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.
The cities that are the least segregated are those that became large and diverse recently. Cities that were big and diverse before legal segregation was banned are more segregated because minorities didn’t just jump up and abandon their communities en masse to go live among the whites. The cities aren’t filled with new post-integration neighborhoods and subdivisions. That’s why I laugh when people use the level of segregation to point out how some northern city is more racist than a random sunbelt city that has tripled in both population and land area in the last 50 years.
I think it definitely takes more in Texas to white flight an area. Some areas experience extreme white flight when an area gets past 15% an ethnicity usually blacks have the lowest bar. While Fulshear is definitely giving vibes of White flight it honestly could be geography as places with high acreage communities seem to favor white suburbanites over minorities. Also it doesn’t seem like any white people are trying to move out of Katy. The whitest parts of the suburb aren’t even the richest.
Back to the topic at hand though. It’s obviously Atlanta them Boston. But who’s third place on this list. Chicago?
One analysis done by 24/7 Wall Street pointed towards St. Louis and New Orleans being in the bottom half in regards to black segregation. However I'm skeptical in believing the data, as it also says Milwaukee metro is even less segregated than those two in regards to blacks. They based it off the number/percentage of blacks living in >50% black census tracts. It doesn't appear at all that only a little over one-third of blacks in the Milwaukee area live in black-majority census tracts. Some of the other cities are questionable as well. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...licy/39703787/
Chicago does poorly with black-white/black-Asian(the latter having around 42% of black population, and also tend live in areas where far fewer blacks reside, particularly in Northwest Cook suburbs/Dupage County), as well as black-hispanic integration to a lesser degree. But in areas where the 4(or at least 3 of the 4 in sizable percentages or population) groups coexist, it's integrated more times than not. Bolingbrook(a large southwest suburb where all 4 groups have 10%+ representation) is among the best example as far as suburbs, while at the same time being a good distant away from the city.
People that identify as multiracial/two or more races are often left out of these type of discussions, even when this is the one group that possibly serves as the best litmus test to indicated whether or not a place is truly integrated. Places that have a higher concentration of them, especially as students(since many tend to be young, if not living with parents), are also likely to be places that have higher amounts of integration. This school district in Oak Park(a west Chicago suburb touted for its diversity/integration) has a 13% multiracial student enrollment out of 6,000 students.https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/D...id=06016097002
Oak Park-Riverforest High School is 8.5% multiracial out of 3,400 students. Oak Park is overall 64% white, 18% black, 9% hispanic, 5% Asian, and 5% multiracial https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/oa...illageillinois
There must be regional variations though. In Texas where there are Hispanics everywhere white parents could probably tolerate a higher percentage of Hispanic kids than say Michigan. In California where the Asians are more established and not mostly recent professional transplants they might integrate better with other minorities. I don't have numbers just speculating.
For Asians it depends what kind of Asian they are. Cambodians and Lao might love around other minorities more but Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Indian (the vast majority of the US Asian population) tend to live around whites.
With Texas, I'd be curious to know if there are areas with say, roughly mixed white/Hispanic public schools that are not rapidly trending in either direction.
For Asians it depends what kind of Asian they are. Cambodians and Lao might love around other minorities more but Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Indian (the vast majority of the US Asian population) tend to live around whites.
With Texas, I'd be curious to know if there are areas with say, roughly mixed white/Hispanic public schools that are not rapidly trending in either direction.
Are we sure about that. Here in Baltimore and some east coast neighborhoods I find Indian people seem to be in black areas.
Are you sure they're Indian and not Bengali or Pakastani?
Not sure, tried to delineate but couldn't tell. Isn't Bengali still Indian?
EDIT: Looked it up Bengalis is both Indan and Bangladeshi-I think they were more so Bengali, Pakistani, maybe some Indian/Neplaese or even Indonesians. Definitely a measurable Ethiopian populace in Western Bmore and Bmore County as well.
Not sure, tried to delineate but couldn't tell. Isnt Bengali still Indian?
No, it's a different country.
In NYC there are a lot of Bengali families living around black and Hispanic people. But I'm not sure to what extent the kids hang out with black and/or Hispanic since they tend to be a lot nerdier (tiger parents).
Indians around here tend to live either around other South Asians and/or white people. The rich ones live in wealthy white areas in Queens and Nassau county.
In NYC there are a lot of Bengali families living around black and Hispanic people. But I'm not sure to what extent the kids hang out with black and/or Hispanic since they tend to be a lot nerdier (tiger parents).
Indians around here tend to live either around other South Asians and/or white people. The rich ones live in wealthy white areas in Queens and Nassau county.
Bengali people live in Bangladesh (162 million) and many in India as well (97 million). Bengal is not a country. The Bengal Tiger was named for the Tigers found in India.
Bengali people live in Bangladesh (162 million) and many in India as well (97 million). Bengal is not a country. The Bengal Tiger was named for the Tigers found in India.
Maybe I should have said Bangladeshis then? I think most of the Bengalis in NYC are actually from Bangladesh.
Maybe I should have said Bangladeshis then? I think most of the Bengalis in NYC are actually from Bangladesh.
Ik NYC has many Bangladeshi people. These folks may or may not have been Bangladeshi. For sure some of the Bengalis are from Indian though- probably more so in Baltimore.
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.
