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.
As a San Francisco resident I would say this is a very liberal city. But it's easy to be tolerate when you don't have to interact with different races. Take the Mission for instance, the hipsters ignore the latinos and the latinos ignore the hipsters. In 5 years Valencia will be just like union street but with tattoos. I was at Amnesia in the Mission on Wed night for the jazz jam and gypsy jam. Some girl tried to take my picture as I was listening to the music. I asked her why and she said she wanted to put the pic on facebook. If informed her that I was not her friend and that she probably doesn't know any black people anyway. I was the only black dude there. So here I am in the Mission in a packed bar and I could count the people of color on one hand. I would say that 85% of Oakland or Sacramento wins as far as the Bay area is concerned. I can't blame SF or the tech industry for pricing people out. But people like my friend from Jordan who owns a store here would rather live outside of SF. As a side note there was an article on the front page of the Chronicle last week that noted how the family exodus was leaving SF whiter and more asian. I think that is fine, but don't call SF a diverse city. nothttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/09/MNQ91NI428.DTL
To be fair though, San Franciscans, out of any other city in the country, really do try their best to embrace diversity and tolerance as positive norms.
I think Norcal in general is the most racially tolerant and progressive region in the country. I just think in Oakland and Sac, you really do have many people living side by side and interacting on a daily basis. In Oakland though, there is definitely far more political consciousness. Most people in Sacramento are not particularly conscious about issues, but they just get along with different groups and have friends of different races, which is why there are a lot of mixed race people in the area as well.
San Francisco is definitely the most liberal city in America. Racially tolerant? That is debatable. The Black population of SF is so small for a reason. San Francisco used to have more than twice the population of Blacks that it has today. San Francisco has lost its Black population quicker than any big city in America. Why? Because Black people in San Francisco have been confined to the less desirable, high crime ghetto areas of SF since the 40's when Black people arrived in masses to work on the Naval Ship Yard. You won't even see Black people in SF unless you go to the projects in an area like the Fillmore, Hunter's Point or Lakeview. When the Ship Yard closed after WWII, the Black population became impoverished and ghettoized in neighborhoods like Hunter's Point, Sunnydale, Fillmore and Lakeview. The Fillmore lost a lot of its Black population when the district was razed in the 70's because the real estate in the Fillmore was "too valuable" to be occupied by poor Black folks. Prior to the redevelopment of the district, the Fillmore was known as the "Harlem of the West". The Fillmore was one of the key Black middle class neighborhoods west of the Mississippi. This is no exaggeration. San Francisco sacrificed its key Black enclave to gentrification decades ago without flinching. Doesn't sound too "racially tolerant" to me.
The remaining Black neighborhoods in San Francisco are full of sub-standard public housing. The projects in Potrero Hill, Sunnydale and Hunter's Point have been rated among the top ten worst public housing complexes in the nation in terms of livability index and crime for years and years. Also, Hunter's Point is located on the most toxic waste dump in the entire state of California. Cohesively, Hunter's Point in SF has the highest infant mortality rate in CA. Standardized test scores among students in Bayview-Hunter's Point are the lowest of anywhere in the entire state. The violent crime rate in San Francisco's Black community is among the highest in the nation. SF has a higher murder rate for Blacks than the much more notorious Oakland across the bridge as well as pretty much every big city in America. The homicide rate for Blacks in SF is so high because Black middle class San Franciscans were priced out of the city years ago and only the poorest or the poor of the Black population remains in SF tucked away in and around the run-down projects in severely economically depressed high crime areas of the city. Today, Black people as a whole are poor in SF. About half of SF's tiny Black population lives in the projects. All of these are reasons why Black people have been leaving San Francisco in droves and why SF definitely does not deserve to be called one of the most racially tolerant cities in America.
Since SF is an international tourist destination and the most liberal city in the country, The City is painted to be some safe liberal utopia free from "real" crime, ghettos, discrimination, blight, inequality and poverty; which is far from true. This is coming from someone who grew up in one of San Francisco's tucked away poorly publicized violent ghetto enclaves in the 80's and 90's.
Last edited by goldenchild08; 03-13-2012 at 08:02 PM..
From a tourist's perspective, I thought San Fran was really lacking in diversity. There were a lot of Europeans, whites from America, and Chinese and some Japanese folks, but outside of that, I didn't see a single black person in my days there, and the only hispanics I saw were tourists going to Alcatraz or working the open air market fruit stands (and I have to say, some muy caliente ones too! I still remember one in particular).
So at least in the northern half of San Fran I thought it was really homogenous, save the tourists.
I have also been to Oakland and to me this is more mixed and much more "tolerant."
Note I said tolerant. Not accepting.
Pretty much the only US city that I've ever been in that rivals Seattle in true ACCEPTANCE of others for who they are is NYC.
Truth be told, Sacramento (along with Seattle and San Diego) are places I would move to just for its racial acceptance and integration, not "tolerance and diversity" but acceptance and integration. As someone said, it's about being treated like a human being, instead of part of some group.
I've seen "tolerance" first hand, and at least in the case for the East Coast, all that "tolerance" amounts to is not saying the N-word in front of your face and not being chased out of an all white neighborhood. Most American cities have enough "tolerance" to not have race riots, but few cities are truly racially integrated to the extent for minorities, especially in the case for Latinos and Blacks. All I've seen "racial tolerance" being used as is a tool to deceive others (and themselves) that racism is extinct. I especially love it when people from NYC, Boston, (modern day) SF, and DC especially, get antsy when they're called out for their "tolerance" as the sleeve-wearing tactic that it is.
