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.
Unrelated to the above convo, I’m surprised that Latinos outnumber Black residents in metro Hartford. What’s the primary demographic there? Dominican or Puerto Rican?
Unrelated to the above convo, I’m surprised that Latinos outnumber Black residents in metro Hartford. What’s the primary demographic there? Dominican or Puerto Rican?
Hartford is VERY Puerto Rican. They are 140K of the 196K Hispanics there.
I think it's kind of wild more people consider themselves white in metro Philadelphia than metro Los Angeles. I guess it's very possible, it's always been that way too.
I think it's kind of wild more people consider themselves white in metro Philadelphia than metro Los Angeles. I guess it's very possible, it's always been that way too.
I mean, Philly is a majority white metro but LA hasnt been for decades.
Unrelated to the above convo, I’m surprised that Latinos outnumber Black residents in metro Hartford. What’s the primary demographic there? Dominican or Puerto Rican?
Oh nahh you shouldn't be. All of New England is more Hispanic than Black, by a wide margin. Hartford especially is the most Latino of the CT big cities- maybe Waterbury has a more drastic Hispanic-Black ratio though. Hartford itself is estimated at 49.9% Latino (33.4% Puerto Rican) and 32.5% Non-Hispanic Black (non-mixed race)
Hartford is where you go to find authentic urban Puerto Rican culture. The whole South Side is wonderfully Puerto Rican. Honestly? I loved it.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 09-20-2022 at 09:14 AM..
Unrelated to the above convo, I’m surprised that Latinos outnumber Black residents in metro Hartford. What’s the primary demographic there? Dominican or Puerto Rican?
wow Boston + Philly are pretty much the same. Just +1m more black and +500k more white people
The Black aspect is really important though and a pretty big differentiator. But Historically Boston and Philly were kissing cousins (so my dad says, he moved from Philly/Trenton to Boston in 1977). The main difference is Boston manufacturing declined much earlier thus drawing far fewer Southern African Americans, some came up here for its perceived progressiveness,, welfare safety net, and bourgeoise black class/status African Americans in Boston enjoyed until the 1960s. Once 'enough' Southern Black came the perception of blacks in Boston amongst white people changed swiftly. Prior to that, we had always been the small unthreatening relatively educated/skilled 'servant' class dating back to the slave trade.
In Cities like Philly where there were ample factory jobs galore and bordered southern states like DE and MD African Americans were welcome to come to fill up those jobs and neighborhoods for the sake of economic prosperity. Whereas in Boston competition for jobs was fierce and by the 1960s it turned ugly.
It wasn't until the monetization of Healthcare and Education in the 1980s that Boston would see more growth in its Black population- mostly those from the Caribbean and then Africa- more so than in Philly where they faced more cultural completion from African Americans.
And of course, Boston is more Dominican whereas Philly is more Puerto Rican. Boston has fewer Germanic white people too.
I think what they are trying to say is that California had a strong AA population while Texas never did.
Up to the 70s the 3 starts with the biggest blk population was NY, California and Illinois. SF and LA were the consistently in the top metros for blk people to move to. So it does seem stricking now that both have tiny blk populations.
Texas on the other hand never had a strong Asian population so there is no shock there. In fact the population is much larger now than in the 70s which is a reverse trend for blacks in California.
I think what they are trying to say is that California has a strong AA population while Texas never did.
Texas never had a strong AA Population? I think you TX never had a strong Asian population. Anyhow, I understand but the stat seemed so strange to me.
Quote:
Up to the 70s the 3 starts with the biggest blk population was NY, California and Illinois. SF and LA were the consistently in the top metros for blk people to move to. So it does seem stricking now that both have tiny blk populations.
Well, there are different ways to look at this. I think in the case of California, we should consider 'Blacks Alone or in a Combination of Races', because just looking at 'Black alone' really does a disservice to CA.
Percentage of Blacks that are Multiracial:
Sacramento-Roseville CSA----------------------30.8%
San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA----------27.7%
Los Angeles-Long Beach CSA------------------24.1%
Dallas-Fort Worth CSA--------------------------12.8%
Houston-The Woodlands CSA------------------11.2%
Atlanta-Athens-Sandy Springs CSA-------------9.4%
Quote:
Texas on the other hand never had a strong Asian population so there is no shock there. In fact the population is much larger now than in the 70s which is a reverse trend for blacks in California.
Well, again, it's a matter of perspective, not to excuse racism that may have caused some to leave, that's definitely a factor in many areas of the country-sadly, no way around that, however, Blacks as a whole are increasing in CA, even if slowly, while Non-Hispanic Whites otoh, are fleeing like vampires escaping sunlight.
California Population Growth, 2011-2021
Blacks of all Races: +183,128
Non-Hispanic Whites: -1,475,398
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.