Do you remember when "inner city" and "urban" were code words for "black"?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by westak

The term urban being synonymous with black will continue as long as urban areas have black populations that far outweigh their proportional percentage in rural or suburban areas. I think it has way less to do with a city being 50% or more black population and much more to do with a state havine 10% black population but the major city in said state is 3 or 4xs that percentage wise. That sort of difference will lead people to viewing urban being synonymous with black, especially when it's been baked into marketing and popular culture for the last 40 to 50 years.

Right. Even if you're in some ultra-white state like Oregon, Portland is probably the only place you can find a decent concentration of black barbershops, black churches, or any semblance of a black community. And Portland has a tiny black population, less than some Canadian cities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by westak

Hispancis are not a race though. So are these households non white hispanics or do white hispanics count towards this new multiracial explosion?

Multiracial includes white-Hispanic pairings. Yes, Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity per Census, but a white-Hispanic pairing often chooses multiracial for children (or white, or Hispanic).

We choose Hispanic for our son, for all demographic reporting. Per Census he's Hispanic, and I'm in a household of two Hispanics and one white. If there's an option of ethnicity and race, we choose white Hispanic for him. It's self-reporting.

[westak]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right. Even if you're in some ultra-white state like Oregon, Portland is probably the only place you can find a decent concentration of black barbershops, black churches, or any semblance of a black community. And Portland has a tiny black population, less than some Canadian cities.

I wish I could find the poll but it reminds of when they asked "white" people when they thought a school or neighborhood had a signifcant black population and at the time it was 7%. This could and would obviously vary depending on geography but I know I've experiened this myself in conversastions with folks who think my hometown is 50% black when in fact it's 30-35% black.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by westak

Hispancis are not a race though. So are these households non white hispanics or do white hispanics count towards this new multiracial explosion?

Just spitballing, but I'm skeptical that there are a ton of people that "moved" from black to multiracial. However, there was almost certainly a spike in mixed race births over the past decade. Of course, anyone born in the past decade didn't fill out their own census form, so this would've been their parents assigning them to a category.

Another factor could be that there was movement into "multiracial" of people who didn't strongly identify with the category that they defaulted to previously. My gut says that these people mostly defaulted to white in the past, though.

[westak]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Multiracial includes white-Hispanic pairings. Yes, Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity per Census, but a white-Hispanic pairing often chooses multiracial for children (or white, or Hispanic).

We choose Hispanic for our son, for all demographic reporting. Per Census he's Hispanic, and I'm in a household of two Hispanics and one white. If there's an option of ethnicity and race, we choose white Hispanic for him. It's self-reporting.

Ok, this has always confused me as my wife is Afro-Latina and I am black but I, nor she, would never view our home as "racially mixed", regardless of cultural differences.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by westak

Ok, this has always confused me as my wife is Afro-Latina and I am black but I, nor she, would never view our home as "racially mixed", regardless of cultural differences.

Well, yeah, this gets into some of the Census weirdness. It doesn't all make sense.

I can say that in NYC, Afro-Latinos tend to identify as Latino rather than black, and there are definitely cultural differences. This is especially true for Dominicans, who absolutely identify as a separate, purely Latino community, regardless of racial background. Puerto Ricans, not so much.

So, for example, an Afro-Latino Bronx Dominicano would not identify as black, even if very dark-skinned. But if he were in Vermont, I guarantee everyone would label him as black.

Also, this may suggest that some of the "black decline" in U.S. cities is exaggerated, if Afro-Latinos are identifying as Latino.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by westak

The term urban being synonymous with black will continue as long as urban areas have black populations that far outweigh their proportional percentage in rural or suburban areas.

no doubt that connection will remain among the exurban boomers and rural folk.

kinda like how my great-grandfather continued to say "negroes" instead of "black people" to his dying day, long after the former became unacceptable in polite society.

but gone are the days of the real estate agent explaining to the young 30 year old white couple buying their first home "i don't think this neighborhood will be a good fit for you, it's probably a little too urban" (ie. black).

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Well, yeah, this gets into some of the Census weirdness. It doesn't all make sense.

I can say that in NYC, Afro-Latinos tend to identify as Latino rather than black, and there are definitely cultural differences. This is especially true for Dominicans, who absolutely identify as a separate, purely Latino community, regardless of racial background. Puerto Ricans, not so much.

So, for example, an Afro-Latino Bronx Dominicano would not identify as black, even if very dark-skinned. But if he were in Vermont, I guarantee everyone would label him as black.

Also, this may suggest that some of the "black decline" in U.S. cities is exaggerated, if Afro-Latinos are identifying as Latino.

wat da? an afro-latino bronx dominicano living in vermont?

that sounds like a sequel to lillyhammer.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Well, yeah, this gets into some of the Census weirdness. It doesn't all make sense.

I can say that in NYC, Afro-Latinos tend to identify as Latino rather than black, and there are definitely cultural differences. This is especially true for Dominicans, who absolutely identify as a separate, purely Latino community, regardless of racial background. Puerto Ricans, not so much.

