Are you in a gated community with an unconstitutional deed restriction?
White all ethnicities or white non-Hispanic?
According to the somewhat silly dividing line used by the LA Times for my neighborhood, the neighborhood I live in is 2.7% white. I challenge anyone to beat that level of diversitude.
In that kind of place, they probably only count Italians if their ancestors were from north of Rome.
43% Latino, 22% Black, 7% Asian, 3% misc
My neighborhood wins in neighborlyness because is it literally Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.
Oh, it looks like that was based on the 2000 census. For the 2010 census for the zipcode (slightly different area), it's about 16% white, thanks to team gentrifier.
We all live in social construction zones.
the neighborhood I live in is 2.7% white. I challenge anyone to beat that level of diversitude.
How euphemistic.
2.7% white
Amazing. Our town on the rez was more white than that. But it's not going to gentrify any time soon.
To 1, this town is actually less white than the town we just moved from (94% white).
9: I have no idea where they get that statistic from. Wikipedia has it but the citation goes to a WSJ article that has no firm numbers. I'm not doubting it, but I can't find an actual cite.
I'm pretty sure that while I was growing up, my home town had more Iranians than blacks.
In DC, so, fairly diverse at the city/district level. I read a while back about how DC is more segregated at the neighborhood level than you'd expect based on the overall numbers, but (a) I can't be bothered to look it up at the moment, (b) I think my neighborhood in particular is fairly diverse, and (c) even the less diverse parts of DC are still fairly black by national standards. (Diverse != black. I'd spell it out better but I'm on the phone and tired.)
I looked up Vermont, if anyone is curious. 1.2 percent black.
95.3% white. Pretty typical for a town in Pennsylvania that's not part of a major metropolitan area.
79.01% white, 2.31% black, Hispanic or Latino of any race, 23.64%. I live in the scary diverse city where Al Capone done fear to tread.
My town is split between two townships. One is 80% white and the other is 60% white. Most of the remainder are black, and a small number are Asian. There are allegedly (according to the Census) Hispanics here but I have serious doubts.
One extremely weird thing about my office in DC is how freakishly white the few blocks around it are. I am boggled every time I go out for lunch. Most of the visible so-called "minority" population are Latinos working in restaurants. Obviously that is not representative of Washington generally, but it's downright weird since the comparable downtown of Philadelphia is nowhere near that white.
This trib article says that a 2002 study by the Jewish Federation counted 13.9 Jewish residents in SH, down from 16k in the 60s.
14: I thought you guys split up.
83% white, 9% Asian, 6% hispanic, 3% African-American.
Median Household Income: $133,101
2013 Population 25+ Education Attainment - Bachelor's Degree: 83.5%
2013 Population 25+ Education Attainment - Graduate/Professional Degree: 53.8%
SWPL-tastic, but ogged still wins.
Oh, "arya" is Indo-Iranian, not Indo-Aryan. Nevermind.
2013 Population 25+ Education Attainment - Bachelor's Degree: 83.5%
Holy outlier!
City: 26% Hispanic, 26% white, 27% Black.
My census tract: 11% Hispanic, 33% white, 30% Black.
3: If that 2.7% represents a plurality it would indeed be hard to beat. I wonder what the most ethnically diverse polity in the world is. Dagestan, maybe?
Austin is
White non-hispanic 48.7%
Asian 6.3%
Hispanic/Latino 35.1%
Black 8.1%
Two or more races: 3.4%
Native America: .9%
(These are census 2010 numbers so some of that Latino number is going to also include Blacks, though not much in Austin).
Austin is incredibly socially segregated by race though, more than the other big Texas cities IME.
the most ethnically diverse polity
Vatican city is a nation polity of immigrants, right? Or maybe some of the people are actually born there.
I've never been to Austin. My parents went once, but they said the river was drained for maintenance. Also, that may have been San Antonio.
Calypsonia is 35% black, 36% Indian, 1% white, and the rest mixed. On the other hand, next week I'll be heading to my summer place in New Hampshire. That town is 97.52% white.
We're 86.3% white as of 2010 but I think there's been a significant increase in minority population (hugs Latino influx plus increasing numbers of biracial births to white parents plus just general population change like for instance my family) since then. Median income is more than 110K below where ydnew lives, though.
MPLS:
White: 63.8%
Black or African American: 18.6%
American Indian: 2.0%
Asian: 5.6% (1.9% Hmong, 0.9% Chinese, 0.7% Indian, 0.6% Korean, 0.4% Vietnamese, 0.3% Thai, 0.3% Laotian, 0.2% Filipino, 0.1% Japanese, 0.2% Other Asian)
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 0.1%
Other: 5.6%
Multiracial: 4.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 10.5%[52] (7.0% Mexican, 1.3% Ecuadorian, 0.4% Puerto Rican, 0.3% Guatemalan, 0.2% Salvadoran, 1.3% Other Latino)
" The racial makeup of the town was 97.52% White, 0.37% African American, 0.33% Native American, 0.19% Asian, 0.19% Pacific Islander, 0.05% from other races, and 1.35% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.75% of the population."
That's a town of a little more than 2000 people, meaning there are 8 black people in town, which is 8 more than I've ever seen there, not counting the time my Black Friend came to visit.
