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 I never said that at all! I said that the word "liberal" or "progressive" means different things to different people and that one definition of those words fits Austin and the other definition fits Houston better. What I did NOT say:
1) Austin was racially regressive in its current form (I do think Austin's history set it back some if were talking about attracting African Americans)
2) Houston is more liberal than Austin
3) Austin was unfriendly towards immigrants
I dont think any of the above statements are true.
Do I think Houston is more racially progressive than Austin? Yeah, I do. Do I think Austin is more progressive than Houston overall? Of course I do. It just depends on the person and how they view that term.
Lets take Austin out of the equation for a minute. Other than East Coast cities (NYC, Florida, DC, and Boston), Houston has the most diverse Latin American community in the US. Hispanics are choosing Houston more than any other metro area in the US. Below is data from 2013-2018 and broken down by country:
Total Hispanic Growth:
Houston: 352,964
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 351,185
Los Angeles/Riverside: 347,691
Dallas/Fort Worth: 280,334
New York: 234,553
Phoenix: 199,489
Mexican:
Los Angeles/Riverside: 204,432
Houston: 172,088
Dallas/Fort Worth: 168,878
Phoenix: 126,165
San Antonio: 119,894
Guatemala:
Los Angeles/Riverside: 29,977
Atlanta: 17,882
Houston: 13,847
Washington DC: 12,109
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 9,760
Honduras:
Houston: 37,905
Washington DC: 25,078
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 18,069
Dallas/Fort Worth: 15,944
New Orleans: 7,742
El Salvador:
Houston: 46,089
Los Angeles/Riverside: 45,610
Washington DC: 35,669
New York: 23,985
Dallas/Fort Worth: 21,802
Its hard to say Hispanics are better off in Houston vs. Austin. Thats subjective and depends on the person. What is obvious is that really only Miami and LA/Riverside pull in the type of numbers Houston does from Latin America. So the communities are simply going to be much larger than anyplace not LA, Miami, or NYC.
Demographically, I think Mexicans would be just as fine in Austin as they would in Houston. If its another type of Hispanic, I cant think the same argument could be made.
And we finally agree on something!
I think Hispanics choose Houston more overall simply because it's cheaper. It is also a much bigger city so naturally receives more people from different places.
I also think that the cultural differences between Hispanic countries have been decreasing overr the years, and I definitely think that non-Mexican Hispanics would be comfortable moving into Mexican neighborhoods (and vice versa). It happened in LA, Houston, Dallas, probably a bunch of other places.
While Mexicans flooded NYC's Hispanic neighborhoods that are not traditionally Mexican at all. It's really the language that counts, and even then it only matters for immigrants.
As for Austin vs Houston in regards to which is better for Hispanics, you're right that it is subjective. But Houston seems to have rougher Hispanic neighborhoods, and Houston has a lot more crime in general.
I also find that (despite me having said that many if not most US born Hispanics assimilate to AA culture) Hispanics are less particular about moving to places than both AAs and white liberals. White liberals tend to seek "progressive" places and AAs seem to typically look for areas that have at least somewhat of a black community.
While Hispanics move everywhere, which is why traditionally black places like Compton as well as random traditionally white Southern towns like Guymon, OK have become heavily Hispanic.
Man you've gotta be kidding me and I'm honestly surprised folks are still saying this when right now we're living in the years 1918, 1968, and 2008 simultaneously. And folks give Hillary more flak for that comment than Biden or Sanders for actually voting for the bill (and writing it in the case of Biden). But that's another discussion for another day.
I can meet you halfway kinda sorta though. The Democratic and Republican establishment don't have a whole lot of daylight between them seeing as though they are both corporatist. Both are beholden to their particular lobbyists and the Dem establishment is often afraid to go in a more progressive direction because they fear backlash by a large contingent of voters. But sometimes they manage to get it done and suffer backlash in the short term but the people eventually come to accept the changes (or they get whittled down in a piecemeal fashion by the opposing party over time).
Honestly, I'm not a fan of any democratic or republican politician. At least at that level. Never voted for either party and never will. So my disdain goes far beyond Hillary. It extends to Biden and Sanders too. They're all guilty in my book. But if it was just about the one comment I wouldn't have even made that statement.
The Clintons have a longgggggg complicated relationship with Black America. On the surface the Clintons were the family that was invited to the "cookout". Hey Bill played the Sax on Arsenio. He's got to be down right? Problem is, too many of our people are in love with symbolism and lip service. More so my Parents Generations and the generations before them. In a way I get it. I think more and more Black American's have become a little bit more knowledgeable on the political process and some of these figures we uphold as "do no wrong" celebrities. Not nearly at the level I would hope for but I see improvements within the Millennial AA's. With that said we know exactly who Donald Trump is because he's in your face with it. Hillary and other democrats like to say the "right" things but their track record says otherwise.
