Bay Area most racially segregated in recent history

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah, I'll never personally feel bad for something white people did before I was born. If you are searching through history to find "clean" characters or nations, you will be sorely disappointed. History is one dirty son of a bitch. No one comes out looking good.

There is a school of thought that suggests that all of us who are living here today have the blood of slaves (or indigenous people whose land was stolen) on our hands due to the prosperous society that was built "on their backs", so to speak.

Of course, at least to some degree, African-Americans and indigenous people also benefit today from the society that was built by their forebears and ours. Regardless of how just the "building" process happened to be.

[jtown,man]

Black Americans are American as apple pie. Most of them came here before 1800, while most whites came after that point. It's one reason I refuse to use the term African-American. It "others" them when they are American and have contributed to our history and culture as much as any population could that represents 13% of the population.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There is a school of thought that suggests that all of us who are living here today have the blood of slaves (or indigenous people whose land was stolen) on our hands due to the prosperous society that was built "on their backs", so to speak.

Of course, at least to some degree, African-Americans and indigenous people also benefit today from the society that was built by their forebears and ours. Regardless of how just the "building" process happened to be.

Yeah, but that mentality you speak of is silly on its face. Slavery has been all over the world in every corner. Should every human of every culture(to include black Americans, since their ancestors owned slaves in Africa) feel perpetually bad for something that happened 160-200 years ago? Should everyone who could have been descended from slaves feel that pain? Over 1 million Europeans were taken as slaves in N Africa. I don't like history being tried in modern times. It can only get ugly.

Now, sure, I think the American government and individual states could make up for its past in various ways, be it AA or just an apology. But as individual people? We should just have to account for our actions.

And history is a murky place, one of the first documented slave owners in America was Anthony Johnson, who was black. He even sued a white neighbor for stealing a slave and he won in court.

Also, lay people look at slavery as if it was crazy anyone had it. The real crazy thing, historically speaking, is that we ended it. Not only that we ended it, but that the people that had the most(at the time) invested in slavery, ended it. The British spent the better half of the 19th century cracking down on Arab and African slave traders. Before Europeans began clamping down on slavery, which nation or people were serious about ending the institution on a large scale?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

They are visible in cities and can shape their home cities' images in the way some other western countries' minorities don't seem to be (try as they might, the Chinese Vancourite and Arab Parisian still can't convince outsiders that they are the "typical Vancouverite" or "typical Parisian", perhaps in the future but not now yet, but a Black Detroiter or Atlantan doesn't even need to convince even non-Americans that they are a typical Detroiter or Atlantan)
.

This reminds me of how foreigners with exposure to U.S. media and culture but little experience in the country on the ground will overestimate the population share of African-Americans (and sometimes Hispanics too). I know that I was like that as a kid, and basically expected most any large American city to be maybe half black or a quarter Hispanic.

I remember the first time I went to Boston I was surprised that there weren't that many black people - at least not as many as I expected.

Also, places like San Francisco and San Diego had (at the time - they have more today) far fewer Hispanics than I expected, and Spanish was far less spoken in the city than I expected it to be.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah, but that mentality you speak of is silly on its face. Slavery has been all over the world in every corner. Should every human of every culture(to include black Americans, since their ancestors owned slaves in Africa) feel perpetually bad for something that happened 160-200 years ago? Should everyone who could have been descended from slaves feel that pain? Over 1 million Europeans were taken as slaves in N Africa. I don't like history being tried in modern times. It can only get ugly.

Now, sure, I think the American government and individual states could make up for its past in various ways, be it AA or just an apology. But as individual people? We should just have to account for our actions.

And history is a murky place, one of the first documented slave owners in America was Anthony Johnson, who was black. He even sued a white neighbor for stealing a slave and he won in court.

Also, lay people look at slavery as if it was crazy anyone had it. The real crazy thing, historically speaking, is that we ended it. Not only that we ended it, but that the people that had the most(at the time) invested in slavery, ended it. The British spent the better half of the 19th century cracking down on Arab and African slave traders. Before Europeans began clamping down on slavery, which nation or people were serious about ending the institution on a large scale?

Agree with all of this. I was just pointing out an idea that's out there.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This reminds me of how foreigners with exposure to U.S. media and culture but little experience in the country on the ground will overestimate the population share of African-Americans (and sometimes Hispanics too). I know that I was like that as a kid, and basically expected most any large American city to be maybe half black or a quarter Hispanic.

I remember the first time I went to Boston I was surprised that there weren't that many black people - at least not as many as I expected.

Also, places like San Francisco and San Diego had (at the time - they have more today) far fewer Hispanics than I expected, and Spanish was far less spoken in the city than I expected it to be.