I did see a couple black folks up in Keene one time....
Couldn't easily find full stats on my neighborhood, but from what I can tell it's about 17% white. Of course, a big portion of folx with dark skin here are Somali or other East African nationalities, so it kinda depends what sociological point you are trying to make when you say "Black".
Here's Anchorage:
White alone, 66.0%,
Black or African American alone, 5.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, 7.9%
Asian alone, 8.1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, 2.0%
Two or More Races, 8.1%
Hispanic or Latino, 7.6%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, 62.6%
These are city-wide numbers that hide a lot of variation between neighborhoods, which range from lily-white to some of the most diverse in the country (with diversity measured by number of different groups rather than non-whiteness). My neighborhood is one of the more diverse.
My apartment is only 50% white and I live alone.
The diversity is coming from inside the house!
And not from my township: 93.1% White & 5.05 Asian. Surprised me a bit that it was that the White% was that high.
My zip code, 2010 census, was 94.7% one race, with the top two being 46.4% white and 32.7% Some Other Race, which is apparently a real category.
63.1% Hispanic or Latino, mostly Mexican.
Ok, my zip is .01% black, 2.23% Hispanic, .03% Asian.
Auckland:
"European" (ie white) 57%
Māori 10%
Pacific Islander 14%
Asian 22%
Far more diverse than the rest of NZ
Astoria, Queens where I was living before moving to Arrakis was one of the most ethnically diverse places on earth.
hugs Latino influx
Very welcoming of you, Thorn.
Latest figures I could find: 74.24 White British, 2.70% Mixed, 8.43% Asian/Asian British, 4.28% Black/Black British, 1.05% Chinese. Not sure why Chinese get their own category. And those figures don't add up to 100 - I would guess that a large part of the missing 9.3% are white Eastern European.
Using the same LA Times neighborhood maps as Roberto Tigre 82% Latino, 11% Asian, 5% White, 1.3% Other, .5% Black. When I came to look at the house for the first time, the Mexican man next door assured me that it was a nice neighborhood because there were lots of Asians.
I find it amusing that ogged's post assumes we all live in whitebread suburbia like him, whereas the comments show we're mostly urban gentrifiers.
I think I might win for whitest neighborhood once you restrict to urban gentrifiers. (At least if urban includes the urban core of small cities.) Our census tract is 81% White, 8% Black, 5% Hispanic, 1% Asian, 1% Native American, 4% Multiracial. Though the census tract is slightly too large for good accuracy (it's really four neighborhoods: the one we live in gentrification is nearly complete, there are two that are gentrifying, and one that is unlikely to ever gentrify).
In NYC you could get almost down to the block level. I think my census tract was around 8 blocks. It was 51 Black, 19 White, 23 Hispanic, but it's a bit sad not to have a more accurate ethnic breakdown to see what portion of the Black population was ethnically West African vs. American.
Oops, our census tract is weirdly drawn across neighborhood lines, and it turns out we're in a different census tract than most of our neighborhood. This one is 85 white, 7 Black, 3 Hispanic, 2 Asian, 3 Multiracial. Though the tract is again too big: it's about half urban and half suburban.
In London, which is pretty diverse (understatement). For my specific area it depends how tightly you draw the boundaries. Our borough is 30% white British, 3% Irish, and about 15% white other (i.e. Polish). So majority non-white, but only just. Our ward (much smaller area) is somewhat whiter than that (figures not to hand, but, iirc it's about 55-60% 'white'), but still fairly diverse.
I think where I live is quite a bit whiter than where Tierce and Alex live.
The weird ward boundaries make this somewhat misleading, as it includes super white and posh Greenwich proper (think Maritime Museum, royal park etc), which is a 15 minute walk away, and not most of my neighbours:
66.7% white, 5.9% mixed, 10.9% Asian (mostly Vietnamese and Chinese rather than south Asian), 14.5% black (mostly west African), 1.9% other.
If you take the neighbouring ward, which better represents my immediate area, it's 39.1% white, 35.9% black, 6.7% mixed, 15.5% Asian, and 2.8% other. That ward also has the highest proportion of Buddhists in London apparently at 3.9%.
32.61 % Catholic, 8.35% Jewish, 2.43% Islam. "Proportionally, there are more Muslims, Jews, and Catholics than the country's average" (Wikipedia).
Oh, you meant race. 62.16% White, 27.16% African-American, .16% Native American, 3.81% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander.
The public schools here are truly diverse (much more so than in NYC). Our municipality is not at all typical for New Jersey.
