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.
3% of Tokyo is not Japanese, 5% of Hong Kong is not Chinese, can't find stats on Mumbai but it looks worse. 70% of Dubai's population are Asian immigrants, 3% are white.
Just because a city is diverse doesn't necessarily mean it's "integrated". It just means you have a lot of different people living in that particular city but not necessarily living in harmony. I live in the SF Bay Area. It is relatively diverse but is not all that "integrated" meaning most nationalities tend to keep themselves aloof.
Just because a city is diverse doesn't necessarily mean it's "integrated". It just means you have a lot of different people living in that particular city but not necessarily living in harmony. I live in the SF Bay Area. It is relatively diverse but is not all that "integrated" meaning most nationalities tend to keep themselves aloof.
I lived in different places in the States, which included NYC and SF.
When I lived in NYC, there was no dominant culture to conform to. Everyone just had their own thing going, and it seemed like everyone was 'my Jamaician friend', 'my Brazilian friend', 'my Ecuadorian friend', etc.
When I moved to SF...and partially because I had spent so much time in Asia, and missed being around a lot more Asian people. Despite Asian being something like 30%, they were very 'to themselves'. Latino was usually Mexican, and seemed to function as well in another world. African-Americans were usually across the Bay in Oakland doing their thing. There seemed to be three cultures to adhere to - yuppie culture, gay culture, and drug culture...which might transcend those boundaries. But if you aren't yuppie, gay, or into drugs....then 'good luck!'.
In short, I know EXACTLY what you mean about San Francisco!
I read an earlier comment about Oakland, CA being only 6% black. And the comment came from a so called Oakland resident.That is wrong by a milestone. Oakland is over 30% black, and blacks are the predominant ethnicity in the city. Followed by whites, also with 30%. Overall, it is a fact that Oakland is the second most diverse city in The U.S., behind Long Beach, with over 150 languages spoken in the city. And yes the city shows it well.
I lived in different places in the States, which included NYC and SF.
When I lived in NYC, there was no dominant culture to conform to. Everyone just had their own thing going, and it seemed like everyone was 'my Jamaician friend', 'my Brazilian friend', 'my Ecuadorian friend', etc.
When I moved to SF...and partially because I had spent so much time in Asia, and missed being around a lot more Asian people. Despite Asian being something like 30%, they were very 'to themselves'. Latino was usually Mexican, and seemed to function as well in another world. African-Americans were usually across the Bay in Oakland doing their thing. There seemed to be three cultures to adhere to - yuppie culture, gay culture, and drug culture...which might transcend those boundaries. But if you aren't yuppie, gay, or into drugs....then 'good luck!'.
In short, I know EXACTLY what you mean about San Francisco!
I'm about to move out of SF, and I think there are more than three cultures to adhere to. While many Asians and many Latinos are into their own cultural spheres, I do think they're accepted in "white" cultural spheres more than African-Americans are. IMO SF has an anti-black attitude except if the African-Americans in question are either wealthy, gay, or hipster. It's because SF's black middle class left for the suburbs long ago - while SF's middle class has declined across the board (true throughout California and the US) no other ethnic group's middle class has completely left the city to the extent of the African-American middle class. While Los Angeles has a smaller percentage of middle class people than SF there are still middle class African-American neighborhoods in LA unlike SF. Black homeless and poor ghetto blacks in Hunters Point, Bayview, and much of the Fillmore result in all sorts of racist stereotypes running rampant. IMO SF's the 2nd most anti-black of California urban areas, only Orange County's more anti-black.
OTOH Oakland is the blackest of California's large cities and also seems more comfortable with its diversity than SF. Oakland has more of a middle class and is generally very racially tolerant. It's a shame that many people only know Oakland for its admittedly very severe problems and for nothing else because Oakland does have a great deal to offer. It's the most underrated of California's big cities.
I'm about to move out of SF, and I think there are more than three cultures to adhere to. While many Asians and many Latinos are into their own cultural spheres, I do think they're accepted in "white" cultural spheres more than African-Americans are. IMO SF has an anti-black attitude except if the African-Americans in question are either wealthy, gay, or hipster. It's because SF's black middle class left for the suburbs long ago - while SF's middle class has declined across the board (true throughout California and the US) no other ethnic group's middle class has completely left the city to the extent of the African-American middle class. While Los Angeles has a smaller percentage of middle class people than SF there are still middle class African-American neighborhoods in LA unlike SF. Black homeless and poor ghetto blacks in Hunters Point, Bayview, and much of the Fillmore result in all sorts of racist stereotypes running rampant. IMO SF's the 2nd most anti-black of California urban areas, only Orange County's more anti-black.
OTOH Oakland is the blackest of California's large cities and also seems more comfortable with its diversity than SF. Oakland has more of a middle class and is generally very racially tolerant. It's a shame that many people only know Oakland for its admittedly very severe problems and for nothing else because Oakland does have a great deal to offer. It's the most underrated of California's big cities.
I noticed that as well in San Francisco. Black seemed to be like pariahs...and the bridge between SF and Oakland...it cost $5 to come INTO SF, nothing to go over to Oakland. The BART train also, so much for a public transportation, equally costs quite a bit more once you cross over into the East Bay. Whenever I did see blacks in SF, they seemed quite a bit more marginalized than they should.
Whereas when a person is in NYC for example, you see black and whites everywhere in suits and briefcases, and seem much more compatible. (Not saying there arent poor blacks in NYC, but that in the general public, you see black and whites operating the same spheres).
I DID like Oakland quite a bit. Things did all seem quite a bit more integrated than SF by quite a bit.
São Paulo, in Brazil, with 20 million inhabitants, is a cosmopolitan city, with black, white, asiatic and mestizo Brazilians, and thousands of inmigrants from many different countries.
Most Brazilian cities are racially diverse, and have big mestizo population.
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.
