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.
"I'm sure you'd see a similar sentiment of NIMBY if Oakland tried to plop down a massive "affordable" housing apartment in Upper Rock Ridge as you would in Marina." And note, in case you missed it, that's an understatement.
It also has more affluent people than Oakland, and exactly like in Oakland they pay more to live away from diversity. Frankly, I don't care about racial diversity. I think it's largely irrelevant. Socioeconomic diversity is far more relevant. Nobody in Marina or Rockridge would bat an eye if a block doctor moved next door, and they'd raise hell if you tried to put in a massive affordable housing project.
Maybe you spend less time conjuring up false implications you want to read into things. Oakland is more diverse. It has fewer affluent households. Yet they do the same thing in Oakland they do in San Francisco. In other words, the Obama on my Prius tolerances is at least as endemic in Oakland's affluent individuals as San Francisco.
That was my point that any upper income neighborhood anywhere is not integrated and does not want to be integrated. It's why I don't personally like most upper income neighborhoods. If you tried to put affordable housing in Haight-Ashbury you'd see a different reaction than if you tried it in Upper Rockridge or Pac Heights. There are plenty of "wealthier liberal white people" who don't mind living beside people unlike themselves. They just live someplace like Haight-Ashbury instead of Rockridge.
Piedmont Ave and Haight-Ashbury are both slightly above average income for their respective cities.
Piedmont Ave Income Distribution:
Haight-Ashbury Household Income Distribution:
It's the absence of wealthy households that makes Piedmont Ave's median income lower mostly. Otherwise, the two are fairly similar. For some reason, Haight-Ashbury attracts many more upper income households than Piedmont Ave. Regardless, both are pretty diverse. Perhaps the wealthy decided to continue up the hill (in typical Oakland fashion) to Piedmont?
Piedmont Income Distribution:
Noe Valley Income Distribution:
If East Bay and Oakland is your norm, I guess it makes sense that most rich people only want to live with other rich people. Regardless of that, there are more over $200k households in Noe Valley than Piedmont. But that's one of the beauties of San Francisco's upper income neighborhoods. They don't tend to be as exclusively upper income as people such as yourself like to pretend. The truth is Oakland's (and the East Bay's) upper income neighborhoods are very often much less integrated than San Francisco's. Even Pac Heights, while very white, is more inclusive if one looks beyond race to socioeconomics. It's not about superior or inferior. It's just what it is.
Your point is false.
Average Income: $109,864
Average Income: $114,322
Average Income: $134,140
Average Income: $110,508
Average Income: $110,336
Average Income: $111,779
Those neighborhoods literally do not exist in San Francisco.
The main difference between Oakland and San Francisco is that there are a lot more upper middle class and wealthy minorities - particularly blacks - than in SF. SF is a wealthier city but its minority population barring the Chinese population is a lot poorer on average.
And I'm pretending that Sea Cliff, the Marina, Saint Francis Wood, etc. are exclusive enclaves of wealth? Okay. ROFL
So your saying race is a figment of peoples imaginations?
Your confusing social concepts with anatomical characteristics, which are real and consistent enough to create distinct groupings of similar looking people. Hispanics are not a race *because* they can be of any race.
Nobody cares what some social group "considers" you to be. Do you need someone to "consider" you to be black?
A chihuahua and a St. Bernard are both canis lupus familiaris the same way a black, white and asian guy are all homo sapiens despite that the none of the above look alike. The way race is used in America to group people is a social construct. Yes, obviously there's differences between people from different parts of the globe - they had to adapt to different circumstances - but otherwise we're all part of the same group.
I'm not debating that race exists as a demarcation of different groups of people within our culture, but if one person can produce healthy offspring with the other then they're part of the same group.
And actually, everybody cares what "some social group considers you to be". Italians weren't always considered white in the US... now they are. You think they don't care what other white people consider them to be? Latinos - specifically Mexicans - for that matter used to be considered white here in the States too... not anymore obviously. You think the ones who can remember when they were considered white don't care that they're considered non-white now? In the US, whiteness is ever-expanding (and at times contracting)... Arabs aren't considered white over here now in large part because of the last two decades of war in the middle east. Otherwise, they probably would have been assimilated by now. You think they don't wish they were considered white?
EDIT: Anyway, I get that latinos can be of any race. My point is that I think they should be counted.
Those neighborhoods literally do not exist in San Francisco.
There actually are examples of upper middle class areas in SF where whites do not make up the majority. The ones I can think of are just north of Ingleside/Lakeview.
Ingleside Terrace:
median income: $126,369
Westwood Park:
median income: $110,014
Sunnyside:
median income: $93,569
Not as many black people as the examples in Oakland though, and Oakland still has some upper middle class/wealthy areas that are far less white than those examples from SF. But we do have some upper middle class areas with whites below 50% of the total, or not too far above it.
There actually are examples of upper middle class areas in SF where whites do not make up the majority. The ones I can think of are just north of Ingleside/Lakeview.
Ingleside Terrace:
median income: $126,369
Westwood Park:
median income: $110,014
Sunnyside:
median income: $93,569
Not as many black people as the examples in Oakland though, and Oakland still has some upper middle class/wealthy areas that are far less white than those examples from SF. But we do have some upper middle class areas with whites below 50% of the total, or not too far above it.
