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.
Actually 1977. I mentioned that specific event because it's the one that most affected my family.
And IMO you'd have to be a fool to believe that there isn't still a taboo on black male - white woman relationships in Chicago... again, you cross that line at your own risk.
Not to lessen the crime (which is equally bad), but were we not talking about racial violence given that the subject is "what is the most racially tolerant city in the US"?
EDIT: And if we're talking about hate crimes in general, notice that when you google "Oakland Hate Crimes" that crime you just mentioned is the only one mentioned on all the search hits. When you google "Chicago Hate Crimes," you get a link to this:
My mom went to BU in the early 70's. She said the upstanding Italian and Irish gentleman use to chase her with rocks and bottles as she rode her bike to school.
You really just can't compare old world cities in the east coast or the midwest to nor cal as far as tolerance is concerned. Heck So Cal is not even on the same page.
My mom went to BU in the early 70's. She said the upstanding Italian and Irish gentleman use to chase her with rocks and bottles as she rode her bike to school.
You really just can't compare old world cities in the east coast or the midwest to nor cal as far as tolerance is concerned. Heck So Cal is not even on the same page.
That was in the 70s when There where Race riots in everycity in the country, and I was not aware Boston was in the old world, when did that move happen?
I'm a minority living in the Northeast, and I don't feel threatened anywhere I go....
Hell, there were plenty of interracial couples at my old high school of all combinations. A lot of those couples now have kids, and I'm pretty sure they aren't racist.
I really do think its a generational thing and not a location thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Fairfaxian
NYC is still one of the biggest immigration destinations in the world. And as far as DC is concerned, it is the only place that hasn't tasted the
NYC IS the largest immigration magnet in the United States, and most of those immigrants haven't left nor feel threatened by people around there.
I don't think any Western metro comes even close to NYC on that. Sorry.
Quote:
Which makes it an advantage towards blacks overall, since we're past the age of Jim Crow and De Jure racism. We don't have to carry baggage in cities without a massive history and foundation of segregation and prejudice.
The West for the most part is made up of mostly transplanted people. Do you think that the White people that go there leave behind all their prejudices when they move? Same with the Hispanics (hell, most Mexicans DESPISE African Americans)? Same with the Asians? NO, they bring them with them. The fact is if the West was so good for Blacks, then they would be flocking there instead of back to the South.
Quote:
In those cases, it's not about the quantity as it is the quality of life and perception of blacks. I'll bet you in those cities listed, blacks overall have a better quality of life and image amongst the masses than in places like Chicago, Cleveland, and Philadelphia.
I argue they wouldn't because it really does force Black people to be the permanent minority with no chance to get into the reins of power outside of some isolated spots in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
The fact of the matter is, Black needs would be neglected because not only are Blacks not even the largest minority, but the 3rd largest minority (after Hispanics and Asians)
Quote:
I mentioned two points: Phoenix would be a decent place for blacks, and Latinos would be better off the further away they were from the Mexican border. I'm sure for the most part, Latinos are better off in places like Boston, Chicago, and Minneapolis, than in cities in the Southwest. And to be honest, Latinos were less marginalized before the immigration debate ramped up during the last decade.
I agree about the Latinos, but I don't think its any more better for Blacks. Most of where the Black population lives is in South Phoenix, the most undesirable part of PHX metro. In addition, many of those who come to Phoenix are from Southern California, an area just as racist if not more racist than the Northeast.
Quote:
You look close, and there are minorities in most of the suburbs for these cities, especially in the case for Sacramento. Where did you think some of the Bay Area's middle class families fled to.
In Las Vegas, I'd say that's the case (though Boulder City and Henderson don't have very many minorities).
For Sacramento, outside of Elk Grove, most of the other suburbs are overwhelmingly white. Roseville (2nd largest Sacramento suburb) is 80% White. Auburn is 85% White. El Dorado Hills is 80% White.
Same thing for San Diego suburbs like Vista, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Rancho Santa Fe, etc.
Quote:
I will admit that I forgot to mention the East Bay as one of the most diverse and integrated parts of the state and country. But note that it's diverse AND integrated: there are multiple groups living with one another, not just "tolerating" one another. You can somewhat say the same thing for the South Bay when it comes to Whites, Latinos, and Asians.
IF those areas were tolerant, how are there less Whites in number than there were before in places like Fremont, San Jose, and Cupertino? Hell, even Oakland has a growing White population. The above is becoming overwhelmingly Asian. It's not like Asians are that friendly to Blacks out West either.
Then there's Los Angeles, which is being avoided for some reason. There are very few truly integrated areas in LA aside from maybe Long Beach, Carson, Culver City, Pasadena, Gardena, Lakewood. Hell, there are more integrated areas in New York City by far.
Quote:
I will say that Queens and the DC suburbs of Northern VA (where I live) & Montgomery County (MD) are racially diverse and integrated. My only concern is that DC is very racially tense, and that's where the people in my age bracket (18-30 crowd) mostly reside.
I didn't feel that way when I was there. I saw diverse groups of friends everywhere I went.