Sheffield (Pop 551,800)
White British/English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish: 80.8% (Our Ward: 70%)
White Irish: 0.5% (Our Ward: 1.16%)
White Gypsy/Traveller: 0.1% (Our Ward: 0.07%)
White Other: 2.3% (Our Ward: 3.7%)
Mixed ethnicity: 2.4% (Our Ward: 2.83%)
Mixed - White and Black: 1.2%
Mixed - White and Asian:0.6%
Mixed - Other Mixed: 0.6%
Asian/Asian British - Indian: 1.1% (Our Ward: 2.37%)
Asian/Asian British - Pakistani: 4.0% (Our Ward: 12.82%)
Asian/Asian British - Bangladeshi: 0.6% (Our Ward: 0.48%)
Asian/Asian British - Chinese: 1.3% (Our Ward: 0.99%)
Asian/Asian British - Other Asian: 1.0% (Our Ward: 1.64%)
Black African (Mainly Somali): 2.1% (Our Ward: 1.14%)
Black Caribbean: 1.0% (Our Ward: 1.28%)
Black Other: 0.5% (Our Ward: 0.24%)
Arab (Mainly Yemeni): 1.5% (Our Ward: 0.62%)
Any Other ethnic group: 0.7% (Our Ward: 0.57%)
ogged's post assumes we all live in whitebread suburbia
I wasn't assuming that, and figured my town was more whitebread than most, which makes me sad. It is nearly 40% Jewish, though, so there's that.
One thing that I would say, is that our area isn't at all segregated. Even the annoying little gang of boys mentioned in the other thread, aren't all Somali, they are about 3/4 Somali and the rest a mixture of English and Polish.
So, while our little housing development is probably something like 50-60% white, there aren't many families in the development that are all white British. So, of the families we chat to regularly enough [including us] to have some sense of where they are from, and where xelA might occasionally play with their kids, etc, it's:
Scottish + Czech
Nigerian + (English) Middle-Eastern
(English) Sikh + German
Polish + Polish
Nigerian + Nigerian
English + Spanish
Polish + Middle-Eastern
(English) Black + (English) Black
English + English
Indian + Indian
For a grand total of one family we are aware of where both parents are English. And, funnily enough, I think only two families, one black and one white, where neither parent is a first generation immigrant.
where both parents are English
Missed 'white' from that sentence.
Hornsey ward is 49.5% White (British), 15.7% White Other, 6.2% Black (African), 5.3% Black (Caribbean), 4.1% Irish, 2.8% Any Other, 2.6% Other Asian, 2.3% Other Mixed, 1.9% Mixed (White/Caribbean), 1.9% Indian, 1.7% Mixed (White/Asian), 1.7% Black (Other), 1.1% Arab, 1% Mixed (White/African), 1% Bangladeshi, 1% Chinese, 0.5% Pakistani, 0.1% Gypsy & Irish Traveller. This is as per Census LOAC 2011.
The wider London Borough of Haringey is 34% white (and British), 23% white (other), 9% black (African), 7% black (Caribbean), 2.7% Irish and I'm beginning to tire of retyping. For context, England (ex-Scotland, Wales and NI) is 79% white-and-British.
You could usefully summarise the numbers for Hornsey by saying that it's about half sociologically white, as it were, between a quarter and a third "visible" minorities, and about 15% Euros. With that, it's one of the whiter bits of Haringey and London, but by far one of the least white bits of England. Although it's one of the less European bits of Haringey, it's more so than London (16% vs 12%) and three times the level for England. We're also about twice as Irish as either Haringey or London, which is a surprise.
And we're a hair under 7% mixed - compare 6.5% for Haringey, 5% for London, 2.2% for England, one of the very highest rates in the country.
Noel Park, next door where I was campaigning for the elections, is 27.4% White (Other), 24.5% White (British), 17% Black all told, less Irish, more Asian, slightly less mixed. The 27.4% are mostly Cypriots.
That said, just look at the division along the railway tracks.
Wikipedia says of Durham (population a bit over 250,000):
42.45% White, 40.96% Black or African American, 5.07% Asian American, 0.51% Native American, 0.07% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 8.28% some other race, and 2.66% two or more races. 14.22% were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 37.9% of the population were Non-Hispanic White.
Looks like Dublin is 90.12% white, including white Travellers, 2.27% black, 4.0% Asian, other inc. mixed 1.3%, "not stated" 2.1%. That 90% breaks down as white Irish 78.8%, white Irish Traveller 0.4% (really surprised how small this is), any other white background 10.8% which is probably mostly Eastern Europeans and British.
61: I imagine being the travellers' census enumerator is a pretty hard euro?
Looking at where I grew up in Scotland [slightly awkward as it straddles two wards], it's unbelievably white. Not just unbelievably white, but almost all of the white people are Scottish.
97-98% white, with the remaining 2-3% mostly Asian. At the 2011 Census there were, out of approx 30,000 people across both wards, a grand total of 30 people of African or Afro-Caribbean descent.
This explains my impression, being in London, that it's the center of the world. I realize it's insanely expensive now, but man, I like London. We did live there for about a year when I was 2-3, so maybe there's some powerful pre-verbal nostalgia at work.
When a man is tired of London, he's ready for pre-K.
61: yeah, that occurred to me too. They do really make an effort in general though, and I don't see any sign of Traveller spokespeople saying they've been undercounted. Total national numbers (as of 2011) are 29,495 which is only 0.64%. I bet there are nearly as many Irish Travellers as that living in the UK.
Washington 49.5%
What the hell have you people done to my city?
That's a change of 10 percentage points in 10 years. I knew the gentrification (of which I was a part, but at least I sold my house to an Asian guy, geez) had become been rampant but supposedly it wasn't entirely white.
