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.
As far as Oakland not having any predominately black neighborhoods. Oakland has gentrified at an exponentially rate but there's still some predominately black neighborhoods. Millsmont/Prescott/Maxwell Park/Eastmont Hills are a few. Due to home prices accelerating there's been a lot of Black Oakland natives that moved to other smaller cities in the Bay with predominately black communities as well.
None of those neighborhoods you mentioned are majority black. The only majority black neighborhood left in Oakland is the Acorns...
Also, none of these neighborhoods are at Oakland's median family income, those Millsmont and Maxwell come the closest, and all are right at the Oakland poverty line or way over. So they're economically depressed neighborhoods on top of it all; middle class blacks live in blended neighborhoods in Oakland, as there is no neighborhoods in Oakland that are middle-class majority black...
Now, these neighborhoods are plurality black, which is what Tion eventually tried to move his goalpost into saying, but that isn't what he initially stated, and that isn't what you said, either. And at least for me, when I hear someone say, "oh that's a black neighborhood", I tend to think in the context of it being over 50%, unless someone expressly states "well there's more blacks over there than anyone else". Which, while being true of some neighborhoods, would be kind of a shot at the other groups that clearly have large presences in those neighborhoods as well...
Again, I'm a native Californian, the state and movement of Black Californians means a ton to me, and I've followed these trends in Oakland, SF, LA, SD, and Sac for about half a decade now. Millsmont was the last majority black neighborhood in East O, was around 51.5% black when the '16 numbers came out; the links I've posted are '18. Still blacks have the largest presence in that neighborhood, and we could say its traditionally black, but it is no longer a majority black neighborhood...
I don't know about the rest of the East Bay, but my guess would be there isn't more than one or two majority black neighborhoods left in the entirety of the East Bay at most, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if there was none at all...the only black neighborhoods left in California is the one in Oakland, eight in South Central, a few in neighboring cities around South Central. Probably none in the rest of the East Bay but maybe 1-2 at most. Haven't expressly looked at cities like Bakersfield or San Bernardino but deductive reasoning lends there probably is none----->there's a ton of formerly or "historically" black neighborhoods around, for example Watts in LA, but it and many others like it, aren't majority black anymore and have either been passed by other groups or are in the process of being passed by other groups...
Last edited by murksiderock; 03-30-2020 at 04:35 AM..
None of those neighborhoods you mentioned are majority black. The only majority black neighborhood left in Oakland is the Acorns...
Also, none of these neighborhoods are at Oakland's median family income, those Millsmont and Maxwell come the closest, and all are right at the Oakland poverty line or way over. So they're economically depressed neighborhoods on top of it all; middle class blacks live in blended neighborhoods in Oakland, as there is no neighborhoods in Oakland that are middle-class majority black...
Now, these neighborhoods are plurality black, which is what Tion eventually tried to move his goalpost into saying, but that isn't what he initially stated, and that isn't what you said, either. And at least for me, when I hear someone say, "oh that's a black neighborhood", I tend to think in the context of it being over 50%, unless someone expressly states "well there's more blacks over there than anyone else". Which, while being true of some neighborhoods, would be kind of a shot at the other groups that clearly have large presences in those neighborhoods as well...
Again, I'm a native Californian, the state and movement of Black Californians means a ton to me, and I've followed these trends in Oakland, SF, LA, SD, and Sac for about half a decade now. Millsmont was the last majority black neighborhood in East O, was around 51.5% black when the '16 numbers came out; the links I've posted are '18. Still blacks have the largest presence in that neighborhood, and we could say its traditionally black, but it is no longer a majority black neighborhood...
I don't know about the rest of the East Bay, but my guess would be there isn't more than one or two majority black neighborhoods left in the entirety of the East Bay at most, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if there was none at all...the only black neighborhoods left in California is the one in Oakland, eight in South Central, a few in neighboring cities around South Central. Probably none in the rest of the East Bay but maybe 1-2 at most. Haven't expressly looked at cities like Bakersfield or San Bernardino but deductive reasoning lends there probably is none----->there's a ton of formerly or "historically" black neighborhoods around, for example Watts in LA, but it and many others like it, aren't majority black anymore and have either been passed by other groups or are in the process of being passed by other groups...
^Bunch of good points
I’ll toss Oakland this bone, majority black neighborhoods doesn’t make you a black capital and integration isn’t bad. Boston (capital of Black America per Aries, lol) has more black neighborhoods than Oakland (Roxbury Dorchester Mattapan Hyde Park all contain multiple majority black sub sections), probably a lot more, and is a “blacker†City percentage wise circa 2018 ...but it’s definitely NOT a blacker city than Oakland is. Part of that is precisely because it’s not very well integrated and doesn’t have the legacy of Oakland. SO legacy and integration are both important and assets to Oakland, imo.
