Bay Area most racially segregated in recent history

[SIGSEGV]

One component of diversity is the number of languages you hear on the street (although that's also an indicator of international tourism...).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

As a former long time (San Francisco and Oakland) resident of the Bay Area, this comes as no surprise. Statistics aside, the entire metro felt overwhelmingly White and Asian. A few Hispanics in the Mission and San Jose and an inconsequential sprinkling of Blacks in the Tenderloin, E. Palo Alto and certain parts of Oakland that weren't being rapidly gentrified.

The irony is that in my conversations, many locals considered the entire area to be some sort of diverse, cultural melting pot - my observations and experiences couldn't differ more starkly from that description.

You obviously never rode Muni, especially the 31, 5 or 9 lines or the T-Third metro, all of which go near or through housing projects. Lots of young blacks screaming the “F” word at each other 3 times in every sentence on those.

By the way, the Tenderloin is not heavily black. It’s mostly Asian and white. The black people you see on the streets don’t live there—they come from elsewhere to sell drugs. The traditional black neighborhoods are the Fillmore (a subpart of the Western Addition) and Bayview—Hunters Point. In the former much of the older rundown (and therefore lower cost) housing was torn down decades ago so the remaining black residents live in public housing. In the latter there are also huge and dangerous housing projects but also the city’s residual working class black population.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Is a place diverse if its 20% white, 40% hispanic, 40% asian and 0% black?

I feel like the "diversity games" puts more emphasis on certain races. It usually runs something like black>hispanic>asian>white.

Its weird to me and I honestly don't get it(like I don't actually get it, not trying to make a point). I don't even get the quest for diversity, Tokyo is one of the best spots on Earth, yet has nearly zero diversity. I've lived as a minority in Japan and San Antonio. I've lived in a small town in Arkansas of 7,000 people which was about 90% white. I've lived in black neighborhoods and currently in a near-evenly split city between blacks and whites. My experience in America has pretty much been the same.

The big difference for me has been urbanity. Otherwise, its all the same crap.

Some people like to interact with other people from different backgrounds and perspectives, learn about their culture and traditions, and try new and unique cuisines.

Where was the best place for tea leaf salad in that town you lived in in Arkansas? How many people turned out this year for the Chinese New Year parade in Norfolk? When was the last time you went to a Gujarati wedding?

Obviously, these things may not interest you, and that's perfectly fine. But to answer your question of why others are interested in diversity, I think there's a decent amount of people that find it boring to be around others just like them, or the same group of people, all the time.

[JoeMusashi]

While I'm not opposed to living amongst different people, I also don't see the draw to living in the Mos Eisley Cantina either. I like having a sense of community and local culture built over decades or centuries. If you don't have any clue who you are interacting with and their complex backgrounds need constant explanation, you ain't at home--you are at an airport or college campus.

Toronto is a good example of what I'm talking about. Great city but it isn't more interesting than less diverse cities in my opinion. Ask someone from Toronto about why their city is great and they'll tell you about the international cuisine and culture. That is great but what does it tell you about the unique local flavor? Contrast that to Montreal or New Orleans. I feel you would be getting a more unique city experience there because those cities are invested in their past and its locals rather than people who literally just got off the plane.

I think most American cities have enough to offer in terms of diversity, even medium-sized ones. Anything more just becomes a dick measuring contest by white yuppies determining who has the most interesting brown people culture. See how ridiculous that sounds? I prefer a place more comfortable in itself than a place that needs outsiders to make the quality of life interesting.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Truthisgone

This is surprising how? Show me a white liberal who actually lives among minorities and practices what they preach and I'll give you 100 bucks.

Except white liberals tend to live in ethnically diverse geographies, obviously.

They're least present in the most homogeneous geographies- exurban and rural America. They're most present in places like NYC, DC, LA and Bay Area, all regions with majority minority populations.

Also, I don't understand this thread. The Bay Area is obviously diverse. No, it doesn't have a huge black population, same as everywhere in the western U.S., but has everything else.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except white liberals tend to live in ethnically diverse geographies, obviously.

He saying they aren't living next door to non whites typically. They live near or around other white people with Patagonia hats and Coexist stickers on their Priuses.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

He saying they aren't living next door to non whites typically. They live near or around other white people with Patagonia hats and Coexist stickers on their Priuses.

White liberals tend to be wealthy, and those neighborhoods will be more white than average. But liberals are overwhelmingly concentrated in heavily nonwhite geographies. NYC and LA aren't particularly white places, even if liberal places like Park Slope and Pacific Palisades lean white.

And my issue was more with the implication of hypocrisy. It isn't like you need to live in a crumbling housing project or a trailer park to care about economic inequality or social justice.

[Truthisgone]

Originally Posted by Crawford

White liberals tend to be wealthy, and those neighborhoods will be more white than average. But liberals are overwhelmingly concentrated in heavily nonwhite geographies. NYC and LA aren't particularly white places, even if liberal places like Park Slope and Pacific Palisades lean white.

And my issue was more with the implication of hypocrisy. It isn't like you need to live in a crumbling housing project or a trailer park to care about economic inequality or social justice.

I wasn't saying anything about trailer parks or housing projects. That was a, slightly racist, conclusion you jumped to. As the above poster said, I was saying white liberals tend to live among other white people as opposed to minorities of the same economic class, or different economic classes (which obviously doesn't necessarily mean a housing project or trailer park). Also, I know more middle to lower middle class white liberals than wealthy. I know many more wealthy white conservatives.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Truthisgone

I wasn't saying anything about trailer parks or housing projects. That was a, slightly racist, conclusion you jumped to. As the above poster said, I was saying white liberals tend to live among other white people as opposed to minorities of the same economic class, or different economic classes (which obviously doesn't necessarily mean a housing project or trailer park). Also, I know more middle to lower middle class white liberals than wealthy. I know many more wealthy white conservatives.