I wonder if it also would be a generational thing. Up until the mid 20th century, nearly all urban racial minorities in most US cities were black and then the largest non-English-speaking group was by far Hispanics, and in particular Mexicans (since the earlier waves of non-English speaking white immigrants already assimilated, and the Asian population hadn't yet gotten very big). But now, the share of African Americans in certain northern cities (and even many western ones like in California) is decreasing and there is a "reverse great migration" to places like Atlanta and other parts of the Sunbelt. Plus, Hispanic immigration is lower now too (and the share of foreign-born Hispanics lowered starting in the 2000s). It's probably the media capturing the peak of many African Americans' populations post-Great Migration but not yet the rise of the Sunbelt, in the late 20th century.

I wonder if you ask most teenagers today outside the US, would most people still make similar racial demographic estimates of American cities as most did in the 70s, 80s, 90s, or would their perception "update"? It seems like perceptions are almost a generation behind, for instance the perception of LA as being full of blondes not dark-haired Hispanics stayed for quite a while.

Of course media is also more easily accessible today with the internet.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

What other western country has an "African-American-like" group?

Depending on your definition of western, perhaps the Roma in Romania/Hungary/Serbia/Bulgaria etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Depending on your definition of western, perhaps the Roma in Romania/Hungary/Serbia/Bulgaria etc.

What about us?

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/11/a...-a-quebec.html

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Black Americans are American as apple pie. Most of them came here before 1800, while most whites came after that point. It's one reason I refuse to use the term African-American. It "others" them when they are American and have contributed to our history and culture as much as any population could that represents 13% of the population.

Following up on "perceptions", when I was a teen in the 80s had you asked me point blank what percentage of the U.S. population was black, I would probably have answered double that. Based again on what I'd seen in the media and popular culture.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Following up on "perceptions", when I was a teen in the 80s had you asked me point blank what percentage of the U.S. population was black, I would probably have answered double that. Based again on what I'd seen in the media and popular culture.

A lot of demographics are overestimated by many members of the public.

For instance, Americans are reported to overestimate the share of Blacks and Hispanics, gays and lesbians, Muslims, seniors, immigrants, the unemployed and teen mothers.

Some of that is media attention and also that what is perceived as "not the majority" gets our focus, while the majority just kind of fades into the background.

I don't think it's a US thing too. Studies have been done in all kinds of countries, including European ones, saying that people overestimate many groups that are small in demographic but widely the focus of their media's attention.

[Capsicum]

Interesting though that people overestimate the share of Muslims and immigrants but there are actually not that many representations about Muslims and immigrants in the average slice of pop culture. I think pop culture is only one aspect of it. But also I think cities in general are more diverse and cities get overrepresented in US pop culture.

Regarding immigrants, sure, there are shows where an immigrant family is the focus of the series, but immigrants make up 13-14% of the population in the US. That's 1 out of every 7 or 8 people. I've no no hard stats, but my gut feeling is not anywhere around 1 in every 7-8 people in a TV show or movie made in the US is an immigrant. Immigrants are represented a lot more in some industries though, for instance in some parts of science and tech, and many companies are headed/founded by immigrants. Not media probably though.

Muslims are only a bit over 1% of the US population. I have no idea or don't have a clear image of whether Muslims appear in US pop culture, like TV or movies, any more or less than 1 in 100 times though.

[badrunner]

Didn't think I'd be debunking alt-right talking points on this forum but here we are.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah, but that mentality you speak of is silly on its face. Slavery has been all over the world in every corner.

This is obviously untrue. There are many places in the world untouched by slavery. No need to smear the entire world.

Can you give us some historical examples of entirely race-based slavery anywhere near the scale of the transatlantic slave trade? The inconvenient truth is - such a thing has only happened once in human history.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Not only that we ended it, but that the people that had the most(at the time) invested in slavery, ended it.

Huh? The people who had the most invested (southern whites) fought tooth and nail to maintain the institution of slavery. They saw it as a noble cause and still do to some degree.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Before Europeans began clamping down on slavery, which nation or people were serious about ending the institution on a large scale?

Africans, probably

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

A lot of demographics are overestimated by many members of the public.

For instance, Americans are reported to overestimate the share of Blacks and Hispanics, gays and lesbians, Muslims, seniors, immigrants, the unemployed and teen mothers.

Some of that is media attention and also that what is perceived as "not the majority" gets our focus, while the majority just kind of fades into the background.

I don't think it's a US thing too. Studies have been done in all kinds of countries, including European ones, saying that people overestimate many groups that are small in demographic but widely the focus of their media's attention.

Certainly. You get that in Canada too. Vancouver for instance is perceived by many as predominantly Asian, when it's actually about a third. Which is still high but certainly not most people in the city.

