The White City

[phk]

Austin and Denver are only 50% white non hispanic so yeah...... And yes the Northwest has a lot of white people, but is this surprising? They are far away from the south so they were the least impacted by the great migration (and this is true of most of the west including California, which is only 6% black in contrast to the conventional wisdom that California has a large black population), and they are farther away from the southern border so they were less impacted by latino immigration (but that is changing rapidly). And since they don't have a very large city (Seattle is large, but doesn't compare to NYC, LA, Chicago, SF, Dallas, Houston etc), they weren't impacted that much by other immigration either.

It's interesting that SF wasn't chosen as one of the cities since it's pretty much the definition of a progressive city. I guess discussing a place as ethnically diverse and yet progressive as SF would have detracted from the "point" they were trying to make.

San Francisco and Austin are 6% Black, less than San Diego's 7%.

[phk]

The phenomenon of "White Flight" traditionally has been White vs Black mostly. Hispanics are a bit harder to pin down since there is almost no real White Flight from White Hispanics but somewhat a good amount due to Native American Hispanics. Asian "White Flight" is probably likely only in areas with good amounts of Hmong or Khmer populations I suppose.

[phk]

since there is almost no real White Flight from White Hispanics

Miami-Dade?

MMhm. White flight increased in Miami after the Mariel Lift, but I think the Mariel refugees were less white than the average Cuban-American.

[phk]

Austin and Denver are only 50% white non hispanic so yeah...... And yes the Northwest has a lot of white people, but is this surprising? They are far away from the south so they were the least impacted by the great migration (and this is true of most of the west including California, which is only 6% black in contrast to the conventional wisdom that California has a large black population), and they are farther away from the southern border so they were less impacted by latino immigration (but that is changing rapidly). And since they don't have a very large city (Seattle is large, but doesn't compare to NYC, LA, Chicago, SF, Dallas, Houston etc), they weren't impacted that much by other immigration either.

It's interesting that SF wasn't chosen as one of the cities since it's pretty much the definition of a progressive city. I guess discussing a place as ethnically diverse and yet progressive as SF would have detracted from the "point" they were trying to make.

San Francisco and Austin are 6% Black, less than San Diego's 7%.

Austin has a large latino population and SF has a large asian population. Or can it only be white vs black?

I would have expected more Blacks in SD tbh, due to the large military presence.

SD is probably the least black of the big cities.

[phk]

This article was largely, well, stupid.

Sure, Denver is only 10% black, a whole 2.5% less than the national average. Give me a break! 1 out of 10 people are black, and 1/3 are Hispanic, that seems far more diverse than Scandinavia.

Another city, Austin, 35% Hispanic and 5.5% asian. Very diverse if you ask me. Again, 8% black does not mean the black community has no presence. There are still a lot relative to some places in this country.

As for Minneapolis, Wikipedia says the city itself is 17% black.

Essentially, this article is total BS

Yes... 17% black in Minneapolis.. but they're not all really black because many of them are immigrants from Africa. 

Apparently diversity is determined only by how many African Americans you have in your city

The truth of the matter is:  Minneapolis is still the most diverse city in the state of Minnesota.  Try Duluth once.. it's like 97% white.  Though it is kinda funny that whites in Duluth are likely more progressive than Minneapolis whites.

The most typical diversity measure was to simply do 1 - White%

[phk]

This reminds me of an episode of King of the Hill.