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.
Hah, he is referring to the fact that Austin is continuously brought up on here as being particularly white or non-diverse, despite the fact that, as the data in the OP shows, it is among the most diverse cities in the country. (Especially at the ~2 million population level).
Really? I thought from his post that he actually thinks the majority of Hispanics in Austin are white passing.
So Im going to try something new here. As a potential way of measuring racial diversity, lets look at it by three different metrics:
1) A list of urban areas by the lowest racial concentration
2) A list of urban areas by the highest concentration
3) The difference between the two
The idea behind this is that if the lowest racial concentration (of the four major groups) is higher that implies more racial diversity. If an urban area's lowest racial concentration is 10.1% Asian (like Las Vegas), that would imply more racial diversity than if an urban area's lowest racial concentration was 4.5% Asian (like Jacksonville).
By the same idea, if an urban area's highest racial concentration is 40.1% white (like Washington DC), that implies more racial diversity than if an urban area's highest racial concentration is 70.1% white (like Minneapolis).
Then we can take the difference between the two and the lower the number, the more racial diversity. For example, if an urban area's lowest racial concentration is 10% and their highest is 50%, that would create a difference value of 40%. That would imply more racial diversity than an urban area whose lowest is 5% and highest is 65% for a difference of 60%.
Remember this is a measurement of racial diversity, not ethnic diversity.
Ill make a list in the post below!
I like what you're trying to accomplish. However, I have an issue with it. It's missing variety of diversity.
In America, we basically have four buckets of racial groups. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian. There are other groups, but those are the four primary ones.
The definition of a truly diverse metro area?
1.) No racial group having a majority (over 50%)
2.) No racial group having less than 10%
3.) If there is a racial group below 10%, it should just be one and not two
Let me use an example:
City A: 41% White. 41% Hispanic. 9% Black. 7% Asian - your score would be 34. City B: 43% White. 32% Hispanic. 17% Black. 6% Asian- your score would be 37. City C: 49% White. 25% Hispanic. 14% Black. 10% Asian- your score would be 39.
According to your scoring system, City C is the least diverse and City A is the most diverse.
I disagree
City C is the most balanced diversity. Followed by City B. In last place is City A
I like what you're trying to accomplish. However, I have an issue with it. It's missing variety of diversity.
In America, we basically have four buckets of racial groups. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian. There are other groups, but those are the four primary ones.
The definition of a truly diverse metro area?
1.) No racial group having a majority (over 50%)
2.) No racial group having less than 10%
3.) If there is a racial group below 10%, it should just be one and not two
Let me use an example:
City A: 41% White. 41% Hispanic. 9% Black. 7% Asian - your score would be 34. City B: 43% White. 32% Hispanic. 17% Black. 6% Asian- your score would be 37. City C: 49% White. 25% Hispanic. 14% Black. 10% Asian- your score would be 39.
According to your scoring system, City C is the least diverse and City A is the most diverse.
I disagree
City C is the most balanced diversity. Followed by City B. In last place is City A
This is very good feedback. Thank you.
What do you think I can do to further refine it and make it more accurate?
This is a valiant attempt but still a blunt object. Diversity is extremely nuanced and can't be summed up so easily.
For example how about the diversity within each of those four groups? What about immigrants vs. home grown? What about economic diversity? Or even regional diversity, like factoring what states or regions of the US people are from? What about when people moved, i.e. more credit (arguably) to someone who moved recently and is less locally-influenced?
Maybe do this thread's idea as one factor, but add other factors and weigh each.
This is a valiant attempt but still a blunt object. Diversity is extremely nuanced and can't be summed up so easily.
For example how about the diversity within each of those four groups? What about immigrants vs. home grown? What about economic diversity? Or even regional diversity, like factoring what states or regions of the US people are from? What about when people moved, i.e. more credit (arguably) to someone who moved recently and is less locally-influenced?
Maybe do this thread's idea as one factor, but add other factors and weigh each.
He did qualify this as just one aspect to diversity so I'm sure that he realizes all this. That said, "Asian" incorporates both south Asian and East Asian. Others as well, but west asians are usually just white and not as many live in the north. I noticed that Seattle has lots of both South and East Asians, which adds a level to diversity, while LA has relatively few south Asians. That's something that wouldn't be accounted for.
Really though, isn't diversity overrated? This is a math exercise but in real life people like to live around people like themselves. I don't mean that racially really, but it is one aspect to it.