Cities like Montreal and Ottawa can either be perceived as more French or more English than they actually are, depending on who you talk to.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Interesting though that people overestimate the share of Muslims and immigrants but there are actually not that many representations about Muslims and immigrants in the average slice of pop culture. I think pop culture is only one aspect of it. But also I think cities in general are more diverse and cities get overrepresented in US pop culture.

Regarding immigrants, sure, there are shows where an immigrant family is the focus of the series, but immigrants make up 13-14% of the population in the US. That's 1 out of every 7 or 8 people. I've no no hard stats, but my gut feeling is not anywhere around 1 in every 7-8 people in a TV show or movie made in the US is an immigrant. Immigrants are represented a lot more in some industries though, for instance in some parts of science and tech, and many companies are headed/founded by immigrants. Not media probably though.

Muslims are only a bit over 1% of the US population. I have no idea or don't have a clear image of whether Muslims appear in US pop culture, like TV or movies, any more or less than 1 in 100 times though.

The overestimation of the Muslim population is likely due in large part to wearing clothing that everyone associates with that religion - especially women.

Relatively few other religious groups do that these days.

And so in a city like mine which is perhaps 5% Muslim (or a bit less), 99% of the people I see out and about who are dressed "religiously" are Muslim women. I rarely see anyone else wearing religious garb, whereas women I instantly identify as Muslim I see every day. If I go to a mall or a larger store I will probably see multiple unrelated Muslim women within a span of 15-30 minutes.

As for the rest of the people I encounter, even if there are way more of them I have no idea if they're Catholic, atheists, Buddhist, Jewish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindu or whatever...

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Depending on your definition of western, perhaps the Roma in Romania/Hungary/Serbia/Bulgaria etc.

Originally Posted by Acajack

The overestimation of the Muslim population is likely due in large part to wearing clothing that everyone associates with that religion - especially women.

Relatively few other religious groups do that these days.

And so in a city like mine which is perhaps 5% Muslim (or a bit less), 99% of the people I see out and about who are dressed "religiously" are Muslim women. I rarely see anyone else wearing religious garb, whereas women I instantly identify as Muslim I see every day. If I go to a mall or a larger store I will probably see multiple unrelated Muslim women within a span of 15-30 minutes.

As for the rest of the people I encounter, even if there are way more of them I have no idea if they're Catholic, atheists, Buddhist, Jewish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindu or whatever...

Still, with the obvious clothing choice, the actual numbers of Muslims should actually be underestimated if you miss those Muslims who don't say wear hijab or other religious garb, and assume they aren't Muslim. Which still means your eye is drawn to those who stand out vs. those who don't. And the human tendency is overestimating the importance of those who stand out.

The "things that draw attention are overestimated" isn't limited to clothing, visual cues on people's dress, bodies etc. of course. It's like when people take photos of something like the moon in the sky or an interesting looking house against a city backdrop.

The actual thing you want to photograph often looms large in your mind, but when you see the actual photo it looks like that moon is tiny against the big sky or the house is drowned out among all the buildings. If you ask people what % of the pixels are the focal object in that image on the screen, I'm sure people would find they overestimate it in their mind.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Cities like Montreal and Ottawa can either be perceived as more French or more English than they actually are, depending on who you talk to.

Is the trend that native speakers of one language will overestimate the "other side's numbers" in the "look, they're outnumbering us, we need to protect our own" kind of way?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Is the trend that native speakers of one language will overestimate the "other side's numbers" in the "look, they're outnumbering us, we need to protect our own" kind of way?

It's often that, thought it can also go either way for a wide range of reasons.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Still, with the obvious clothing choice, the actual numbers of Muslims should actually be underestimated if you miss those Muslims who don't say wear hijab or other religious garb, and assume they aren't Muslim. Which still means your eye is drawn to those who stand out vs. those who don't. And the human tendency is overestimating the importance of those who stand out.

The "things that draw attention are overestimated" isn't limited to clothing, visual cues on people's dress, bodies etc. of course. It's like when people take photos of something like the moon in the sky or an interesting looking house against a city backdrop.

The actual thing you want to photograph often looms large in your mind, but when you see the actual photo it looks like that moon is tiny against the big sky or the house is drowned out among all the buildings. If you ask people what % of the pixels are the focal object in that image on the screen, I'm sure people would find they overestimate it in their mind.

While not all Muslims are Arabs, a significant proportion of them are. But in my city the vast majority people who look Arab are in fact Christians from Lebanon. Needless to say the women from that community don't wear hijabs.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Didn't think I'd be debunking alt-right talking points on this forum but here we are.



This is obviously untrue. There are many places in the world untouched by slavery. No need to smear the entire world.

Can you give us some historical examples of entirely race-based slavery anywhere near the scale of the transatlantic slave trade? The inconvenient truth is - such a thing has only happened once in human history.



