Bay Area most racially segregated in recent history

[edale]

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.

So are we doing venmo, paypal...

[edale]

I think this thread is evidence that there is a disconnect between perceptions and data when it comes to diversity in the Bay Area. I think this is largely because of the region's dominant city, San Francisco, is actually less diverse than the region as a whole. It is correct that SF has basically no black presence, and its Hispanic population is also quite small, compared to other large cities on the coasts+Chicago. It actually IS very white and Asian. The Bay Area's Black and Latino communities are largely over in the East Bay communities, which many visitors or even SF residents don't ever visit. So these people's perceptions are probably that SF is mostly just Whites and Asians, while the data for the region shows that there's a lot more going on.

[Truthisgone]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

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.

You do realize most conservatives won't admit to being conservative, especially to a minority, such as yourself, for fear of the response in the toxic climate we live in. I'd bet the majority of those white people are conservative.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Truthisgone

You do realize most conservatives won't admit to being conservative, especially to a minority, such as yourself, for fear of the response in the toxic climate we live in. I'd bet the majority of those white people are conservative.

You would bet that a majority of white folks living in an inner-city LA apartment building in a polyglot neighborhood are political conservatives?

Seriously?

[RST500]

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.

The region is less White than NYC and only slightly more than LA.

NYC: 44.0%White
SF Bay Area: 42.4% were non-Hispanic
LA Metro: 39.0% White Non-Hispanic)

[RST500]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Also "actually provided by the OP":

Whites make up a majority of the eastern Bay Area counties, and are a majority of Napa, Marin and Sonoma counties. Even in diverse counties like Contra Costa and Alameda, whites are a majority in cities such as Walnut Creek, Concord, Lafayette, Moraga, Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Berkeley, Pleasanton, and Livermore.

Cities with the highest proportion of whites in the Bay Area are Belvedere (87.6 percent), Sausalito (84.9 percent), Mill Valley (83.4 percent), Sebastopol (83.2 percent) and Yountville (82.2 percent), and the cities with the highest proportion of Asian Americans relative to their population in their respective county are:

Alameda County (30.0 percent): Piedmont (70.3 percent)

Contra Costa County (16.7 percent): Lafayette (76.7 percent)

Marin County (6.0 percent): Belvedere (87.6 percent)

Napa County (8.0 percent): Yountville (82.2 percent)

San Mateo County (28.2 percent): San Carlos (69.8 percent)

Santa Clara County (36.3 percent): Monte Sereno (76.6 percent)

Solano County (15.6 percent): Rio Vista (76.7 percent)

Sonoma County (4.0 percent): Sebastopol (83.2 percent)"

If those ^ stats and statements re: the ethnic makeup of the Bay Area somehow paint a picture of "diversity" to you, you are the epitome of the delusional residents to which I initially referred. And oh, BTW, electing not to answer the question in my previous post only serves to further validate my position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fr...a#Demographics

"Non-Hispanic whites form majorities of the population in Marin, Napa, and Sonoma counties.[54] Whites also make up the majority in the eastern regions of the East Bay centered around the Lamorinda and Tri-Valley areas.[54]"

[RST500]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Ah, the old diversity game people on here love to brag about.

If I told you that a city was:

65% white
16% hispanic
13% black
5% asian

Would you think this was a diverse city? Well, this is about what America looks like, this would be incredibly diverse to me. However, among many people on this site, this would be *SOOOOO white*. Their idea of diversity is:

10% white
30% hispanic
30% black
30% asian

or...something along those lines. I am exaggerating of course, but still.

What is diversity? At what level do we consider something diverse or not? My city of Norfolk is nearly 50/50 white and black. I consider this diverse. Do we need to add in some hispanic or asian folks to create actual diversity? Or is two groups, roughly at the same level, considered diversity?

There are a lot of contradictions on these matters. Neoliberal journalist will use diversity as code for non-White but when SWPL types talk about living in a diverse community the kind of area that appeals to them is maybe 60% White with the renaming very diverse rather than somewhere that is 90% Non White.

[RST500]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

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

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

Nice try, though.

A lot areas in LA are homogeneously Latino(ober 80%) while in the Bay Area it's hard to find areas where one group is over 80%.

[RST500]

Originally Posted by homebucket

You must've not gotten out very much, if you as a supposed former Bay Area resident, claim it isn't diverse. Or maybe you lived there in the 1950s?

Did you look at the graphs? It shows that yes, African American population is declining, but so is the white population. The Asian American and Latino population are growing substantially. In fact, Latinos now comprise nearly 25% of the regional population. Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties all have Latino populations around 25% or higher. Not exactly a "few Hispanics in the Mission" like you claim.

Also, Asia is comprised of many different countries, so while you may think an area that is "overwhelmingly Asian" lacks diversity, that simply is not the case. There are many Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese people in the Bay Area. It's not just Chinese people, and even then, Chinese culture, is extremely diverse.

Asians are growing the fastest, Latinos at a modest rate, with both Whites and Blacks declining.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Truthisgone

You do realize most conservatives won't admit to being conservative, especially to a minority, such as yourself, for fear of the response in the toxic climate we live in. I'd bet the majority of those white people are conservative.

White liberal here (married to an Asian). My zip code is 57% non-hispanic white:



Based on the 2016 precinct map, I estimate maybe 12% of my zipcode voted for Trump. Even if all of those were white, then only ~20% of whites in my neighborhood are conservative. I suppose some fraction of those could be never-Trumpers, but not that huge a fraction voted for Johnson.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by RST500

The region is less White than NYC and only slightly more than LA.

