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.
You know Chinatowns and Little Italy's didn't start out as tourist attractions, right?
And you really seem to get confused quite easily if you don't get what the article is saying or what people have explained to you by now. You're just not going to (or you refuse to), so why don't you just quit while you're ahead?
haha, this made me smile a little. Okay, sorry dude. I'm done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89
I see what you're saying. But extreme racism probably didn't end til 77 or something(maybe 82, I don't know, I was born in 89). I'm just saying, most of the pro-black neighborhoods, aren't ANTI-White. They just offer African-Americans, a living environment in which is out of the norm. Little etc, etc, enclaves aren't much different(some are touristy, MOST aren't touristy though).
Thank you, you seem to really know what you're talking about (I assume your black?). If so, that's pretty much exactly what I wanted.
Okay, I'm done with this thread.
...I was born in '93.
1) Just because a city has a small or tiny black community doesnt make it racist. 2) The cities listed are progressive ones. 3) The lack of a significant black community takes nothing away from that.
1. True--for some places.
2. Maybe--depends.
3. Maybe, depending on the history--howevah,...
...you have to remember one of the main points the author makes in the article. Many people move to these cities as an alternative white flight--they can stomach moving to supposed "progressive" white enclave, instead of a white enclave outside of Saint Louis.
I see what you're saying. But extreme racism probably didn't end til 77 or something(maybe 82, I don't know, I was born in 89). I'm just saying, most of the pro-black neighborhoods, aren't ANTI-White. They just offer African-Americans, a living environment in which is out of the norm. Little etc, etc, enclaves aren't much different(some are touristy, MOST aren't touristy though).
I am happy to see that others are also not getting the point of the article (or being convince by it). "Progressiveness" has nothing to do with the predominance of any race, but the author is apparently trying to make that case. And it appears he is successful, at least with a few of the posters here. In fact, that a progressive city has a relatively small black population is not an indictment of its progressivism, it is just a reflection of that city's social history, economic base and yes, geography.
What does a city have to do be more of a destination for black folk? It seems to be a chicken-egg problem. Judging on the comments here and in numerous other threads (as well as personal observation), black people feel most comfortable in traditional black strongholds that have an exisiting infrastructure and community to serve black needs.....they seemingly aren't willing to branch out to "whiter" cities....is it because of a percieved feeling that they will face prejudice? They don't feel like they would fit in socially?
What does a city have to do be more of a destination for black folk? It seems to be a chicken-egg problem. Judging on the comments here and in numerous other threads (as well as personal observation), black people feel most comfortable in traditional black strongholds that have an exisiting infrastructure and community to serve black needs.....they seemingly aren't willing to branch out to "whiter" cities....is it because of a percieved feeling that they will face prejudice? They don't feel like they would fit in socially?
Be generally inexpensive for one. There are quite a few black people out there that make a very good living, but black people statistically tend to make less than their white counterparts.
For instance, San Francisco Bay Area is universally considered one of the most diverse parts of the country. 22% hispanic, 21% Asian, 30% foreign-born, 10% 'other' races, etc. But it is only 7.5% African-American.
Doesn that make it not diverse? Of course not.
Now, Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis are certainly not the most diverse cities in the country, but theyre not a sea of White either.
For instance, San Francisco Bay Area is universally considered one of the most diverse parts of the country. 22% hispanic, 21% Asian, 30% foreign-born, 10% 'other' races, etc. But it is only 7.5% African-American.
Doesn that make it not diverse? Of course not.
Now, Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis are certainly not the most diverse cities in the country, but theyre not a sea of White either.
I agree that diversity does not just mean black people. However, I think what we're focusing on is the tendency to overlook the fact that certain cities that constantly "pat them selves on the back" can't win in every situation, and that there are other places that are more desirable/comfortable for minority groups for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with political ideology. It seems obvious, but for some people it's not. Poltical ideology is constantly brought into play here on C-D.
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.
Okay, sorry dude. I'm done. 