(Interestingly, and unexpectedly, the distribution by age group hasn't changed by all that much, though the absolute increases in pop. have been totally skewed to 20 to 34.)
My fair city, PA, in 2010: 55% white, 16% black, 3% asian, 39% hispanic/latino. (About 25% Puerto Rican.)
I think Eagle's fans should count as a separate race.
I don't need to read the comments to know that the answer is "CharleyCarp".
My census tract has 14% white, 41% black, 42% hispanic, and a few asian. (In 2000, it was 2.4% white.) I've only skimmed the thread but it looks like that puts me in the lead so far for SWPLness.
My town has about bout 20,000 people. 75% White, 17% Black, 9% Hispanic, and 1.5% Asian. Pretty heavily segregated into the good and bad sections of town based on housing costs and schools. (although the bad schools are not that bad)
85.2 percent white, compared to 95 percent for the state.
Looks like my zip code is more or less (reading a pie chart from a site which I have no particular reason to trust) 35% white, 35% Hispanic, 20% Asian, 5% black, 5% multi-racial/other.
Not sure if Austria separates out by white/black, but my district's apparently somewhat more foreign-born than most. 15 years ago, about 30% were foreign-born, with about 9% each speaking Turkish & Serbian, and another 3 Croatian. I couldn't find more recent district-level figures. So, from an American perspective, very white--but from an Austrian perspective, I think, very foreign.
Ugh, political news re: immigration & asylum here lately has been depressing. Especially seeing the huge election billboards for the far-right xenophobes proclaiming their head candidate to be "The only one, who speaks OUR language" and "The only one, who defends OUR culture and values". Currently leading national polls!
In my lifetime, there's been a bigger swing than I've noticed. Non-Hispanic Whites were 30.0% of the population in 2010,[42] down from 72.6% in 1970.[16] (From Wikipedia, from citywide numbers.)
That helps explain some of the strong crankiness from old timers.
My zipcode's a little whiter, nearly 50% white, about 40% hispanic, with the other 10% mixed.
So basically nobody lives in a place that's as white as unfogged is what we've found, right? ttaM's parents, maybe, but no one commenting here.
Oh Austria. You just keep on being you, Austria.
Charley. But Montana, so it probably doesn't say anything about his specific locality.
77: Whoops, I read 'as unfogged' as 'as where Ogged lives'. Read correctly, I think Ogged, Charley and Ned still qualify, but it's hard doing percentages with the commentariat given that the denominator's kind of indeterminate.
77: So to unify the threads, "[Unfogged is] all about yearning for a mythical 'Great Anglo-Saxon Heartland'."
Minneapolis/St. Paul is less overwhelmingly white than I'd expected, at least given its comparison to overall US demographics.
Years ago I saw a map of the general area color coded for race and was shocked to see a vast sea of white people, where before I'd thought it was pretty multicultural. It turned out that the biggest not-overwhelmingly-white area in the city basically covered my apartment, the University where I was working, and the path between the two. But apparently my quickly revised opinion was wrong in the other direction.
The 300 or so black people who live in my city are probably concentrated closer to the university. The Asian guy from my neighborhood has moved to Deer Lodge for the next 70 years, although he might be back sooner if his appeal succeeds. (Which depends on his ability to paint our neighborhood as a post-apocalyptic hellscape.) My zip is slightly more Native than the city as a whole -- it includes a bit of the CSKT nation, over the mountains from here, so that's not really saying anything about where I live.
I just unintentionally began typing my Twitter URI into a duckduckgo search box and the typeahead suggested Young Thug vice YorksRanter. I am delighted.
I was looking for this, regarding Austrians.
https://twitter.com/tombarfield/status/613342809639256064
I think "living in an integrated neighborhood" has for some time now been squarely SWPL.
Which makes the backgrounds of AWB's problem students, raised liberal in all-white areas, curious.
Will that pattern disappear or persist? Might it have been driven by the great crime wave, so that the multi-generational pattern might be: urban through the 60s, suburban for a generation, with plenty of guilt, urban again now?
Which makes the backgrounds of AWB's problem students, raised liberal in all-white areas, curious.
It really doesn't. The people being made fun of as SWPL haven't ever been a particularly large group of white people, particularly not white people with college age kids. While it might be risibly SWPL to want to live in an integrated neighborhood, it's not the revealed preference of the majority of white people.
81: I fear I am in close to them with the 93% per 37, and with less "excuse" than Ned or Charly.
The question doesn't concern people in pickup trucks, but specifically people raised as liberal, seeking out a famously liberal SLAC. It's a small subset to begin with.
Sure, but I'm in the Pauline Kael bubble -- essentially I don't know people who drive pickup trucks. I do know plenty of people who left integrated neighborhoods for better/whiter schools.
How did they move their stuff to the white areas without a pickup?
And here's your tool for annoying demographic classifications by zip code(actually some good basic demographic mapping available as well).
left integrated neighborhoods for better/whiter schools
But that advantage has been disappearing, urban publics, especially selectives are very competitive, especially for their white students.
So that justification/motive is and has been drying up.
basically nobody lives in a place that's as white as unfogged
True. Even my street is less white than Unfogged.