1.Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history.
2.Clinton supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.
3.Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law.
4.Let's not even get into the now embarrassing Crime Bill that Hillary helped push Democrats to vote in favor of with her speeches on the campaign trail.
5.The United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world when Clinton left the office. African Americans made up 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison under Clinton. And we know White Americans sell and use drugs just as much as African Americans.
6.Hillary lobbied for legislation and had significant influence in helping her Husband push these policies that continued the destruction of Black American communities.
7.Billions of dollars were slashed from public-housing and child-welfare budgets and transferred to the mass-incarceration machine.
8.Hillary supported bank deregulation and the Iraq War
9.Hillary along with other democrats praised and sort of idolized Robert Byrd. I don't care if the man denounced the KKK in the early 50's, he has a long history of being Anti progressive and in favor of policies that were not progressive for AA's.
All of them can go
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foamposite
You think Hispanics are doing better in Houston than Austin?
Austin is 35% Hispanic vs Houston's 43%.
And for what it's worth, my Salvadoran-American friend here in New York went to both cities and much preferred Austin, he said that Houston was ghetto and reminded him of the bad parts of Long Island.
Your friend huh? Here we go with the anecdotal. I didn't say Hispanics are doing better in Houston than in Austin. I said they can have a cultural experience unique to their ethnicity without having to assimilate or feel to assimilate into a predominate White enclave in the core of their city. It's more of them in the core of the city so it's more comfortable spaces for them to be them along with other ethnic groups in Houston's core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foamposite
Hillary Clinton would never act anything like Trump. It's ridiculous to think after a full 4 years of Trump that they are anything alike.
Didn't say Hillary acts like Trump. Clearly twisted my words around. I said Hillary isn't really that progressive or different politically than Trump. Yeah she'll act more "Presidential" or how people think a President should behave but politically NAH. The Clinton's wouldn't have "apologized" for the mistakes they made at the expense of Black America if there wasn't some similarities between those 2. Plus the Clintons and Trumps are friends or "associates". Whichever way you put it they have a relationship. They have mutual friends/"associates".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foamposite
As for Austin vs Houston in regards to which is better for Hispanics, you're right that it is subjective. But Houston seems to have rougher Hispanic neighborhoods, and Houston has a lot more crime in general.
I also find that (despite me having said that many if not most US born Hispanics assimilate to AA culture) Hispanics are less particular about moving to places than both AAs and white liberals. White liberals tend to seek "progressive" places and AAs seem to typically look for areas that have at least somewhat of a black community.
While Hispanics move everywhere, which is why traditionally black places like Compton as well as random traditionally white Southern towns like Guymon, OK have become heavily Hispanic.
Houston also has more affluent communities as well. The Woodlands attracts some of the most affluent Mexicans immigrants in the state. A lot come from Mexico City to be exact.
I think Hispanics choose Houston more overall simply because it's cheaper. It is also a much bigger city so naturally receives more people from different places.
I also think that the cultural differences between Hispanic countries have been decreasing overr the years, and I definitely think that non-Mexican Hispanics would be comfortable moving into Mexican neighborhoods (and vice versa). It happened in LA, Houston, Dallas, probably a bunch of other places.
While Mexicans flooded NYC's Hispanic neighborhoods that are not traditionally Mexican at all. It's really the language that counts, and even then it only matters for immigrants.
As for Austin vs Houston in regards to which is better for Hispanics, you're right that it is subjective. But Houston seems to have rougher Hispanic neighborhoods, and Houston has a lot more crime in general.
I also find that (despite me having said that many if not most US born Hispanics assimilate to AA culture) Hispanics are less particular about moving to places than both AAs and white liberals. White liberals tend to seek "progressive" places and AAs seem to typically look for areas that have at least somewhat of a black community.
While Hispanics move everywhere, which is why traditionally black places like Compton as well as random traditionally white Southern towns like Guymon, OK have become heavily Hispanic.
Its more than simply being cheaper. A lot of cities are cheap and for people coming here, they have a lot to choose from. The biggest factor is going to be finding an established community, going where they know people, and where there will be amenities specifically for their culture (restaurants, community centers, places to hang out, etc.). Immigrants still immigrate to expensive cities all the time. Its the fact that those factors exists that keep them going there. In Houston's case the communities are so massive that its not much different than moving to Miami, LA, or NYC from Latin America at this point.