Quote:
In the case of DC, there is a lot of black poverty, and hence a lot of self-inflicted negative images that blacks in DC give off to non-blacks. A lot of non-blacks, especially the white yuppie transplants, see that as the standard of blacks, and either build prejudices or become self-validated in their racism. Now most of those white and other non-black yuppies will eventually want to have a family, and when they do so, will most likely want to settle down in the suburbs...the suburbs that are racially affable and integrated. Even though there aren't a lot of peer twenty-somethings who live in the racially integrated MoCo and NoVA suburbs, I personally would like to keep it racially integrated for the sake of improving the quality of this country, and just because the United States has very few racially diverse AND integrated places as is. Most of those yuppies, if they move to MoCo and NoVA will more likely pass on their racial prejudice to their kids, and the kids, if they follow in their parents footsteps, will spread the racism to their surroundings. This is what I fear for MoCo and NoVA's future, but this is my personal observation.
But the same thing can be said about the West.
Quote:
You can argue the same case for Gwinnett and (maybe) Fort Bend's status as racially integrated havens.
Still miles ahead of Los Angeles.
Quote:
Racially integrated for blacks, but I will say that I was surprised at the stable relations between Latinos and non-Latinos considering how close it is to the Mexican border. The racial tension in SD is not as bad as it is in Arizona.
In Northern San Diego County, there are plenty of hate groups.
The Groups: A Listing | Southern Poverty Law Center (/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/spring/shoot-shovel-shut-up/the-groups-a-lis - broken link)
California has the most hate groups out of any state in the United States, including 12 in San Diego County (half of California's hate groups), outnumbering states like New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and almost as many as Texas.
I'm a minority living in the Northeast, and I don't feel threatened anywhere I go....
Hell, there were plenty of interracial couples at my old high school of all combinations. A lot of those couples now have kids, and I'm pretty sure they aren't racist.
I really do think its a generational thing and not a location thing.
I'm presuming you live in a big city. Do you regularly venture outside of the city limits and into the surrounding suburbs or outer suburbs? Cities are almost always the most racially tolerant and diverse parts of their metros with the notable exception of DC and certain metros on the west coast that are diverse throughout the metro. The cultural chasm between an American city and its suburbs is generally huge, particularly when talking about race relations. IMO it's ALL about location... suburban areas are almost always on the bottom wrung of tolerance.
Quote:
The West for the most part is made up of mostly transplanted people. Do you think that the White people that go there leave behind all their prejudices when they move? Same with the Hispanics (hell, most Mexicans DESPISE African Americans)? Same with the Asians? NO, they bring them with them. The fact is if the West was so good for Blacks, then they would be flocking there instead of back to the South.
That first sentence is exactly what irks me about the uptick in transplants in SF... often these people are running from the most ignorant parts of the country and flocking here because they heard it's liberal/diverse/tolerant, but they bring that baggage with them.
As for the rest of the paragraph, that's an extremely large generalization you're making.
Quote:
I argue they wouldn't because it really does force Black people to be the permanent minority with no chance to get into the reins of power outside of some isolated spots in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
The fact of the matter is, Black needs would be neglected because not only are Blacks not even the largest minority, but the 3rd largest minority (after Hispanics and Asians)
There is some truth to this, but you're grossly oversimplifying a very complicated issue.
Quote:
IF those areas were tolerant, how are there less Whites in number than there were before in places like Fremont, San Jose, and Cupertino? Hell, even Oakland has a growing White population. The above is becoming overwhelmingly Asian. It's not like Asians are that friendly to Blacks out West either.
You're again speaking in gross generalizations. The white population in San Jose is not declining noticeably at all. If anything, the percentage is decreasing because the percentage of asians and latinos is increasing.
Oakland's white population is increasing rapidly in part because a lot of (predominantly white) transplants who can't afford SF anymore are instead moving to Oakland. And how is Oakland becoming "overwhelmingly asian"? They're the 3rd largest group in the city. Also, race relations between blacks and asians in Oakland are far from how you're making them out to be.
Quote:
Then there's Los Angeles, which is being avoided for some reason. There are very few truly integrated areas in LA aside from maybe Long Beach, Carson, Culver City, Pasadena, Gardena, Lakewood. Hell, there are more integrated areas in New York City by far.
LA is indeed pretty segregated as a whole. NYC does not do well at all in this category either though.
Quote:
In Northern San Diego County, there are plenty of hate groups.
The Groups: A Listing | Southern Poverty Law Center (http:///get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2007/spring/shoot-shovel-shut-up/the-groups-a-lis - broken link)
California has the most hate groups out of any state in the United States, including 12 in San Diego County (half of California's hate groups), outnumbering states like New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and almost as many as Texas.
CA is also by far the most populous state in the country.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,875,397 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
There are indeed racists in both, the difference is what impact that racism has on the O/A quality of life. Currently, the threat of racial violence is much, much more real in Chicago than it is in the Bay Area and to a certain extent always has been. My direct family from Chicagoland and my extended family in Chicagoland have all been affected by racial violence, some in the past and some in the present. My own dad was almost killed in the 70's by an angry mob of white kids for dancing with a white girl at a club. The dividing racial lines in that part of the country are very real and you cross them at your own peril.