My flat is at the moment whiter than Unfogged because there's just me living there so its population is 100% white, but it will become significantly more diverse than Unfogged this weekend because I will have friends staying and one of them has a Touch of the Tarbrush.
95: I'm not saying it's a good justification, just that it doesn't seem unexpected to me at all that you'd get plenty of liberal-identified kids who grew up in very very white areas.
WaPo says here that Portland is teh whitest big city, but I'm not sure what their population threshold for "big" is. The linked map is worth a look (and may have been linked here before).
Vermont was the whitest state when I was living there and may still be.
And me! me and Charley are in the same place.
Whiter than ogged's, but also possibly as white as unfogged.
As we all know, city boundaries are fucking fraught.
Per this site, of the 5 whitest out of the top 100 MSAs in 2012, 4 were entirely or partially in Pennsylvania (#1 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre 87.9%, #2 Pittsburgh 86.7%, #4 Lancaster 84.1%, #5 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman 84.0%). #3 was Knoxville, TN.
According to the 2010 census my city is: 81.5% white (non-hispanic), 1.3% black, 1.3% Native, 5% Asian, 7% Hispanic.
Ugh, political news re: immigration & asylum here lately has been depressing. Especially seeing the huge election billboards for the far-right xenophobes proclaiming their head candidate to be "The only one, who speaks OUR language" and "The only one, who defends OUR culture and values". Currently leading national polls!
Have you seen those spectacularly racist Swiss campaign posters? Are your billboards as bad as that?
Oh, my god, the ones with the sheep? Those were remarkably awful.
Have you seen those spectacularly racist Swiss campaign posters? Are your billboards as bad as that?
As bad as these? Not yet that I've seen, but the Vienna election isn't until October, so we'll see what comes up.
Last week, one member of parliament was talking about how she was on a flight that was carrying a deportee whose resistance resulted in the pilot refusing to fly; she suggested that instead of using commercial flights, deportees should all be carried in military transports, because then "they could scream as loud as they wanted" and nobody could hear them. Stay classy!
My first thought was "Why are they putting their ballots in a box of urine?"
100: how are "metro areas" or MSAs defined? Lancaster City (to take an example at random) has a population of about 60k, while the diversity data site lists population of "Lancaster" at 519k, which, coincidentally, is also the *county* population, and that makes me think this is county data. I get that the city of Lancaster has suburbs, but you wouldn't think of Lititz or Columbia as among them.
I recall being horrified by the NYC metro area, given that it includes places far enough from civilization that you can't tune in a radio station while you drive through.
Ah, never mind:
A metropolitan area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population and includes the counties containing the core urban area, as well as any adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration (as measured by commuting to work) with the urban core.
That seems like it would skew things a bit for many purposes.
Like, look at this. It probably represents something meaningful, but there's an awful lot of hayfields in the NYC MSA.
They used to cut hay right behind my house. It really wasn't very inconvenient at all.
Straw is cheaper. Grass is free.* Marry a farmer, you get all three.
*Offer not valid in California
109: The urban chic of Pike County PA. is the stuff of legend. (Although it did in fact double in population from 1990 to 2010 as it became semi sort of maybe part of the megalopolis.
London would be much improved without all the teabags British people. Choose one accent and let us all get on with our lives, teabags British people!
My zip code is 51.7 white....but that was 2010 census. Extrapolating from trends, I'd say....we"re all gonna die!!!
108: it might, but arguably it skews things less than other measures. It doesn't make enormous sense to talk about Boston and Cambridge independently, for instance, and then there are cities (I think particularly in the west, but I'm not coming up with specific examples) where the city limits are drawn enormously expansively. That's why you get weird results like Oklahoma City being substantially more populous than Atlanta.
While it might be risibly SWPL to want to live in an integrated neighborhood
I can't keep up, when did it become cool again to live in a de facto segregated neighborhood?
Does it chart against real estate prices and declining public spending?
San Jose--the true giant jewel of the Bay Area.
I recall being horrified by the NYC metro area, given that it includes places far enough from civilization that you can't tune in a radio station while you drive through.
You can't tune in to WHPK north of the Loop.
108, 109: Yeah, the overall map has gotten a bit absurd (the greens are "micropolitan" areas. Arizona is probably the most absurd.
Per this site, of the 5 whitest out of the top 100 MSAs in 2012, 4 were entirely or partially in Pennsylvania
I've seen Pennsylvania referred to as the state with the largest rural population. This is part of the country where, as ned noted, the rural areas are almost entirely white. Given that MSAs and CSAs, as others have noted, can extend fairly far out from the urban core, it shouldn't be surprising that you're going to end up counting a lot of white rural people in them.
In the particular case of the Pittsburgh MSA, it includes Allegheny County and all of the counties that border it. Allegheny County already gets pretty rural on some of the edges--hell, parts of Pittsburgh look rural. Then you have places like Butler County, which consists of one very suburban area on the county line (Cranberry), the county seat of 13,000, and over 100,000 other people in mostly rural areas. This is further exacerbated if you count the full Pittsburgh-New Castle MSA.