I dont know that I fully agree that cultural differences are diminishing among Hispanics. I suppose if youre talking about between Hondurans and Salvadorans, maybe. If youre comparing Mexicans with Venezuelans, definitely not. In most major cities, there are areas where they mix and places where the culture keeps to themselves. In LA, the Pico-Union area is very predominate Salvadoran and not very Mexican at all despite LA having such a huge Mexican population. In NY, parts of Long Island are like that. In Houston, Gulfton has few Mexicans but massive numbers of Hondurans and Salvadorans, in Miami places like Doral are mainly Venezuelan. Even in major city, many Hispanic groups will keep to themselves if they can.
As far as Hispanic neighborhoods go, Houston is just a rougher city than Austin overall. Houston also receives a lot of immigration from Latin countries whereas Austin doesnt. Most people coming from Latin America (especially Central America) dont have much so they have to live where they can. That said Houston also has a lot of very nice Hispanic neighborhoods. Given the size and scope of its Hispanic population, there will be lot of rough and nice neighborhoods populated by Hispanics to choose from.
As for Guymon, well that became Hispanic because of meat packing plants. Same story for the Texas Panhandle up to Western KS.
Its more than simply being cheaper. A lot of cities are cheap and for people coming here, they have a lot to choose from. The biggest factor is going to be finding an established community, going where they know people, and where there will be amenities specifically for their culture (restaurants, community centers, places to hang out, etc.). Immigrants still immigrate to expensive cities all the time. Its the fact that those factors exists that keep them going there. In Houston's case the communities are so massive that its not much different than moving to Miami, LA, or NYC from Latin America at this point.
I dont know that I fully agree that cultural differences are diminishing among Hispanics. I suppose if youre talking about between Hondurans and Salvadorans, maybe. If youre comparing Mexicans with Venezuelans, definitely not. In most major cities, there are areas where they mix and places where the culture keeps to themselves. In LA, the Pico-Union area is very predominate Salvadoran and not very Mexican at all despite LA having such a huge Mexican population. In NY, parts of Long Island are like that. In Houston, Gulfton has few Mexicans but massive numbers of Hondurans and Salvadorans, in Miami places like Doral are mainly Venezuelan. Even in major city, many Hispanic groups will keep to themselves if they can.
As far as Hispanic neighborhoods go, Houston is just a rougher city than Austin overall. Houston also receives a lot of immigration from Latin countries whereas Austin doesnt. Most people coming from Latin America (especially Central America) dont have much so they have to live where they can. That said Houston also has a lot of very nice Hispanic neighborhoods. Given the size and scope of its Hispanic population, there will be lot of rough and nice neighborhoods populated by Hispanics to choose from.
As for Guymon, well that became Hispanic because of meat packing plants. Same story for the Texas Panhandle up to Western KS.
Latin America (the Spanish speaking countries) mostly listen to the same music (reggaeton) these days, plus they already have the commonality of being Spanish speaking.
Long Island never really had a Mexican population in general, but there are some Suffolk towns that have quite a few Mexicans mixed in with the Central American population.
I know there are reasons that bring Mexicans to places like Guymon, I just find them to be less picky in general when choosing locations. Asians tend to want good schools, white people tend to want good schools and/or an area that matches their politics, and black people tend to want there to be a black community there. You can even see all of that on here.
What are the nice Hispanic neighborhoods in Houston?
That's incredible. Austin thanking another TX city for contributing to its success. Unheard of from an Austin CD poster or real life one before. This reminds me of when Pat Robertson criticized Trump's Bible photo-op. Strange times we're living in.
This has to be one of the oddest posts ever. Weirdo.
Honestly, I'm not a fan of any democratic or republican politician. At least at that level. Never voted for either party and never will. So my disdain goes far beyond Hillary. It extends to Biden and Sanders too. They're all guilty in my book. But if it was just about the one comment I wouldn't have even made that statement.
At least you're being inclusive, I'll give you that much. But I'll still note that Hillary gets a ton more criticism for using the term "superpredator" to describe the most violent offenders during that time than Biden gets for having written much of the law and Bernie got for having voted for it.
Quote:
The Clintons have a longgggggg complicated relationship with Black America. On the surface the Clintons were the family that was invited to the "cookout". Hey Bill played the Sax on Arsenio. He's got to be down right? Problem is, too many of our people are in love with symbolism and lip service. More so my Parents Generations and the generations before them. In a way I get it. I think more and more Black American's have become a little bit more knowledgeable on the political process and some of these figures we uphold as "do no wrong" celebrities. Not nearly at the level I would hope for but I see improvements within the Millennial AA's.