Overall, the West does RACIAL ACCEPTANCE the best IMO, especially for blacks. In particularly the moderate-sized cities where blacks don't make the face of the lower-class, like Seattle, Sacramento, Las Vegas, and even San Diego, Phoenix, and Denver - despite their "conservative" reputation (which embody more Libertarian conservatism than Jim Crow conservatism). For Latinos, it depends on a few more factors, but I'd imagine that the more "Americanized" you become and the further away you are from the Mexico border, the more likely you'll be seen as an individual more than part of "the group."
I've seen "tolerance" first hand, and at least in the case for the East Coast, all that "tolerance" amounts to is not saying the N-word in front of your face and not being chased out of an all white neighborhood. Most American cities have enough "tolerance" to not have race riots, but few cities are truly racially integrated to the extent for minorities, especially in the case for Latinos and Blacks. All I've seen "racial tolerance" being used as is a tool to deceive others (and themselves) that racism is extinct. I especially love it when people from NYC, Boston, (modern day) SF, and DC especially, get antsy when they're called out for their "tolerance" as the sleeve-wearing tactic that it is.
Or maybe people from NYC, Boston, and DC mostly don't care what you do because their lives are so busy? I wouldn't say its a Northeastern problem.
I don't see people being rude to me as a challenge, which could easily be misconstrued as 'racism'.
NYC is THE most diverse city in the US, while DC suburbs are themselves diverse. If it was so bad and uncomfortable, then why have the minority populations in both places skyrocketed?
Quote:
Overall, the West does RACIAL ACCEPTANCE the best IMO, especially for blacks.
Doesn't the West also have significantly LESS BLACKS than the other regions? Doesn't the West also have the most recently settled in Black population without any history there?
Quote:
In particularly the moderate-sized cities where blacks don't make the face of the lower-class, like Seattle, Sacramento, Las Vegas, and even San Diego, Phoenix, and Denver - despite their "conservative" reputation (which embody more Libertarian conservatism than Jim Crow conservatism).
Again, most, if not all these cities don't really have much of a black population.
Hell, all these metro areas are still very much majority "White", especially metro Seattle (70% White), metro Denver (67% White), meaning that the average person in both metros would NOT come across very many minorities on a daily basis.
Metro Phoenix is also majority White to a much lesser extent, (58% White) but given the anti-Mexican sentiment in Arizona, I wouldn't exactly call Phoenix an integrated paradise. Hell, looking at the census maps, all the Hispanics seem to be concentrated in the south part of Phoenix, and away from Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, North Phoenix, etc.
Metro Sacramento (57% White) and Metro San Diego (48% White) and Las Vegas (48% White) do fare a LOT better though. However, given the wider regional context, they are very much anachronisms. In San Diego and Sacramento, there is also a HUGE suburban/city divide, where the city is majority minority while the suburbs aren't.
I notice that you avoided talking about LA or the Bay Area, which is basically 1/3 of the West's population.
I'd still argue that the DC suburbs are just as integrated, if not so so than those three metros. There are plenty of suburbs where Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, and Asians co-mingle. Or in Queens, there are plenty of areas where Blacks, Whites, Hispanics mingle. It really isn't just a "West" thing.
The Atlanta suburbs (Gwinnett County) and Houston suburbs (Fort Bend County) are much of the same way.
I think people just choose what they want to see.
Quote:
For Latinos, it depends on a few more factors, but I'd imagine that the more "Americanized" you become and the further away you are from the Mexico border, the more likely you'll be seen as an individual more than part of "the group."
Then why did you put "San Diego" which is right on the border as "integrated"?
From a tourist's perspective, I thought San Fran was really lacking in diversity. There were a lot of Europeans, whites from America, and Chinese and some Japanese folks, but outside of that, I didn't see a single black person in my days there, and the only hispanics I saw were tourists going to Alcatraz or working the open air market fruit stands (and I have to say, some muy caliente ones too! I still remember one in particular).
So at least in the northern half of San Fran I thought it was really homogenous, save the tourists.
I have also been to Oakland and to me this is more mixed and much more "tolerant."
Note I said tolerant. Not accepting.
Pretty much the only US city that I've ever been in that rivals Seattle in true ACCEPTANCE of others for who they are is NYC.
I find the bolded somewhat hard to believe. Even if you were only in the northern half of the City, DT San Francisco - particularly Market and the TL - has a very sizeable black and latino population, as does Hayes Valley and the Western Addition. Also, there's a TON more to SF's asian population than just Chinese and Japanese people. Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indians, etc. are all well-represented in SF.
It sounds like you mainly saw the tourist areas of northern SF (Grant Street in Chinatown, Fisherman's Wharf, etc). I doubt you went to the Mission, Fillmore, etc.
As far as the most racially accepting city in the US that I've personally been to, it's the city I live in (Oakland California). sacramento916 pretty much summed it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacramento916
Oakland is very well integrated. It is much more political than Sacramento and is known as a bastion of leftist and Black Nationalist politics. Nevertheless, Oakland also has a large Asian population, as well as a very liberal White population. Oakland does have some major poverty, but I think that's also part of what makes it more "real", as far as having many working class folks living side by side.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,875,397 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertpolyglot
Sorry, Minneapolis is politically correct and "Minnesota Nice." I don't see it as tolerant. I can hardly see some "lip-service liberal" Scandinavian family breaking bread with some newly arrived Peruvian family on the block, let alone talk to them. Minneapolis and Seattle are liberal in the same kind of way - I'll tolerate you, just stay out of my way and my life.
More like -- I'll tolerate you just as long as you don't beat the crap out of me or steal my stuff -- is the Midwestern attitude.....which seems fair.
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.
