Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC
It takes a special kind of naiveté and delusion to dispute an article (heavily supported by current data from a prestigious institution of higher learning, illustrative anecdotes and quotes from respected scholars) by a leading national media outlet that is literally titled "The Bay Area of 1970 was less racially segregated than it was in 2010".
|
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, but the article has zero to do with diversity. It's talking about geographic segregation by race within a geography. Obviously you tend to get greater segregation by race if the distribution of races flattens, because there are more nonwhites. It would be very odd if the Bay Area added a million Asians and Latinos and geographic segregation decreased.
You claimed the Bay Area wasn't diverse, which is obviously nonsense; it's one of the most diverse places on earth. It really only underperforms in terms of blacks, but its black % is comparable to London and Toronto, and much higher than Frankfurt and Vancouver, and no one would argue these are homogeneous cities.