You aren't considering the historical context here and you're also speaking as one who has the benefit of hindsight. After eight years of freaking Reagan and four of Bush Sr., Clinton was a breath of fresh air for Black folks. He and Hillary weren't pandering to Black folks; they were actually well-acquainted with Black culture and were comfortable in Black spaces. Yeah we took it a little too far with the "first Black president" thing but up to that point we didn't have a president who was as attuned to Black issues since LBJ really. Our embrace of the Clintons was totally understandable given that context.
Quote:
With that said we know exactly who Donald Trump is because he's in your face with it. Hillary and other democrats like to say the "right" things but their track record says otherwise.
1.Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history.
2.Clinton supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.
3.Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law.
4.Let's not even get into the now embarrassing Crime Bill that Hillary helped push Democrats to vote in favor of with her speeches on the campaign trail.
5.The United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world when Clinton left the office. African Americans made up 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison under Clinton. And we know White Americans sell and use drugs just as much as African Americans.
6.Hillary lobbied for legislation and had significant influence in helping her Husband push these policies that continued the destruction of Black American communities.
7.Billions of dollars were slashed from public-housing and child-welfare budgets and transferred to the mass-incarceration machine.
While there's absolutely no question that the Crime Bill was way too heavy-handed in so many ways and provided very little in the way of prevention and treatment when it came to the crack epidemic that fueled the crime wave of the 90's, you have to remember how absolutely horrible things were during that era (the proliferation of "hood movies" during this time wasn't based in fiction) to the point where most elements of the crime bill were considered to be within the realm of reason for dealing with all of the mayhem going on in American cities in particular. It was actually the Black community who wanted something done about the crime in their communities and largely supported the bill. The bill received the votes of more than two-thirds of the CBC and other Black leaders beyond Capitol Hill backed it also. Yes there were others who criticized various aspects of the bill but by and large, it wasn't nearly as controversial then as it is now.
Quote:
8.Hillary supported bank deregulation and the Iraq War
Eh, I think you're kind of grasping at straws with this one and getting into the purity tests and whatnot.
Quote:
9.Hillary along with other democrats praised and sort of idolized Robert Byrd. I don't care if the man denounced the KKK in the early 50's, he has a long history of being Anti progressive and in favor of policies that were not progressive for AA's.
I'd have to disagree here and say this is a bit of an inaccurate characterization of Byrd's political history. He was in Congress from 1953-2010, a total of 57 years. His first 15 years or so are when he decided to be on the wrong side of history with respect to civil rights, most notably filibustering the CRA of 1964 and opposing Thurgood Marshall's SCOTUS confirmation in 1967. However he did vote for the CRAs of '57, '60, and '68 and the 24th amendment to the Constitution. And he also voted against Clarence Thomas' SCOTUS confirmation in '91 (for the right reasons IMO). He began publicly renouncing his racist/segregationist views in the early 70's, expressed regret for opposing the CRA of '64, etc. He also supported Obama's candidacy. For most of his political career, he was actually on the right side of history, even if out of political expedience at least in part, and on more than one occasion spoke of his change of heart and position on matters of race. No doubt his early history was bad enough, but you really can't group him with the likes of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. At the end of the day, I think this says it all so I'm not seeing the issue with giving Byrd credit where it was due, especially when it came to his knowledge of procedural rules in the Senate which gave his party an advantage in many cases and his steering of funding to his state.
Quote:
Didn't say Hillary acts like Trump. Clearly twisted my words around. I said Hillary isn't really that progressive or different politically than Trump. Yeah she'll act more "Presidential" or how people think a President should behave but politically NAH.
I don't see a President Hillary Clinton pulling the U.S. out of all of the international alliances and agreements that Trump has, trying to kill the ACA, instituting (non-pandemic-related) travel bans, nominating a slew of conservative justices to the federal courts, instituting zero tolerance policy on illegal border crossings, banning transgendered persons from serving in the military, purging the executive branch of inspectors general, etc. The only issues where I can legitimately see commonalities between things Trump has done while in office and Hillary's positions would be certain elements of tax reform, dealing with ISIS, the First Step Act, and HBCU funding.
