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.
It is almost certainly ranking cities with less whites as most "diverse". Chicago has a very diverse white population (amongst the highest in the country) yet it's really not being portrayed by these rankings.
No, it's not. It's a ranking of racial diversity, not ethnic diversity, so the ethnic diversity among racial groups themselves makes no difference.
It is almost certainly ranking cities with less whites as most "diverse". Chicago has a very diverse white population (amongst the highest in the country) yet it's really not being portrayed by these rankings.
seriously what does the majority of different ethnicities do for US?
I really want to know.
does 40% English, 30% Swedish and 30% Finnish really amount to diversity.
Less face it only a few nationalities bring things to the table that stand out. Italians, Irish, French groups contribute heavily to the cultural mix and these contributions last generations.
Having a bunch of one race Ethnicities does not mean much. After one generation they are all the regular same old same old. Just a regular bunch of white folks.
Having a nice mix of African, Indian, Chinese, South Americans, etc is true diversity.
Makes for a very interesting city.
FYI, I was not focusing on Chicago, but on Ethnicities in general.
Houston overtaking Los Angeles in this ranking (even though of course they were very close in 2000..) is illustrative of one phenomenon: African Americans leaving LA at the same time that many moved to Houston.
LA really needs to figure out a way to get blacks to move back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe
From reading CD; a few blacks have stated that the black population in LA is treated as insignificant or as if they're a non-factor.
The race relations between Mexicans and Blacks in LA is terrible. The Hispanics in Texas and the East coasts get along with blacks a lot better than on the west coast.
The Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Blacks in the NE act like cousins while the Blacks and Mexicans act like they are competing for some prize.
The race relations between Mexicans and Blacks in LA is terrible. The Hispanics in Texas and the East coasts get along with blacks a lot better than on the west coast.
The Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Blacks in the NE act like cousins while the Blacks and Mexicans act like they are competing for some prize.
I think what was a tipping point in LA is that relations between Asians and African Americans were horrendous (particularly Koreans) especially after Rodney King. To this day, they tolerate each other at best. I have a friend in LA who is Korean and is engaged to a black gentleman. Even though he is a doctor, her family has completely disowned her.
LA really needs to figure out a way to get blacks to move back.
Why? Why is it whenever these discussions take place that include people from places that have a large black population blacks are suddenly so highly coveted? Why doesn't NYC, Philly, Boston, Detroit, New Orleans, etc. "REALLY NEED" to figure a way to get Asians or Pacific Islanders to move in to those cities?
Too many of y'all seem all good with low-to-pathetic numbers of East, Southeast and South Asians in cities across the US, as well as Pacific Islanders and Native Americans, but when CA cities have less black folks (just as most Western states/cities do) its suddenly crisis time. Why? Why do we need to fit YOUR picture of demographic makeup, but you guys don't need to have similar ratios to ours? (Don't know where you're from in particular btw, I'm just sayin.)
Not that it wouldn't be nice to have a little bit better representation of blacks in the West, but come on. A disproportionate representation of Puerto Ricans and Dominicans is fine to a lot of you, but more Mexicans (which is more representative of the national averages) is a diversity issue. Its ridiculous.
LA doesn't need to do anything. It would be nice if there were more even numbers there ACROSS THE BOARD, but having the percentage of blacks there dip slightly below the national average doesn't mean LA now has a problem to solve. Its problem is that life for the blacks that it has is entirely too violent and their history with the LAPD is brutal. THAT'S what they really need to address, not the fact that they don't fit the image of how black a city should be according to the less-diverse authority east of here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220
The US is much more hung up about "race" than the rest of the world.
I agree, although I find it interesting to see this statement being made in the same post as the last line I just addressed.
The race relations between Mexicans and Blacks in LA is terrible. The Hispanics in Texas and the East coasts get along with blacks a lot better than on the west coast.
LA =/= The West Coast
LA has that issue, but most of the rest of the West doesn't, and definitely not to the same degree. In CA prisons the Northern Mexicans are allied with the blacks, and throughout Northern CA and a lot of Socal outside of LA blacks and Hispanics are no more at odds than any other races are with each other.