So I wouldn’t say majority black neighborhoods are all that important but it would help to have more than one small neighborhood. And it is indicative that Oakland isnt fostering black neighborhoods or at least is unable to attract raw numbers of black residents into the city like DC. Why is that? If it’s such a black capital why isn’t any area of Oakland or in the Bay in general getting blacker?
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 03-30-2020 at 03:12 PM..
The media will have you believe cities are losing their black population when in reality, some cities are probably adding black people, but also adding more of other races so the black percentage in the city is dropping. Anybody who knows basic math knows that doesn’t mean the city is losing black people in raw numbers, but the media tries to push that narrative.
I agree and I sometimes think that the aspect of black immigration may get overlooked in terms of that subject.
Birthplace of the 2nd Klan era from 1915-1944 = Atlanta
Birthplace of the 3rd Klan era from 1946- present = Atlanta
When that's so, the " Klan Mecca " of 20th century America = Atlanta
Perplexing, is Atlanta's evolution from the " Klan Mecca " of 20th century America, to the " Black Mecca " of 21st century America.
Klan Mecca? I've heard you push this a lot throughout the years but ATL is no Klan Mecca. You're trolling right now. The Klan is not doing anything, to melanated Americans and non-whites, that they did at their peak. I'm not mad at you but you're trying too hard (especially on this thread).
Aceter, your city and state was the birthplace of this caste system imposed on its own people. That's dope as hell man, let's impose a system based on skin tone in imitation of of the Whites who deny us and kicked our brains in...
I'm not going to diss NO but you trying to make a case that one of the most melanated cities in the country should be deemed a klan mecca when your city is known for having a large group of light skin "blacks" who have a very Eurocentric point of view and pushes that on people who are a few shades darker? You're off and very disingenuous for that.
Pretty much all the southern states have huge outward displays of racism by whites but i don't think that makes you less of a Black Mecca. That doesn't really have to do with black culture migration or success.
Birthplace of the 2nd Klan era from 1915-1944 = Atlanta
Birthplace of the 3rd Klan era from 1946- present = Atlanta
When that's so, the " Klan Mecca " of 20th century America = Atlanta
Perplexing, is Atlanta's evolution from the " Klan Mecca " of 20th century America, to the " Black Mecca " of 21st century America.
"Birthplace" and "mecca" don't mean the same thing; this is the fundamental error upon which your argument lies. Considering the underlying reasons behind the second and third iterations were strongly associated with the Civil War-era Southern society and the Civil Rights Movement and Atlanta's significant role in both events, as well as the fact that Atlanta was already among the region's largest and most important cities in both eras, it's not exactly surprising that white Atlantans were the spark behind both. However, the fact of the matter is that the most significant occurrences associated with the second and third eras of the KKK happened outside of Atlanta and Atlanta wasn't known as a city where Klan membership/activity was unusually high relatively speaking. Although there was an emphasis on the restoration of Civil War-era society in the South based on highly racist tropes as depicted in The Birth of a Nation, the second Klan era was characterized for its hard stance against immigration and its anti-Semitism (while, of course, never failing to instill terror in Black Americans) which is why it was so national in its scope with Northern cities, with their heavy immigrant and Jewish populations, often serving as targets of the Klan's ire. Ironically, Atlanta would be the city least ideal for violent manifestations of Klan ideology during its third iteration as city leadership was determined to craft a progressive image of Atlanta as being more or less in line with the aims of the Civil Rights Movement with a less toxic racial climate compared to other Southern cities. This is why the most violent examples of resistance to the Civil Rights Movement occurred in Alabama and Mississippi where local leaders were staunch allies of the Klan and/or supporters of its ideology, so the actual perpetrators of violence against Blacks and supporters of other races of the movement were much less likely to be brought to justice. Truthfully, the beginnings of the third Klan era were very diffuse, occurring among dozens of splinter Klan groups all across of the South.
Despite your best efforts to paint Atlanta as Nazi Germany for the KKK throughout the 20th century, the facts are simply not on your side. In both instances, white Atlantans came up with the ideas that revived the Klan, but beyond that, Atlanta wasn't at all known as some huge hub or critical center of Klan activity--because it wasn't. Adherents took that ideology and ran in every direction away from Atlanta in order to spread their newfound gospel of hate regionally and nationally.
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.
