Is There Still Any Blacks Left In San Francisco Despite What Census Report States ? (Long Beach: how much, hotels)

[Isebiel]

Originally Posted by jeffredo

You left out "and Asian". And why the frown? The City is what is is, just like DC, Chicago or Atlanta. Different parts of the country have different demographics. /shrug

Personally, I like some diversity because that's what I'm used to and it feels right to me.

But, that's just personal and not worth a frown. What is unfortunate is, like goldenchild08 says, the marginalization of what blacks are here. I stayed in the Loop in Chicago -- hardly a low-income area -- where there are lots of black people in all different roles. In SF I almost never see affluent black people. And there's soooooo much money here.

Originally Posted by goldenchild08

They're probably smiling so much because they are high off of some of the best weed in the world that SF and the Bay has to offer and the year round mild weather and the most beautiful scenery in America. Even though those baby-faced teens were smiling, all they were rapping about was robbery, drug-dealing, gunplay and homicide. Not exactly the positive laid-back outdoor Hip Hop vibes of Tribe Called Quest's "Check the Rhime".

Yeah. Definitely some disturbing sentiments expressed. At least it seems like no one in the Fillmore much hits anything when they shoot. Must be the weed.

Really terrible situation for those kids. Like you said, if college grads can't get jobs, who is going to hire inner city kids? What options do they have? Music maybe. If they stop singing about shooting people!!

[rah]

Originally Posted by Isebiel

I was kind of surprised when I went back to Chicago last week, how comparatively white SF is.

Chicago white population: 45.0% (white alone: 31.7%)

SF white population: 48.5% (white alone: 41.9%)

Not much of a difference there. Maybe you just happen to hang out in more white areas when you're in SF?

Originally Posted by Isebiel

Personally, I like some diversity because that's what I'm used to and it feels right to me.

And since when is SF not diverse?

Originally Posted by dculross

SF's black population is highest in the Tenderloin.

Wrong. It's highest in Hunters Point.

Originally Posted by dculross

Sunnydale is mostly Asian,

Sunnydale itself (the projects) is heavily black, latino AND asian, though blacks are still the largest group there. Visitacion Valley as a whole is mostly Asian however.

Originally Posted by dculross

Hunter's Point will soon have more latinos than blacks, and Filmore doesn't exist anymore.

Bayview/Hunters Point is still 40% black, so blacks are still the largest group there, but yeah the black population is dropping as the Asian and Latino populations rise (and the white population to a much lesser extent), but it's going to be at least a few years still before latinos overtake blacks there.

As for the Fillmore being dead, I don't know about that. It's a shadow of its former self, but lots of black people do still live there so I wouldn't exactly call it dead.

[Isebiel]

Originally Posted by rah

Chicago white population: 45.0% (white alone: 31.7%)

SF white population: 48.5% (white alone: 41.9%)

Not much of a difference there. Maybe you just happen to hang out in more white areas when you're in SF?

Sorry, I tried to clarify more later. It was that I notice a lack of diversity across economic classes, here.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by Isebiel

Sorry, I tried to clarify more later. It was that I notice a lack of diversity across economic classes, here.

This is true... the further up the socioeconomic ladder you go in San Francisco (and just about anywhere in the country) the less diverse it is. Part of it though is that the City did not used to be as wealthy as it is now; it was decidedly more middle class. The biggest demographic shift in SF has not been racial... it's the exodus of middle class folks - particularly families - from San Francisco. The upper middle class and upper class people moving into formerly middle class neighborhoods like Mission Dolores, Haight-Ashbury, etc. happen to be largely white because SF's media reputation is for the most part being a beacon for alternative socially liberal people; many people see SF (and NYC) as an "escape" from the overtly-religious socially conservative culture that dominates much of the American heartland. In a way, the media stereotypes have become reality... a lot of people move to SF with the hopes of finding the "liberal paradise/conservative hell" they see on TV.

What I and many other Bay Area locals see though are a lot of people who think that slapping an Obama bumper sticker on their Prius excuses them from being equally socially liberal in everyday life. People who preach acceptance of people that are unlike themselves so long as they're not living next to them.

There are two very different San Franciscos these days that operate almost entirely independent of each other... in the rare instance where the two clash (i.e. in the Mission) you can very clearly see that they're two entirely separate worlds. The cultural "segregation" is what bothers me the most... while the "liberal" side tends to be whiter and the "native" side tends to be more minorities, I don't think race is what's splitting them.