Again, this isn't true. Liberal whites tend to live in nonwhite areas. Conservative whites tend to live in very white areas.

And, yeah, you were implying hypocrisy among liberal whites. A liberal white in Brooklyn or SF would basically have to move to a housing project to live in an exclusively nonwhite milieu within same geography.

[Nautica]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, this isn't true. Liberal whites tend to live in nonwhite areas. Conservative whites tend to live in very white areas.

And, yeah, you were implying hypocrisy among liberal whites. A liberal white in Brooklyn would basically have to move to a housing project to live in an exclusively nonwhite milieu within same geography.

Ha! Tell that to the white liberals in Manhattan. Not a great deal of diversity there.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except white liberals tend to live in ethnically diverse geographies, obviously.

They're least present in the most homogeneous geographies- exurban and rural America. They're most present in places like NYC, DC, LA and Bay Area, all regions with majority minority populations.

Also, I don't understand this thread. The Bay Area is obviously diverse. No, it doesn't have a huge black population, same as everywhere in the western U.S., but has everything else.

The idea that the Bay Area has affluent white communities sprinkled throughout, serving as some sort of evidence that it's not diverse, is puzzling to me. The assertion is basically that Belvedere, a town of 2,068 people, which is 88% white, is representative of the Bay Area as a whole. By that logic, LA isn't diverse because Malibu is 87% white.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Nautica

Ha! Tell that to the white liberals in Manhattan. Not a great deal of diversity there.

Manhattan is majority nonwhite, and very diverse, both racially and economically, obviously. There are even housing projects on the Upper East Side.

There's a giant housing project two blocks from 15 Central Park West, a building full of billionaires.

[Nautica]

I can tell you about the Bay area. I lived in the Fillmore for many years before moving to Austin (which is very liberal and very white). Due to gentrification of the the whole of San Francisco, there is a tiny fraction of blacks in the Fillmore and also a slightly larger percentage in Bayview-Hunters Point. They only allow these so they can say they're diverse. Most blacks and Hispanics tend to live in the hinterlands of Richmond, Hayward, Pittsburg, Antioch and beyond.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by homebucket

The idea that the Bay Area has affluent white communities sprinkled throughout, serving as some sort of evidence that it's not diverse, is puzzling to me. The assertion is basically that Belvedere, a town of 2,068 people, which is 88% white, is representative of the Bay Area as a whole. By that logic, LA isn't diverse because Malibu is 87% white.

Sorry, Los Angeles (city and metro) is largely diverse.

San Francisco (for certain) and The Bay Area largely isn't.

Nice try, though.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Nautica

I can tell you about the Bay area. I lived in the Fillmore for many years before moving to Austin (which is very liberal and very white). Due to gentrification of the the whole of San Francisco, there is a tiny fraction of blacks in the Fillmore and also a slightly larger percentage in Bayview-Hunters Point. They only allow these so they can say they're diverse. Most blacks and Hispanics tend to live in the hinterlands of Richmond, Hayward, Pittsburg, Antioch and beyond.

Gotta love an honest, informed perspective. Thanks!

[YSL]

I knew the outcome of the thread before I even opened it. The lone conservatives like 'Jtown,man' will be the first one to pounce on any threads with trigger words "diversity", then left-leaning ssp will descend onto the thread to challenge him and the entire thread turns into a shitfest. And of course, you will never read a thread a thread like this without seeing Tokyo brought up (by a conservative).

Just lock the thread already. It's so exhausting now.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Bay Area is obviously diverse.

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".

This type of person watches Jeremy Lin play 5 minutes in the 4th quarter of an NBA game, and says "The NBA is obviously full of Taiwanese-American Harvard graduates from Palo Alto".

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

White liberals tend to be wealthy, and those neighborhoods will be more white than average. But liberals are overwhelmingly concentrated in heavily nonwhite geographies. NYC and LA aren't particularly white places, even if liberal places like Park Slope and Pacific Palisades lean white.

And my issue was more with the implication of hypocrisy. It isn't like you need to live in a crumbling housing project or a trailer park to care about economic inequality or social justice.

I assume we are strictly talking about SF or the coasts, then fair enough. My experience with a lot of white liberals who are very vocal about diversity is that they do not practice what they preach. They want it but just not around them. They will get their hands dirty eating at some Jamaican jerk chicken joint in a slightly sketchy part of town but otherwise live in a bubble. I know a lot like this.

[Crawford]

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.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Truthisgone

This is surprising how? Show me a white liberal who actually lives among minorities and practices what they preach and I'll give you 100 bucks.

My apartment building (and Los Angeles County in general).

In my building, there are 12 units, and they are comprised of... me (Filipino) and my partner (white); my white apartment manager and his Filipina wife; a white lady upstairs from him; a white lady across from her; a young Latino family husband/wife/2 very small boys (of which the husband is very hot); a retired old black couple; a 40-something Latina; a young Korean family with two kids (the husband/wife are rude); a 20-something couple white guy/Korean chick who are the unfriendliest in the building... they both have Biola University Alumni license plate frames, so I think that explains it; an Italian-American girl; a young white couple; a white guy/Filipina chick couple.