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.
"Anti-Black" is the wrong word. Most of the cities mentioned in the article don't really have the history of racial strife and tension common in many other big cities, or at least it wasn't quite as prevalent.
I think what it could be, if the article is true, is a case of covert racism in which people whp control the superstructure of those cities set-up policies and ordincances that support their superstrucutre. That is of course. The article is true.
I think the article is interesting and brings up some valid and necessary scholarship.
There are many cities that have a history of slavery and many cities that have historical black districts as well even in the North and that's nice that the first HBCU in Texas was found in Austin. Still doesn't change the fact that Austin never really had a large black population percentage wise relative to Houston, Dallas, hell, even Beaumont.
I understand what your saying, but I never stated or argued that Austin had a large black population (I agree with you about that). I was saying Austin's history is more similar to the south than any other regions in the country; which includes slavery, segregation, racism, and more.
On top of that; Austin is located near areas with sizable black communities.
I'm not saying anything about the conclusion made from the article, I just have a slight problem with the statistics used. I'm entirely sure Minneapolis has a lower minority population than other cities, but its saying that it has a lower percentage of African-Americans than the national average by citing its county's African-American population percentage is wrong. Off the top of my head, Hennepin County is about 1 million people, but Minneapolis only comprises probably 300k of that. The minority population percentage of Minneapolis is obviously more than the rest of the county which is suburban and even rural in the outer parts, and while it isn't much more than the national average, it's deceiving to say that it's lower.
What's more odd about Hennepin County is that Brooklyn Center is the community with the highest Black percentage at 25% and adjacent Brooklyn Park is about 23% Black. Minneapolis is about 20% Black and many other suburbs like Richfield and Bloomington have their share as well.
"Modern" is probably best defined by region that continually creates the most valuable new companies and jobs
And that modern region is not a city (such a Luddite concept); rather, it's suburban sprawl with no one epicenter/skyline/downtown called "Silicon Valley"
And most of top engineers in SV are random white dudes from all over US...and a hell of a lot of Indians who legally migrated from India...but disproportionately few Chinese, let alone other Asians or Mexicans or blacks
Natural selection and capitalism usually prevail over social engineering attempts of communist towns that journalists (who don't understand basic economics, statistics and business) tend to favor...
Well first of all, my grandfather worked at a Motorola plant in Austin during the 90's, and even back then they had quite a few Asians working at the plant. There are a lot of Asians, both domestic and foriegn, that are involved in the tech industry. Japan and South Korea are two of the biggest high tech hubs in the world. Not to mention, the Bay Area, Seattle, and Portland all have a very large Asian community and the Bay Area also has a very large Latino community as well as Austin.
Second, not all the Indians/Pakistanis in this country are here legally. If you know a few, they will tell you that many people from this part of the world (and other parts as well) will come here on a student or work visa and just don't leave. Mexicans aren't the only group of emigrants that come here illegally.
Third, communism seriously? I'm not sure how you made that connection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTHORNS96
I don't think Anti-Black is the correct term. But I do think it is interesting that a lot of cities held up as progressive attract very little blacks (this is nothing new to me though).
Yeah I would agree. These cities don't seem to really appeal blacks, but it's not like these cities are running blacks out of town which is the assumption made by calling them "anti-black."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyyoda
I think people overly concentrate on white/black demographics today. Austin has a large latino and pretty large asian community considering geographic location and city size. I consider Austin a pretty diverse city. I admit though, I am not in-tune with how African Americans as a whole feel about Austin.
I would say my main issue with the city is the segregation along I35 and basically splitting the wealthier part of town to the west with the poorer part to the east. This is mainly due geographics and the east being flat and west being hilly. But this isnt uncommon to most cities and one of the reasons I dislike building too many highways as it encourages this type of growth.
There are issues as well as that top link explained, Austin attracts more and more whites/latinos due to its culture so it will continue to lean more and more in that direction. Unfortuantely, I am not sure what can really be done about that. In the end though, we have to look beyond how large of an African American population a city has to judge its "so called" diversity.