True, I've been to Ingleside Terrace and it's definitely diverse. It's an example of something that I don't think happens all that often in San Francisco anymore. A lot of the asian and black residents there were probably originally from the lower part of Lakeview or their parents were. That community upward mobility - starting from the bottom and rising to the top - is rapidly disappearing in SF, and more so for blacks than any other group. Had urban renewal not wiped out the Fillmore, the exact same thing that happened in Lakeview would have happened there and there would be a much more visibile homegrown black upper middle and upper class in San Francisco.
Didn't anyone tell you? When discussing San Francisco, Asians don't count towards "diversity." Thus, SF is not diverse.
See: City-Data San Francisco forum rule # 37.
See: US Racial Hierarchy. Asians generally don't think of themselves as minorities (i.e people of color). Especially in California.
How often do you here complaints about racism or stereotyping against asians. No one complains because the stereotypes of Asians are largely positive. But stereotyping, positive or negative is still limiting and problematic.
A chihuahua and a St. Bernard are both canis lupus familiaris the same way a black, white and asian guy are all homo sapiens despite that the none of the above look alike.
NF I have lots of respect for you man but that's not a good comparison. Dog breeds are just that, genes manipulated by humans. A better comparison would be to say that dogs as a whole are a race of the Gray Wolf.
Now whether there are races in modern humans has been debated for quite a while. Whether or not one believes it depends on ones knowledge of biology and understanding how terms are used in that field.
See: US Racial Hierarchy. Asians generally don't think of themselves as minorities (i.e people of color). Especially in California.
How often do you here complaints about racism or stereotyping against asians. No one complains because the stereotypes of Asians are largely positive. But stereotyping, positive or negative is still limiting and problematic.
I'd be more specific and say that Chinese, Japanese and Indians in California typically don't consider themselves to be minorities these days. And even within those groups, it's largely people who've been here generations upon generations who think that way... Chinese immigrants definitely consider themselves a minority community, particularly those living in Chinatown. The Vietnamese, Filipinos and Cambodians that I know also consider themselves to be minorities.
In the US, being considered a minority is almost always a temporary thing... Italians, Jews, Irish, etc. were all at one point considered minorities. The only "permanent minority" in America is blacks... that's the main component of the US racial hierarchy.
NF I have lots of respect for you man but that's not a good comparison. Dog breeds are just that, genes manipulated by humans. A better comparison would be to say that dogs as a whole are a race of the Gray Wolf.
Now whether there are races in modern humans has been debated for quite a while. Whether or not one believes it depends on ones knowledge of biology and understanding how terms are used in that field.
See: US Racial Hierarchy. Asians generally don't think of themselves as minorities (i.e people of color). Especially in California.
How often do you here complaints about racism or stereotyping against asians. No one complains because the stereotypes of Asians are largely positive. But stereotyping, positive or negative is still limiting and problematic.
I disagree that Asians in California don't see themselves as minorities. Although California has no shortage of educated, distinguished and civilized wealthy, upper middle class and middle class Asians, California is also home to the most ghettoized Asians in the country, hands down. This is because California is the lowest entry point in America for Asians from the third world. Cohesively, California is also the Tigris and Euphrates of most of the Black, Latin, Pacific Islander and Asian gangs in the country. You will not find ghetto Asians living in the hood in Baltimore, DC, Memphis, Detroit or even New York, but you sure will meet some ghetto @ss Asians in Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo and San Francisco. Many of these ghetto Asians are no different from the ghetto Blacks who live next door.
In many rougher neighborhoods in the Bay, the demographic composition is an even mix of Black, Pacific Islander and or Asian rather than the standard Black/Latino mixed American hood. The San Antonio district in Oakland (aka Murder Dubs), the Tenderloin, Lakeview and even Hunter's Point are mostly comprised of Blacks and Asians. Asians and Blacks may not always get along in the urban Bay Area. However, in a city like San Francisco, it has been shown statistically that Asians make similar or lower incomes as Blacks with similar family structure:
But to comment on the main topic of the thread, Blacks have always been extremely ghettoized to certain areas in San Francisco. I was born in Lakeview, one of the city's Black enclaves. For a couple of years I went to a private catholic elementary school near Stonestown mall, St. Stephen's, that was a little less than a mile away from our home in the late 80's and early 90's. There were well over twenty kids in the my class, but only two Black kids when I was in second or third grade and all the rest of the kids were mostly White with Asians and Hispanic kids being a sizable minority. However, more than half of the kids who lived in my neighborhood were Black. At Jose Ortega, the public elementary school a few feet away from our house, the school was mostly composed of Black kids with Asians and Hispanics following in numbers with almost zero Whites. It was the same in high school where Lincoln high school in the Sunset almost had no Blacks but Balboa high school was evenly split between Blacks, Latinos and Pacific Islanders/Asians.
Last edited by goldenchild08; 05-12-2012 at 09:34 PM..
I'd be more specific and say that Chinese, Japanese and Indians in California typically don't consider themselves to be minorities these days. And even within those groups, it's largely people who've been here generations upon generations who think that way... Chinese immigrants definitely consider themselves a minority community, particularly those living in Chinatown. The Vietnamese, Filipinos and Cambodians that I know also consider themselves to be minorities.
.
.
.
.
I don't know what Chinese, Japanese and Indian folk you hang around with but obviously they don't know their history in this country or what percentage they individually make up in CA.
It's pretty delusional for them not to think they are not minorities.
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.