So, both municipalities and MSAs are misleading. Most of us have been talking about the neighborhood/ward/ZIP code level, which is better for lived experience. In my case, I hardly ever (stay in the metro area but) leave the city or even cross a river. I agree that comparing old geographically small Eastern cities with combined city-counties in the South or West is fraught with error; the lists I compiled yesterday were meant to be back of the envelope at best.
109: They added the Lehigh Valley (Northampton and Lehigh Counties, PA) to the CSA a few years ago. At the most extreme, you can be about 100 miles as the crow flies from Downtown Manhattan and still be in the CSA.
121: Just last week we met up with friends who moved to Easton, PA for the husband's job in NYC. Although they're looking to move, as 2 hours on a bus (each way) has been a bit much.
But okay: My meatspace:
69.3% White, 9.0% Black or African American, 1.8% Native American, 5.3% Asian (2.2% Vietnamese, 1.7% Laotian, 0.3% Asian Indian, 0.2% Filipino, 0.1% Korean, 0.1% Chinese, 0.1% Hmong, 0.1% Pakistani), 0.1% Pacific Islander, 10.3% from other races, and 4.2% from two or more races. 16.5% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race (11.6% Mexican, 2.2% Salvadoran, 0.4% Guatemalan, 0.3% Puerto Rican, 0.2% Honduran, 0.1% Cuban, 0.1% Peruvian, 0.1% Colombian).
I would have thought more Vietnamese, myself. Maybe they moved north.
122: I couldn't imagine ever doing that. I'm glad that the area is redeveloping its old reputation as a place for New Yorkers to cross state lines to sin, even if it's just people taking Chinatown buses to the casino.
"North," as in up the mountain to Rudy and Bentonville, not north as in to Philly or whatever. There are jobs a bit north of us, due to Wal-Mart money.
As opposed to here to Fuck Town, where there are no jobs whatsoever.
Why I would have thought more Vietnamese: We had a refugee camp here in the 1970s, after the war, at Fort Chaffee. But apparently those who settled in have now gotten out. And who can blame them?
San Jose--the true giant jewel of the Bay Area.
The actual MSAs for the Bay have SF-Oakland-Hayward (4.4m) and next biggest San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara (1.9m).
109: They added the Lehigh Valley (Northampton and Lehigh Counties, PA) to the CSA a few years ago.
WTF? So the Allentown-Bethlehem area no longer exists? Good news for Greater NYC's warehouse statistics.
There's still an Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton MSA - it was merged with New York only for the Combined Statistical Area. (The CSA for the Bay Area goes as far out as Healdsburg, Stockton, and Hollister.)
It's because of the Billy Joel song isn't it? Once you're in a Billy Joel song, the Census Bureau figures you must be in New York City.
129: I reject your pathetic lumperism.
2010 census
Los Angeles 3,792,621
San Diego 1,307,402
San Jose 945,942
San Francisco 805,235
Fresno 494,665
Sacramento 466,488
Long Beach 462,257
Oakland 390,724
Bakersfield 347,483
Anaheim 336,265
Santa Ana 324,528
Riverside 303,871
Stockton 291,707
Chula Vista 243,916
Pathetic and arbitrary.
But Kobe has it right in 100; it's all fraught.
I'm guessing in the intervening 5 years Chula Vista has passed Buffalo
To respond to something upthread, if you're using City Data for demographics, I'm pretty sure they always or almost always use county data (not sure why).
129: Don't forget the behemoth that is Unincorporated LA County: 1,095,592!
136: Deep, man.
77: I had meant to post this from work, and then someone swung by and wanted me to ... work, so -- I think I beat even Charlie, with over 96% white British (which surprises me, because the town supports both a Lithuanian and a Polish deli).
Shorter 115: hey, it makes sense sometimes.
85: I just unintentionally began typing my Twitter URI into a duckduckgo search box and the typeahead suggested Young Thug vice YorksRanter.
I'd like to posthumorously nominate this for that contest we had for the least-intelligible-sentence-to-a-person-from-1994 or however it was conceptualized.
Jacobin article about Charleston is linked below
Charleston, one-half black a generation ago, is now a two-thirds white city. African Americans were priced out of the housing market when gentrifiers moved in, drawn to the centuries-old buildings, with world-class restaurants down the block.
I kinda figured that most of y'all lived in lilywhite environs (but Pittburgh's cool again!), but I didn't know enough about the particulars to think much about it.
Part of it's "class," but maybe not economic class. But maybe it is, could be the difference between 75k (me and my rainbow neighbors) and 125k is really dispositive for how much house (apt,condo) you buy.
(I ain't exactly proud, my casual neighbors are like real fuckin casual, andas far as I can, only the kids have much contact with each other, adults socializing acoording to work interests, etc not proximity)
I assumed part of it was "lifestyle," as lot of academics and lawyers here, making not that great a money, but wanting a certain environment with bookstores, 75 kinds of coffee and beer, bike paths, (though we have those) whatever. Unfogged is short of crafts, trades, franchise operators, small business people, pink collar mid-management, etc the kind of jobs moderately aspirational minorities have.
But I don't know, gentrification seems to be a force. A real fucking force.
Is "franchise operator" really an actual occupational class now? Separate from small business people?