Good post. It's strange that at least one of the cities mentioned in the article seem to be appealing just about every other demographic in the United States except blacks. I kind of wonder if part of it has to do with the industries which these cities where built on. For example, architecture and design tend to attract the liberal artsy types (like me ) and are HUGE industries in the Northwest while growing quite a bit in Austin and Denver. At the same time, this industry has long been criticized for its lack of diversity, particularly in the industries low numbers of blacks. Also, it's rare that I run into blacks that are in or going into high tech. Most blacks are meet in college are going into business, the medical field, communications, law, etc. all of which Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta have WAY better employment opportunities.
Well, first of all, these cities people are saying are "very white" or "all white", that's a joke. To be considered "all one race" I would think an area would have to be at least 85%-90% or higher. Austin and Denver are both very diverse, with especially large hispanic/latino communities in the city and metro. Portland was the whitest I saw at 76% white. So I wouldn't say "very white", but instead what these cities have in common is decent diversity with a low black population. Maybe they're not anti-black, there are places in the country that aren't attractive to Blacks for whatever reason, just as there are cities that aren't as attractive to Hispanics or Asians, even whites.
I also found it odd that they would include Cincinnatis county in the opposite side. Cincinnati may have a high black population in the city and county, but it's one of the least diverse large cities and metros in the country. I believe out of every metro above 1 million (52 included), Cincinnati's like the 3rd least diverse overall (almost no Hispanic and Asian community) and 3rd highest white population. Not a good example to use.
I read and re-read this article, and never did figure out what this guy's point was--""Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?""
What's all that about? Is he trying to say a city can't be considered "progressive" unless it has some certain proportion of black citizens? And I don't get why he's focusing on race. I think Americans discovered decades ago, the most prominent divides in our country are class, not race. It's not the 60s any more.
That article is ridiculous. First, it says that all of these cities have black populations that are below the national average. I can't speak for other cities, but Minneapolis is 18% black, which is well above the national average. Mpls also has significant Asian, African, and Hispanic populations.
Then it says that it is not the cities, but counties that are less than 12% black.
In the case of Minneapolis, that throws a wrench into things, because Hennepin County (where Mpls is) is HUGE! Hennepin County not only contains the city of Minneapolis, but wealthy suburbs like Edina, Minnetonka Beach, Orono, and Wayzata (which are predominately white) and exurban to rural towns like Dayton, Loretto, Hanover, Rockford, Independence, and St. Bonifacius which are all around 95% to 98% white.
Minneapolis itself is very diverse, as are its inner-ring suburbs like Richfield, Golden Valley, New Hope, Crystal, etc. Even second-tier suburbs like Plymouth, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie are fairly diverse. This article's statistics are skewed because it looks at the county level instead of the city level. Every city I mentioned in this post is in Hennepin County, and that barely scratches the surface of Hennepin County's cities. Minneapolis is not a very white city, and it is certainly not "anti-black."
I think what it could be, if the article is true, is a case of covert racism in which people whp control the superstructure of those cities set-up policies and ordincances that support their superstrucutre. That is of course. The article is true.
I think the article is interesting and brings up some valid and necessary scholarship.
Covert racism? Seriously? Like there are blacks clamoring to move to Minnesota or Oregon but are stopped by a vast white conspiracy? Totally false. If anything, sadly, the culture and outlook of many blacks precludes them from wanting to live in those parts of the country.
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.
It's strange that at least one of the cities mentioned in the article seem to be appealing just about every other demographic in the United States except blacks. I kind of wonder if part of it has to do with the industries which these cities where built on. For example, architecture and design tend to attract the liberal artsy types (like me 
) and are HUGE industries in the Northwest while growing quite a bit in Austin and Denver. At the same time, this industry has long been criticized for its lack of diversity, particularly in the industries low numbers of blacks. Also, it's rare that I run into blacks that are in or going into high tech. Most blacks are meet in college are going into business, the medical field, communications, law, etc. all of which Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta have WAY better employment opportunities.