So, for example, an Afro-Latino Bronx Dominicano would not identify as black, even if very dark-skinned. But if he were in Vermont, I guarantee everyone would label him as black.

Also, this may suggest that some of the "black decline" in U.S. cities is exaggerated, if Afro-Latinos are identifying as Latino.

The Dominican identification tends to be a first generation thing. Dominicans born in the U.S. tend to adopt the standard U.S. racial identity that most closely fits their appearance... and sometimes you'll have close relatives identifying differently.

[jmecklenborg]

i just had a flashback to pre-internet tourism guides that used the term "funky". Like, any sort of bohemian neighborhood (junk shops, record stores, art galleries, place that sold Doc Marten's, etc.) would be described as "funky" by the person who merely looked at it but didn't really live it.

Such places don't really exist anymore because almost everywhere is too expensive.

[Pedestrian]

I remember when "people of color" living in central city neighborhoods weren't complaining about "gentrification" because white people weren't moving in. They were still moving out. Was everything better then?

[BG918]

In the 90’s the hip hop/rap music genre was also known as “urban”.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

i just had a flashback to pre-internet tourism guides that used the term "funky". Like, any sort of bohemian neighborhood (junk shops, record stores, art galleries, place that sold Doc Marten's, etc.) would be described as "funky" by the person who merely looked at it but didn't really live it.

Such places don't really exist anymore because almost everywhere is too expensive.

That was a Boomer/Gen X aesthetic. Millennials and future generations like everything so colorful, clean and whimsical, even Hip Hop is looking the most flamboyant it has ever looked since the beginning when Flash and the Furious Five used to wear those tight, garish outfits.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

i just had a flashback to pre-internet tourism guides that used the term "funky". Like, any sort of bohemian neighborhood (junk shops, record stores, art galleries, place that sold Doc Marten's, etc.) would be described as "funky" by the person who merely looked at it but didn't really live it.

Such places don't really exist anymore because almost everywhere is too expensive.

"Funky" became "hip" or "hipster" in the 00s. I'm not even sure what the media calls those type of places now. Maybe they aren't unique enough anymore to warrant a category.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

"Funky" became "hip" or "hipster" in the 00s. I'm not even sure what the media calls those type of places now. Maybe they aren't unique enough anymore to warrant a category.

BoBo?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

"Funky" became "hip" or "hipster" in the 00s. I'm not even sure what the media calls those type of places now. Maybe they aren't unique enough anymore to warrant a category.

Yeah. Also, music is just not at all what it was. The wide independently-owned infrastructure that surrounded recorded and live music has collapsed.

Young adults and teens can't be expected to understand the context that spawned all of the independent music of the 1980s and 1990s.

I don't think they have any concept that live independent music used to be concentrated at 2-3 clubs that were usually within walking distance of each other.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

wat da? an afro-latino bronx dominicano living in vermont?

that sounds like a sequel to lillyhammer.

Very likely scenario if they are students at UVM.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Thankfully, the City of Toronto does provide breakdowns by neighbourhood:

Visible minority % (2016)

• Bay Street Corridor: 62.1% (pop. 25,797)
• Cabbagetown-St. James: 28.9% (11,669)
• Church-Yonge: 41.0% (31,340)
• Kensington-Chinatown: 60.3% (17,945)
• Niagara: 35.1% (31,180)
• Moss Park: 42.6% (20,506)
• North Riverdale: 41.5% (11,916)
• North St. Jamestown: 66.9% (18,615)
• Palmerston-Little Italy: 21.5% (13,826)
• Regent Park: 70.0% (10,803)
• South Riverdale: 41.5% (27,876)
• Trinity-Bellwoods: 29.7% (16,556)
• University: 33.0% (7,607)
• Waterfront-The Islands: 44.1% (65,913)

https://www.toronto.ca/city-governme...hood-profiles/

For Wards:

University-Rosedale: 33.0%
Spadina-Fort York: 43.0%
Toronto-Centre: 50.0%

Inner Toronto (Toronto and East York Community Council area) is 65% white, city of Toronto is 49% white.

https://www.toronto.ca/city-governme...area-profiles/

Toronto's social geography seems rather fairly compared to US cities. The central city is quite affluent and white yet there's still a lot of social housing and low incomes just east of the CBD (Toronto Centre electoral district is the least white and has the highest poverty rate of the inner Toronto districts). It's the beyond downtown gentrifying/gentrified neighborhoods and the established affluent areas of North Toronto, the Beaches, High Park that are very white.

[Manitopiaaa]

In Washington, D.C. it was the opposite. The "City" of Washington was the White Government Town. Whereas the "District" was the Black area.

The City of Washington (still a legal entity, though one without any Government):


There's a reason why the Black population basically expanded all around the City without entering the City itself (redlining).

[jd3189]

^^^Interesting, so the District was pretty much like a state or capital region of its own with the city of Washington being the capital of that while also being the national capital. If that's the case, one way DC could have statehood is if the land area was expanded to include a bit more of Northern VA and southern Maryland. Or just also Maryland to annex DC. None of these will happen but it's a fun thought experiment.