[Capt. Dan]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

They used to live side by side 'peacefully' as well - one owned the other. It's just a little different now. Antebellum progress is a painfully slow grind.

Being the genius you obviously are,surely you know that one half of one percent of White folk EVER owned a slave?? It wasnt called "sharecroppin" for nothin!!

[Jink]

I am black and I would be more than happy to add to the Black population of SF... <sarcasm>in a not-so-depressing part of SF, of course</sarcasm>. Anybody in need of an electrical engineer that can help make that happen? Hehe.

Anyways, the times that I've gone to SF, I've seen quite a mix of all races. Actually, I've noticed a heavier population of SF's homeless in Tenderloin (and that includes Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, etc.). Where do the Blacks who *aren't* homeless hang around? It's just like any big city, though, where everything is segregated - Asians in Chinatown/Japantown/Little Saigon, Latinos in Mission District, Whites... ehm... everywhere else.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

This is true... the further up the socioeconomic ladder you go in San Francisco (and just about anywhere in the country) the less diverse it is. Part of it though is that the City did not used to be as wealthy as it is now; it was decidedly more middle class. The biggest demographic shift in SF has not been racial... it's the exodus of middle class folks - particularly families - from San Francisco. The upper middle class and upper class people moving into formerly middle class neighborhoods like Mission Dolores, Haight-Ashbury, etc. happen to be largely white because SF's media reputation is for the most part being a beacon for alternative socially liberal people; many people see SF (and NYC) as an "escape" from the overtly-religious socially conservative culture that dominates much of the American heartland. In a way, the media stereotypes have become reality... a lot of people move to SF with the hopes of finding the "liberal paradise/conservative hell" they see on TV.

What I and many other Bay Area locals see though are a lot of people who think that slapping an Obama bumper sticker on their Prius excuses them from being equally socially liberal in everyday life. People who preach acceptance of people that are unlike themselves so long as they're not living next to them.

There are two very different San Franciscos these days that operate almost entirely independent of each other... in the rare instance where the two clash (i.e. in the Mission) you can very clearly see that they're two entirely separate worlds. The cultural "segregation" is what bothers me the most... while the "liberal" side tends to be whiter and the "native" side tends to be more minorities, I don't think race is what's splitting them.

Excellent analysis!

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

This is true... the further up the socioeconomic ladder you go in San Francisco (and just about anywhere in the country) the less diverse it is. Part of it though is that the City did not used to be as wealthy as it is now; it was decidedly more middle class. The biggest demographic shift in SF has not been racial... it's the exodus of middle class folks - particularly families - from San Francisco. The upper middle class and upper class people moving into formerly middle class neighborhoods like Mission Dolores, Haight-Ashbury, etc. happen to be largely white because SF's media reputation is for the most part being a beacon for alternative socially liberal people; many people see SF (and NYC) as an "escape" from the overtly-religious socially conservative culture that dominates much of the American heartland. In a way, the media stereotypes have become reality... a lot of people move to SF with the hopes of finding the "liberal paradise/conservative hell" they see on TV.

What I and many other Bay Area locals see though are a lot of people who think that slapping an Obama bumper sticker on their Prius excuses them from being equally socially liberal in everyday life. People who preach acceptance of people that are unlike themselves so long as they're not living next to them.

There are two very different San Franciscos these days that operate almost entirely independent of each other... in the rare instance where the two clash (i.e. in the Mission) you can very clearly see that they're two entirely separate worlds. The cultural "segregation" is what bothers me the most... while the "liberal" side tends to be whiter and the "native" side tends to be more minorities, I don't think race is what's splitting them.

A higher percentage of Asian families are above the six-figure income mark than white. Once you climb over the middle-class, however, it does get white in a hurry. And there's a lot of those clashes. Miraloma and Sunny Side, Japantown/Lower Pac Heights and Pac Heights, Nob Hill and the 'Loin. There's also still a fair amount of San Francisco that is neither privileged nor marginalized, although that is shrinking everyday. Of course, the same is true of Oakland. Rockridge, for example, is whiter and less diverse than most of San Francisco. Rockridge and Marina are too sides of the same Obama Sticker on my Prius Liberal Tolerance coin. 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.

[SunDevil1212]

Originally Posted by rah

And since when is SF not diverse?

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.

[BayDude]

If a city consisted largely of just two races (with other races at the margins and single digit percentages), I wouldn't call that "diverse" either. Its like calling Mobile, Alabama "diverse". It's almost equal parts white and black.