boot, than South Los Angeles alone. It's not blacker and I don't think anyone familiar with Black LA would really say it is, Boston isn't Detroit or Memphis we're talking about lmao...
That was on LA, I'm gonna touch on your Raleigh point next!
My thoughts
1) you’re saying there’s less white exposure- that’s doesn’t equate to more black exposure…
2) the data is data. You’re kind of saying the experience isn’t the data. i dont think I'm obliged to just adhere to your “real life nuances” when you have never real life lived in Boston…. Same as I have never real life lived in LA.
3) you’re comparing all of Boston to the blackest part of LA—that’s not fair. Roxbury and Dorchester in particular are 20kppsmi as opposed to 14kppsqmi citywide. 27% black isnkike…Roslindale- and well below the black plurality/majority areas of Rozbury Dorchester Mattapan and Hyde Park
4) LA is a bigger city with more people and more black people; clearly.
5) my only point was I think you get equal or more black exposure as a typical balck person living in Boston about 70% of us live in Hyde Park Dorchester Mattapan and Roxbury. I think we agree on this
6) the area directly south of Boston right down Blue Hill Ave/Bkue Hill Parkway/Route 28/Route 27 to Brockton contains about 220k people— 35% of whom are black… and it is like 60 square miles. Randolph Brockton Stoughton Milton Avon Holbrook MA. But that’s the suburbs as we all know Ala has some black suburbs too- very notable ones at that. I'm just saying there is a considerably larger black suburban footprint than you probably saw and some contiguity there too.
7) blacks have been the #3 minority in LA and the metro for decades. In Bosotn the racial dialogue still breaks along white black lines as we have retained #2 status in the city for the time being.
8) there's just an overwhelming amount of Mexicans in South La who are of predominately European ancestry and look it took. It's a big divide and not as meshable with black cultures as the tropical and afro Latinos in Boston.
9) I think LA is more socially integrated than Boston because everywhere is. Every black person i know who's lived in LA from Boston says as much (they also say everyone is Mexican, but the don't live In South Central) I do believe you would have equal exposure to white people there as in Boston. It also is not Memphis or Detroit.
10) if you've been to our neighborhoods you know there's virtually no vacancy and there's ample amenities. That's a big part of the expense. I don't see where LA feels blacker on the ground in those areas but that's subjective I won't fight it.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 12-25-2023 at 08:30 PM..
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.