NYC: 44.0%White
SF Bay Area: 42.4% were non-Hispanic
LA Metro: 39.0% White Non-Hispanic)

The "statistics" you've so kindly shared above are beyond meaningless. What cities and counties are you including in each population figure? Do you legitimately believe - or think anyone else remotely believes - that San Francisco and Los Angeles are "less White" than New York City?

[jtown,man]

I don't understand where any controversy is coming from as far as the question of what is diversity.

That was literally my question and a side note on my view of diversity. Everyone seems cool about everything besides SF being called diverse or not, something I have no idea about so I won't add anything to that conversation.

If everyone agreed on a forum...DAMN...that would being boring as hell. Its like cheat codes on a game, at first you're having a good time but eventually you realize theres no point to the game anymore.

[jtown,man]

My area went 75% for Clinton. Living in a city as a conservative means I am contributing to diversity right? lol

Not to get too political, but as a conservative, I am proud to let people know that in my city. Obviously, contrary to facebook and twitter, most people don't talk non-stop politics to strangers, so it doesn't come up much. But I am aware of my surroundings, I will make sure to be extremely polite and open minded to anyone who wants to talk. I feel for my liberal friends back in Arkansas, they have to do the same thing.

Its all good though. Most of my liberal neighbors are incredibly good people and have big hearts, so I am not in a warzone.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

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 feel like as a former Torontonian I got to chime in. The "international" cuisine and culture of Toronto are from the locals. Just like New York city's. They lived there, they brought their culture there and it is what it is now. They're not just transients or tourists going to leave the next day. Even those who are not immigrants themselves live among them and partake in and experience that culture. Yes some of it is more "authentic", similar to the homeland, some of it less so, like the "sushi pizza" purportedly invented there. But whatever, it is what it is.

Saying that Toronto's diversity doesn't count towards its culture because it is newer than some other cities like Montreal or New Orleans and dismissing it as "literally just got off the plane", and saying it's not invested in "the past", to me is almost like an analog of what some East Coasters say about West coasters or the newer Sunbelt (saying that its got no "history" because they don't have the history of Jamestown or Plymouth Rock) or in turn, even what Europeans say about American/Canadian culture that we have "no deep history, blah, blah" because we don't have medieval cathedrals like them, or what some Asians say about westerners ("how China/India/Iran etc. has thousands of years of history, blah blah," unlike modern westerners who haven't kept all that).

Something can be part of a city's culture whether it originated in the 90s, 2000s (be it tech culture, 90s hip hop or whatever), or the 1890s or 900 BC.

I'm all for celebrating diversity past and present -- new diversity isn't better than old diversity or vice versa, in and of itself. Both contribute to a city's character.

[Truthisgone]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You would bet that a majority of white folks living in an inner-city LA apartment building in a polyglot neighborhood are political conservatives?

Seriously?

Not a large majority, but a majority. And if not, a large minority, in the 30-40 percent range. It's mind blowing to me liberals still assume people will just come out and say they're conservative. Are you forgetting who our president is? It took most people by surprise for a reason. Rural America isn't the only place Trump did much better than expected.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Truthisgone

Not a large majority, but a majority. And if not, a large minority, in the 30-40 percent range. It's mind blowing to me liberals still assume people will just come out and say they're conservative. Are you forgetting who our president is? It took most people by surprise for a reason. Rural America isn't the only place Trump did much better than expected.

Although I agree with what you're suggesting (plenty - if not most - conservatives wouldn't necessarily come right out and admit to being conservative, especially in majority liberal areas), your Trump voter analogy was a poor one. While you are correct that rural America wasn't the only region that voted him into office, "Middle America" - not either coast - did.

[Truthisgone]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Although I agree with what you're suggesting (plenty - if not most - conservatives wouldn't necessarily come right out and admit to being conservative, especially in majority liberal areas), your Trump voter analogy was a poor one. While you are correct that rural America wasn't the only region that voted him into office, "Middle America" - not either coast - did.

My point was that in many, if not most, liberal urban areas on both coasts, Trump took home a higher percentage of the vote than Republicans historically do. Which is true. In LA, he took 33 percent. Trump is the antithesis to liberal in most ways.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Truthisgone

Not a large majority, but a majority.

This is obviously absurd.

If you honestly believe that a majority of white people in inner city liberal bastions are secret conservatives, despite all evidence to the contrary, from voting records to political registration, you're completely nuts.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Truthisgone

My point was that in many, if not most, liberal urban areas on both coasts, Trump took home a higher percentage of the vote than Republicans historically do. Which is true. In LA, he took 33 percent. Trump is the antithesis to liberal in most ways.

None of this is true. All nonsense. Dotard didn't even take 33% in CA overall, to say nothing of LA. Dotard isn't a traditional conservative, and Republicans have massively hemorrhaged voter share under Dotard in coastal metros. They essentially lost suburban America.

[Truthisgone]

Originally Posted by Crawford

None of this is true. All nonsense. Dotard didn't even take 33% in CA overall, to say nothing of LA. Dotard isn't a traditional conservative, and Republicans have massively hemorrhaged voter share under Dotard in coastal metros. They essentially lost suburban America.

Settle down. Here's the link I got the info from.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/...-voted/508313/
66.6 percent of LA metro voted for Clinton. That means 33.4 percent did not. What you're right about is I'm wrong about the fact that 33.4 percent all voted for Trump. There were others on the ballot. But most of them did.
Trump did in fact do better than Republicans typically do in many areas. Anyone with any knowledge about politics and the 2016 election knows this to be true.
I know he's not a traditional Conservative. My point was that his platform very much is. Personal opinions aside, he's very likely to win 2020 barring any major event.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...elections-says
I'd get out of your bubble and look at reality. Anyway...