And also, I'm not speaking for the Bay, I'm specifically talking about Oakland. Oakland has its own very racist history (segregation, KKK hotbed, recruitment of racist police officers from the deep south to deal with rising black population, police vs. black panthers, white flight, etc.) but the difference is that the white population that perpetuated that culture of racism has largely deserted Oakland and the surrounding parts of the East Bay and moved to other states or other parts of CA. The part of the white population in Chicago that almost killed my dad is very much still in Chicagoland and isn't going anywhere.
You know it goes both ways, right? It's not just whites on blacks....in fact, I'd say that's quite rare these days. Unfortunately, that doesn't rectify anything and the fact remains that a.) some people/places still have a ways to go towards being mostly/completely integrated, and b.) 95%+ of ALL people would never go to said lengths to express their angst about things they don't understand....thankfully. But I've heard stories about racism and violence from just about every sect of society (and have experience of my own), so I feel like it's more of a humanity thing than a white or black thing, personally.
This is what amazes me. Blacks will speak out on how the East Coast is not the best for them, and will say that the South and West are better destinations. Then you have people who will defend the (East)ablishment Coast, saying that it's "tolerant" towards blacks, while the South is still in the Jim Crow days and the West has a bunch of Asians and Mexicans chasing blacks out. But when you have blacks move to non-black locations in metro areas of Philly, Chicago, Boston, and NYC, these same individuals will be the first ones to pout, moan, and stiff up towards the blacks they claim they welcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215
I'm a minority living in the Northeast, and I don't feel threatened anywhere I go....
Hell, there were plenty of interracial couples at my old high school of all combinations. A lot of those couples now have kids, and I'm pretty sure they aren't racist.
I really do think its a generational thing and not a location thing.
NYC IS the largest immigration magnet in the United States, and most of those immigrants haven't left nor feel threatened by people around there.
And I know it's a factor of being Latino/Asian/Indian vs Black. The non-black minorities are treated fairly well in the Northeast, especially if they Americanize themselves. Blacks, even those who are Americanized, don't have that leeway, at least not on the East Coast.
Quote:
The West for the most part is made up of mostly transplanted people. Do you think that the White people that go there leave behind all their prejudices when they move? Same with the Hispanics (hell, most Mexicans DESPISE African Americans)? Same with the Asians? NO, they bring them with them. The fact is if the West was so good for Blacks, then they would be flocking there instead of back to the South.
I'll give you credit that the major cities filled with transplants from the East and Midwest tend to be way more racist than those cities that have more natives and transplants from other parts of the West. This is exactly the reason why I don't mention SF and LA as racially integrated cities; many transplants hinder the racial affability those cities could develop. As for the immigrants Latinos and Asians who hate blacks, there are many factors that go into that, but I can personally say that some Latinos and most Asians don't see blacks any better in the major East Coast areas.
Quote:
I argue they wouldn't because it really does force Black people to be the permanent minority with no chance to get into the reins of power outside of some isolated spots in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
The fact of the matter is, Black needs would be neglected because not only are Blacks not even the largest minority, but the 3rd largest minority (after Hispanics and Asians)
Which is probably why many blacks are moving (back) to the South. But not all blacks are the same. Not all blacks have been embraced by the "community." And in my case, I have lived in what is supposedly the 2nd best place for blacks to live in. But I have been treated like crap under the black community's collectivist mentality (i.o.w., me not being "black enough"), so culturally, I don't see my quality of life being increased in a place that's ran by blacks. In fact, it's been quite the opposite for me.
Quote:
California has the most hate groups out of any state in the United States, including 12 in San Diego County (half of California's hate groups), outnumbering states like New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and almost as many as Texas.
Hate groups, for the most part, are empty mouthpieces without much sway in reality. The people I would watch out for are the people in high economic and political positions.
For Sacramento, outside of Elk Grove, most of the other suburbs are overwhelmingly white. Roseville (2nd largest Sacramento suburb) is 80% White. Auburn is 85% White. El Dorado Hills is 80% White.
This is not true at all. Florin, Vineyard, Parkway-South Sacramento, Woodland, Rosemont, West Sacramento, Foothill Farms,La Riviera, North Highlands, Eastern Parts of Arden Arcade, Antelope, and Rancho Cordova are other examples of Sac Suburbs with very large minority populations( at least 40%).
Roseville is not 80% white. Not by a long shot. Wikipedia is not your friend.
Roseville From 2010 Cenusus
Latino 14.6%
Black 2%
Asian/Pacific Islander 8.7%
Mixed Race: 5%
Some Other race 4.3%
So a city that is less than 2/3 non Hispanic white is 'overwhelmingly white' according to you...
Here is the break down of the entire sac metro as of 2010
Hispanic 20.2%
Non-Hispanic White 55.7%
Non-Hispanic Black 7.0%
Non-Hispanic American Indian 0.6%
Non-Hispanic Other Race 0.2%
Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial 3.9%
Non-Hispanic Asian/Pac. Islander 12.4%
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.