I tried to get my relatives on dad's side to think of themselves as kulaks, but it didn't work.
Sort of relatedly, I tried to teach my sister the difference between Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks but I can never remember what the difference is beyond which one eventually made the other one illegal.
All you have to know is that there's no news in Pravda and no truth in Izvestiya.
My great-grandfather was a Menshevik and his brother was a Bolshevik. They argued a lot.
There's a longer version that I think involves throwing shoes, but I forget the details.
147: a colleague at work reminiscing about being brought up as a communist baby: they were packed off to the CPGB summer school in Hastings, where they stole the grownups's beer, and discovered that in the next door house lived Alasdeir Crowley.
I think the difference between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks was pretty hazy until October 1917. At which point, IIRC, a bunch of left wing Mensheviks joined the Bolsheviks and the rest of them wound up on the opposite side in the civil war, which probably clarified things for everybody. Wasn't the original split basically about party organisation rather than actual policies?
It was a broad-based-socialism vs. vanguard-party debate at the (googles) second Party congress. Martov wanted a big tent socialist movement with as much popular support as feasible that would wobble gradually in the general direction of a social-democratic state. Lenin wanted a tightly controlled party that would murder everyone in its way and wade knee-deep through the blood to gain unchallenged power.
Lenin won, unfortunately.
If someone has a Terminator handy, sending it back to 1903 London programmed to kill everyone with a little pointy beard would save a lot of grief for 20th century humanity.
I don't think Lenin necessarily envisaged wading through blood in 1903. I don't think he even necessarily envisaged seizing power; he had a hard time persuading Kamenev and Zinoviev that it was the way to go in 1917, not least because he had never raised the issue previously. Certainly the civil war had its fair share of atrocities, but that's civil war for you - I recommend avoiding them where possible for that reason if no other. Which of the White generals was it whose death prompted his French attaché to cable the Quay d'Orsay, "Enfin on m'a débarrassé de ce morphinomane syphilitique"?
I don't like or particularly admire Lenin, but my strong feeling is that had he survived he would have taken the USSR in a Deng Xiaoping direction rather than a Stalinist one, which would have been a considerable improvement.
I'm not even sure it was inevitable in the early phase post-Revolution that _Stalin_ would have taken the USSR in a Stalinist direction. I don't know if I've read a convincing account of exactly why Stalinism happened.*
* not that there isn't one. I may even have one on the bookshelf as my wife studied that period for her OU degree.
153: he was certainly in favour of an armed uprising in 1903, leading to a single-party-ruled state. That wouldn't have been a blood-free business. But then that's single-party authoritarian rule for you - I recommend avoiding them where possible for that reason if no other.
154: on the basis that revolutions always leave the political culture of a state essentially unchanged, I'd say that a Red Tsar of some sort was pretty much inevitable (just as the French Revolution of 1789 produced a new Sun King, the German revolution of 1918 a new Kaiser and the Chinese Civil War of 1949 a new Son of Heaven). A genocidal, empire-building Red Tsar who was buddies with the Nazis, probably not. But Stalin was following the Leninist blueprint of using the power of the state to destroy people he regarded as class enemies - Lenin wrote exactly that in "The State and Revolution".
I was under the impression that Stalinism is just the natural result of giving a paranoid sociopath unchecked power. I don't think you need to invoke ideology to get such a person to destroy people he regards as enemies. The details would have been different if Stalin had been a nationalist f'rex, but the big picture of lots of murdering, gulags, secret police, paranoid foreign policy and the like would have been much the same. Whether or not these things are the essence of Stalinism is debatable, of course.
My neighborhood, according to the 2010 census is: 46.7% white, 30.4% African American, 12.4% Asian, 6.3% Hispanic, and 4.1% other/mixed. According to a map I saw about 4 years ago, it's the only black/white desegregated neighborhood in the city. African Americans form a u-shaped curve income-wise, representing the wealthiest and the poorest residents of the neighborhood, which I imagine is unusual. It also puts very hard limits on how much whitening gentrification would/does do.
By the end of his life, Lenin was also extremely afraid of Stalin and did not want him in charge of the USSR, but by that point he was pretty much incapacitated.
157 last is a myth promulgated by Trotsky. 152 first is probably too kind to Martov and definitely way too future-projecting-into-the-past for the Bolsheviks. The truth is that none of them were close to realistically envisioning taking power before 1917 because it was ludicrously unrealistic that they would do so. Lenin just turned out to be, in the middle of a chaotic situation where like 25 different groups could have succeeded, to be more hard-assed, opportunistic, and murderous than anyone could have foreseen, likely including Lenin himself.
157.1 -- I thought you lived in China, which makes those stats pretty impressive. Not the first time I've been mistaken about undisclosed locations of imaginary people.
The truth is that none of them were close to realistically envisioning taking power before 1917 because it was ludicrously unrealistic that they would do so.
I don't think it was inherently ludicrous for a Russian social democrat in 1906 to think that his movement might be in a position of power in Russia at some point in the next twenty or thirty years. Reforms had been happening, albeit slowly. "Imperial Russia in 1936 will be a bit like Imperial Germany is now" seems like a not obviously insane thing for a Russian leftist to think/hope.