Your methodology aren't that different from those used by Rice researchers several years ago to reach the conclusion that Houston is the most diverse city. Basically what you did is come up with a mathematical way to represent 'racial balance' between the four major groups.
It is not a bad way to see things but in this day and age I think you need to go into ethnic diversity to have meaningful conclusions. Even white Americans come in different flavors not to mention Hispanics and Asians.
I agree with this. Represents racial balance more than diversity.
In my experience, Afro-Panamians (like Pop Smoke) tend to identify more with being black while mixed race Puerto Ricans and Dominicans identify primarily with being Latino.
I suspect people will identify with their racial experience in the United States.
Slavery obviously created mixed races in the Caribbean:
Cuba = Spanish + African
Puerto Rico = Spanish + African
Dominican = Spanish + African
Mexico = Spanish + Native American
Most of Latin America = Spanish + Native American
Argentina = Spanish + European
Brazil = Spanish + African + Native American
I agree that Hispanics in “real life” do not identify as being “white” nor are they treated as “white.” Latinos were /are treated almost as bad as blacks (excluding slavery itself). Don’t confuse a census classification with the real world.
I suspect people will identify with their racial experience in the United States.
Slavery obviously created mixed races in the Caribbean:
Cuba = Spanish + African
Puerto Rico = Spanish + African
Dominican = Spanish + African
Mexico = Spanish + Native American
Most of Latin America = Spanish + Native American
Argentina = Spanish + European
Brazil = Spanish + African + Native American
I agree that Hispanics in “real life” do not identify as being “white” nor are they treated as “white.” Latinos were /are treated almost as bad as blacks (excluding slavery itself). Don’t confuse a census classification with the real world.
I don't think that's the case and we have media (Hollywood movies) going back 100 years that contradict that statement. Hispanic actors were really big in old Hollywood and were treated very similarly to white actors in terms of the roles that they were given. In movies, Hispanic men were romantically involved with white women and Hispanic women were romantically involved with white men. This was forbidden with black interracial relationships and the only time that it even happened in a movie, they had a white actress play the role of a light skinned black woman (Imitation of Life). If anything Asians were treated worse than Hispanics.
Also, Mexicans can have significant African ancestry. I think that George Lopez's DNA test showed 10-12% and that's not uncommon. And Puerto Rican's may not have as much black ancestry as people think based on DNA testing of people on their island. Maybe we're just used to seeing Puerto Rican's mixed with black in the USA because they often are in the same areas.
Edit: the first Imitation of Life starred a black woman, but my point stands.
I agree that Hispanics in “real life” do not identify as being “white” nor are they treated as “white.” Latinos were /are treated almost as bad as blacks (excluding slavery itself). Don’t confuse a census classification with the real world.
I don't think you should be making such assumptions and painting things with such a broad brush. The experience of Cubans is not the same as Mexicans is not the same as El Salvadorians is not the same as Argentinians, etc. Plenty of Hispanic folks identify as white or black. And let's not forget the Chinese and Indians throughout the Caribbean.
Sounds to me that you (and others) are looking at things only through the lens of the community they're surrounded by. I guarantee things are not the same as what you're saying in Miami, Caracas, Panama City, Boston, etc.
This is the reason that Hispanic is not a racial category in the US (nor anywhere in Latin-America).
I don't think that's the case and we have media (Hollywood movies) going back 100 years that contradict that statement. Hispanic actors were really big in old Hollywood and were treated very similarly to white actors in terms of the roles that they were given. In movies, Hispanic men were romantically involved with white women and Hispanic women were romantically involved with white men. This was forbidden with black interracial relationships and the only time that it even happened in a movie, they had a white actress play the role of a light skinned black woman (Imitation of Life). If anything Asians were treated worse than Hispanics.
Also, Mexicans can have significant African ancestry. I think that George Lopez's DNA test showed 10-12% and that's not uncommon. And Puerto Rican's may not have as much black ancestry as people think based on DNA testing of people on their island. Maybe we're just used to seeing Puerto Rican's mixed with black in the USA because they often are in the same areas.
Edit: the first Imitation of Life starred a black woman, but my point stands.
Here’s a few books on the topic:
Forgotten Dead: Mob Violence against Mexicans in the United States, 1848-1928 Mob Violence against Mexicans in the United States, 1848-1928
Hollywood is not a good representation of anything, nor is American television for that matter.
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.