And when we talk about presidential behavior, that's something that's very major and isn't just relegated to some tweets and off-the-cuff remarks. I seriously doubt we'd see the levels of nepotism in the White House, the blatant profiteering, the eradication of a plethora of safeguards and norms, etc. Trump's very unpresidential behavior (treating allies with disrespect, cozying up to adversaries) is rapidly reshaping the global world order with America being relegated to the sidelines in critical areas and by ignoring or even welcoming foreign interference in our elections, the democracy we have is being steadily chipped away at. For all of America's faults, our historic alignment with other Western democratic powers gives Black folks a MUCH better shot at progress than a world order with Russia and China at the helm. If anything, it could legitimately be argued that the "behavior" part of Trump's presidency is the more consequential one.
Latin America (the Spanish speaking countries) mostly listen to the same music (reggaeton) these days, plus they already have the commonality of being Spanish speaking.
Long Island never really had a Mexican population in general, but there are some Suffolk towns that have quite a few Mexicans mixed in with the Central American population.
I know there are reasons that bring Mexicans to places like Guymon, I just find them to be less picky in general when choosing locations. Asians tend to want good schools, white people tend to want good schools and/or an area that matches their politics, and black people tend to want there to be a black community there. You can even see all of that on here.
What are the nice Hispanic neighborhoods in Houston?
Youre as likely to hear regional Mexican (Banda or Norteno), Latin Pop/Rock, Salsa, Bachata, Latin Rap, Cumbia, merengue, etc. as you are reggaeton on the radio here. It just depends on the station.
Again though it depends on the Hispanic. If you come here with no money from a place like San Pedro Sula Honduras, then you wont be as picky but youd be able to choose between large communities in various cities still. If you come here with money from a nice part of Mexico City, then you can be very picky. Same with most places. African immigrants and poor Southeast Asian immigrants are exactly the same in that way depending on the amount of money they have.
There are a handful of nice neighborhoods that are more than 50% Hispanic. Spring Branch and the Hammerly area come to mind. Sharpstown was a pretty bad area a while back but its cleaning up a lot its about 60% Hispanic. There are areas of Spring, Jersey Village, and Cypress that are over 50% Hispanic that are very nice. Your ultra rich Hispanics tend to go for the Woodlands or wealthy neighborhoods in Houston like Afton Oaks, River Oaks, or West Univeristy. Katy has a massive Venezuelan population and its all middle upper class.
In contrast the neighborhoods that most people settled in Houston that come from Latin American with no money depends on where they are from. For poor people from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, they settle in Gulfton, Fondren Southwest, or Greenspoint. For poor Mexicans, they settled in Aldine, the Second Ward, Meadowbrook or Reveille Park.
As this thread is geared toward the appeal of liberal, majority white cities to African Americans, I think discussions re Hispanics, Asians and other sub groups, who obviously suffer prejudice and deserve fairness and equality, tends to sidetrack this particular discussion...
... The sad metric in this country is that many of the big cities that seem the most "liberal" MSP, Portland, Boston (to a degree) tend to be the ones with the fewest African Americans percentage wise. It is easier to pontificate fairness to others when you, yourself, don't regularly have to deal with it. But obviously the world tectonic ripples arising from the horrendous George Floyd murder at the hands of cops in supposedly "Liberal" Minneapolis has demonstrated that there are serious racial/racist/institutionalized racism demons lurking just below the surface of these so-called "liberal" cities that all of us need to come to terms with when throwing these labels around.
Based on the 2010 census, Blacks make up 18.6% of the Minneapolis population, which is far below the Black percentages of most major American core cities. This in Minneapolis, few Black people were seen and few still were likely heard... until now.
As this thread is geared toward the appeal of liberal, majority white cities to African Americans, I think discussions re Hispanics, Asians and other sub groups, who obviously suffer prejudice and deserve fairness and equality, tends to sidetrack this particular discussion...
... The sad metric in this country is that many of the big cities that seem the most "liberal" MSP, Portland, Boston (to a degree) tend to be the ones with the fewest African Americans percentage wise. It is easier to pontificate fairness to others when you, yourself, don't regularly have to deal with it. But obviously the world tectonic ripples arising from the horrendous George Floyd murder at the hands of cops in supposedly "Liberal" Minneapolis has demonstrated that there are serious racial/racist/institutionalized racism demons lurking just below the surface of these so-called "liberal" cities that all of us need to come to terms with when throwing these labels around.
Based on the 2010 census, Blacks make up 18.6% of the Minneapolis population, which is far below the Black percentages of most major American core cities. This in Minneapolis, few Black people were seen and few still were likely heard... until now.
To be fair, the original title said "minorities", not "African-Americans".
Cops are usually not representative of the politics of the city. Many if not most are from the suburbs, and they tend to operate independently of the city council.
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.