Also, NYC is still the most diverse metro in the US if you actually go by ethnicity/nationality and not racial categories.. Bay Area/LA would be second/third (not sure which one would be higher). Houston probably 4th. The US is much more hung up about "race" than the rest of the world.
From least representation of the top ethnicities to the most (remember, totals are most likely to be more than 100%)
1. Miami: 59.2%
2. New York: 71.9%
3. Bay Area: 72.7%
4. Los Angeles: 75.3%
If you mean by total number of ethnicities represented in proportion to its total in the population, well it depends how you define an ethnicity. If you're talking about total ethnicities represented, well there is no actual way to ever prove that other than "well I know because....."
See, Miami has the benefit of being next to a relatively fragmented region that sends a lot of immigrants to it, meaning that the largest group represented would never make a HUGE part of the population.
It really depends how you define ethnicity: is it simply nationality vs. nationality, or is it something deeper than that? If so, can it be quantitatively defined equal across all metro areas?
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
It is almost certainly ranking cities with less whites as most "diverse". Chicago has a very diverse white population (amongst the highest in the country) yet it's really not being portrayed by these rankings.
Or maybe its because there isn't really a top 10-11 metro area that is dominated 50%+ by one group just yet to an extent that N-H Whites dominate a lot of others.
How do people hate math so much? It's not like MATH is inherently racist! The data and methodology is there for EVERYONE to see, yet a huge chunk of you guys still has a problem with it. I already provided a method to check to see an ethnic diversity of a place (by the top 10 ethncitiy/nationality rule and seeing how much they make up the total population)
This is why I stopped posting as much on this forum. No one wants to listen.
Why? Why is it whenever these discussions take place that include people from places that have a large black population blacks are suddenly so highly coveted? Why doesn't NYC, Philly, Boston, Detroit, New Orleans, etc. "REALLY NEED" to figure a way to get Asians or Pacific Islanders to move in to those cities?
Too many of y'all seem all good with low-to-pathetic numbers of East, Southeast and South Asians in cities across the US, as well as Pacific Islanders and Native Americans, but when CA cities have less black folks (just as most Western states/cities do) its suddenly crisis time. Why? Why do we need to fit YOUR picture of demographic makeup, but you guys don't need to have similar ratios to ours? (Don't know where you're from in particular btw, I'm just sayin.)
Not that it wouldn't be nice to have a little bit better representation of blacks in the West, but come on. A disproportionate representation of Puerto Ricans and Dominicans is fine to a lot of you, but more Mexicans (which is more representative of the national averages) is a diversity issue. Its ridiculous.
LA doesn't need to do anything. It would be nice if there were more even numbers there ACROSS THE BOARD, but having the percentage of blacks there dip slightly below the national average doesn't mean LA now has a problem to solve. Its problem is that life for the blacks that it has is entirely too violent and their history with the LAPD is brutal. THAT'S what they really need to address, not the fact that they don't fit the image of how black a city should be according to the less-diverse authority east of here.
I agree, although I find it interesting to see this statement being made in the same post as the last line I just addressed.
I'm from and live in LA. I was referring exactly to what you have written (bolded). LA's black population is the only population that is really significantly shrinking here. While I know plenty of blacks who love LA... it obviously isn't overall a great place for many african americans.
I think what was a tipping point in LA is that relations between Asians and African Americans were horrendous (particularly Koreans) especially after Rodney King. To this day, they tolerate each other at best. I have a friend in LA who is Korean and is engaged to a black gentleman. Even though he is a doctor, her family has completely disowned her.
That is common across the board. Most non black parents tell their daughters they will disown them if they marry a black man.
My friend from Mexico says her father says he might accept one if he plays for the NBA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman650
LA =/= The West Coast
LA has that issue, but most of the rest of the West doesn't, and definitely not to the same degree. In CA prisons the Northern Mexicans are allied with the blacks, and throughout Northern CA and a lot of Socal outside of LA blacks and Hispanics are no more at odds than any other races are with each other.
All of the west may not have that issue, but I stand by my statement. The Blacks and Hispanics in the east get along a zillion times better than in the west.
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.