159: they self-identify as black. It's a thing in China apparently.
That some form of "socialism" would be present in Russia wasn't unthinkable (indeed, by 1917, pretty much everyone called themselves a "socialist" of one kimd or another). That these particular guys who were living as exiles in 1902 and through past 1905 and into 1917 had any realistic possibility of seizing the state was , and that they were able to was incredibly fortuitous and 100% the result of the First World War, combined with the poor decisions of many, many other possible contenders for power, and some nice opportunism and luck by Lenin.
re: 158
One of the things that really struck home reading Young Stalin* was how much I thought I knew about Stalin was basically Trotskyist propaganda. The actual Stalin was, obviously, a vicious, ruthless bastard. But as a young man he was much braver, and much smarter, and much more a sincerely committed life-long communist than the picture of a brutish and ignorant peasant apparatchik that I was familiar with.
* great, btw.
I don't remember the exact strategic/tactical arguments in What is to be done?, but the overall impression is of someone who is ruthlessly dismissive of near-ideological partners. Not just dismissive, but he thinks their failure to understand the appropriate movement tactics dictated by the "objective historical conditions in Russia" is a moral evil. Benefit of hindsight, etc, but it doesn't take much to spin that out into how things might go once an actual revolution happens. And it's a pattern that played itself out over and over again in Marxist-Leninist revolutions.
The important thing to know is that Bolsheviks means the majority, and Mensheviks means the minority, but there were actually more Mensheviks than Bolsheviks.
I'm not even sure it was inevitable in the early phase post-Revolution that _Stalin_ would have taken the USSR in a Stalinist direction. I don't know if I've read a convincing account of exactly why Stalinism happened.*
Back when I was studying Russian history I read several accounts explaining why Stalinism happened and they were all fairly convincing, but they all disagreed with each other.
166.1: That's what I always get backward.
Was living in China. Where I lived before the population was 99.999999999% Chinese.
C'mon, some of them might have been Manchu.
Or Hakka or Hoklo or Tai or Uighur... (not sure which bit she was in).
Hakka identify as ethnic Han, no? Admittedly, I was assuming she was in the urban east, probably not south of Shanghai. My horrible joke was that Manchus are so assimilated among and phenotypically similar to northern, eastern (not necessarily dongbei) urban Chinese that they're utterly indistinguishable. That will generally be less so with other ethnic groups. Should've used OPINIONATED MANCHU.
My neighborhood (of rental town homes): a handful of black (African American) families. Roughly the same number of Middle Eastern families. Two Indian families. I believe that the rest are non-Hispanic white. The kids all play together on the street, and piss off my husband by coming too close to his beloved 2015 Challenger.*
* I've been (silently) lmao lately because a little four or five year old boy has taken to bothering my husband while he's washing the car by asking neverending "why" questions. Mr. Robot has very little experience with kids, and is completely flummoxed.
his beloved 2015 Challenger.
I believe he and Buck are required to drag-race now.
There's a group of Stalin scholars who are committed to somewhat rehabilitating his image. Stalin ruled Russia in part like a man paranoid that the USSR was surrounded by malicious enemies bent on exterminating it, which for at least part of his rule was actually true.
As I learned about it in school, Stalin was completely underestimated by the rest of Politburo, whom he basically manipulated one by one until he was positioned as Lenin's successor. Lenin also underestimated Stalin, until it was too late.
172
Your assumptions were all wrong. Not urban, not east (though not west), and south of Shanghai, but not in the far south. No ethnic minorities at all.
Actually I take that back. There was a healthy trade in foreign wives, so there were some SE Asians, and SW Chinese ethnic minorities (Bai, Yi, Miao) where I lived. Most of the women didn't hang around long after they produced a son.
Why didn't they just mail sperm to SE Asian or SW China?
179
And then 9 months later the women can mail the healthy sons back to where I lived?
They could take a plane as unaccompanied minors.
What happened when they produced a daughter?
I assume there's an ultrasound machine working against that possibility. If this Darwin guy isn't full of shit, pre-natal clitorises will become progressively larger in certain parts of the world.
173* - so so love this. We have a very good friend, childless thus far, who tried for years and years to engage the kid in wildly age inappropriate abstract discussions of all kinds of stuff. Just this last weekend, after not seeing him for a few months, he and son spent a long time having what seemed to be a mutually enjoyable discussion of electoral systems. In excruciating luxuriating detail.
182
Telling the sex from an ultrasound is illegal, although there are ways around it if you have enough money/connections. Generally a first girl is fine, since women are allowed a second baby if the first is a girl. The pressure sets in for baby #2, and ratchets up exponentially for each subsequent birth. The nice thing about a son on the first try is women then can leave and marry another man for another bride price, so her family gets a better ROI. (Bride price starts at about $5,000, but can go much higher if the woman is more desirable).
That seems efficient, unless there's any advantage to having a mother around her children after they are weaned.
If the $5,000 only covers through the birth of a son, it isn't really a bride price so much as a low-tech surrogate motherhood price.
177: That was silly and presumptuous of me. Sorry.
188
No, it's fine. That's where most foreigners live in China.
177: My money's on Jiangxi, Ji'an prefecture, Taihe county.