Huh? The people who had the most invested (southern whites) fought tooth and nail to maintain the institution of slavery. They saw it as a noble cause and still do to some degree.



Africans, probably

1. Do you know how annoying it is to be called something so bad(they are often compared next to Nazis and the KKK) just because you offer up an opinion that someone else doesn't agree with? Its cheap and lame.

2. Please name a significant place on Earth that never had slavery. I hope you know I am not some dumb redneck talking about this to "defend" the South or something for slavery. This has been my academic focus for my first degree and luckily I've been given the opportunity to continue my research on this with my new school.

3. Race-based slavery took on a new low in the Americas. However, Arab slave traders in the Basra region of Iraq took all their slaves from East Africa. They prohibited the enslavement of Muslims so East Africa was a convenient source of slaves. In any case, does slavery being race-based make it somehow worse than regular ole slavery? Do you know how people usually became slaves? Belonging to weak groups. By the 1600s, most of the world besides Africa had countries which were too powerful to source slaves from in an efficient manner, hence Africa became the main source of slaves for the Americas and the Arab World.

4. This "Huh? The people who had the most invested (southern whites) fought tooth and nail to maintain the institution of slavery. They saw it as a noble cause and still do to some degree" shows me that you are incredibly American-centric and really aren't understanding my point, probably because you seem quite hostile as it is. First of all, "we" meant humanity. The US took only about 4% of the entirety of slaves from Africa that came west, so no, white Southerners were not the most invested in slavery, it was England, Spain, and Portugal. In any case, its funny that you don't take into consideration of how important and historically weird it was that Europeans and European descendants finally decided to end slavery. And in the case of the US, hundreds of thousands of white men died to end slavery. So, they are also a part of "we."

5. No, Africans practiced slavery well into the 1800s and Mauritania just ended legal slavery in like 1980. Before Europeans bought slaves from other Africans, they were enslaving each other and also selling slaves to Arab traders.

Overall, your post shows me you lack historical knowledge or perspective and even conscious of time, which is central to comparing events and the significance of those events.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

1. Do you know how annoying it is to be called something so bad(they are often compared next to Nazis and the KKK) just because you offer up an opinion that someone else doesn't agree with? Its cheap and lame.

Would you prefer the term "slavery apologist" instead? I didn't actually call you alt-right. If you're familiar with the subject, then you know damn well that "slavery wasn't so bad, everyone else was doing it" and "white people actually ended slavery once and for all" ARE well known alt-right talking points. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. Maybe it should give you pause to find yourself parroting the same lines as those you so vehemently disagree with.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

2. Please name a significant place on Earth that never had slavery

What's cheap and lame is answering a question with a question when you have no answer. Nevertheless, the fact remains, the world did not see any significant race-based chattel slavery until the transatlantic slave trade.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

In any case, does slavery being race-based make it somehow worse than regular ole slavery?

YES! In the ancient world slaves were the spoils of war. If your city got sacked you were actually one of the lucky ones if you were taken captive. You became a slave if the conquerers decided to show mercy. It might be harsh but there is a sort of Law of the Jungle sense of justice to it. War isn't without risk and you may one day reap the whirlwind, as the Carthagenians and countless others found out.

Now contrast that to an innocent man who is just chilling in his hut, who is specifically targeted for abduction, imprisonment and torture, solely because of the color of his skin, because someone somewhere decided that he was less than fully human. Yes, race-based slavery is uniquely evil because it is inherently racist. Maliciously racist. I don't see how you're not getting this?

Originally Posted by jtown,man

First of all, "we" meant humanity. The US took only about 4% of the entirety of slaves from Africa that came west, so no, white Southerners were not the most invested in slavery, it was England, Spain, and Portugal.

The traditional colonial powers had profitable colonies with or without slavery. The same people will still work the same fields and the money will keep flowing to the same imperial coffers. They also had very few slaves in their homeland. They actually had very little skin in the game in maintaining the institution of slavery at that point. Same with the industrialized northern US. On the other hand the plantation economy of the South was 100% dependent on slavery. Was it just a coincidence that they were the last holdouts? Your contention that "the people that had the most(at the time) invested in slavery, ended it" is demonstrably false, globally. The people who had the most invested in slavery desperately and bitterly resisted its abolition to the very end.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Overall, your post shows me you lack historical knowledge or perspective and even conscious of time, which is central to comparing events and the significance of those events.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. All you're doing is regurgitating easily debunked talking points that are ahistorical at best, purely political at worst. And it's not like I'm some bleeding heart liberal either. I don't believe in reparations, affirmative action, or the concept of collective guilt. It's just that I don't stand for distorting or whitewashing of history, or drawing false moral equivalencies. If an honest and unblinking look at our sometimes ugly history makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem not mine.