U.S Cities by African-American Population

I think it was probably more interesting as a percentage.

I agree, percentage would be more telling. Maybe you could use percentage, but limit it to cities over...say...250k people?

Only missed Atlanta because I thought I'd already typed it in. I hate it when I do that.

The source is the 2010 US Census, so it counts people who self-identify as "Black or African American."

The label really has no non-subjective basis in reality, same as "White."

Source?? Checked wikipedia and from the top 10 cities with the highest black population, only new orleans was here

You were looking at the wrong thing bud

I only got one and gave up- thought it was US States, not cities.

100 with 1:07 left

African-American or any ____-American is the most racist term there is. All out in the open, staring at you in the face. Why? It's mostly, if not only, linked to 'racially profiled' people. People who used to be considered second or third class citizens now or in the past. African-, Asian-, Italian-... It's like saying you're not 'real' American, still. Wonder if many people have noticed this?

It's not like that at all. The term African American is not racist at all and the only implication it contains about whether or not the persons being referenced are real American or not is the implication that they are, in fact, fully American. (hint: it's the 2nd part of the label that says "American")

All African-Americans are also Americans. If they choose to identify some part of their heritage in addition to their American heritage that's up to them.

My nominee for extremely racist term we should all stop using: "______ of color."

person of color, women of color, men of color, chameleon of color, sure anything you want to put in there. Still a racist term.

I don't believe there is any context where it could not be racist. Dividing people up into groups according to their "race," assigning them characteristics according to that grouping that distinguish or separate them from other categories- this is racism. And the term "person of color" was designed specifically to do this. Including some and explicitly excluding others to generalize their experiences and characteristics.

and while both of these terms *could* be used in the same way, for me the key difference is that when someone chooses to identify themselves as an African-American they are trying to positively include themselves in a group. I don't personally see much need for this; however, it's quite different to identify with the label of "person of color," which instead of being just "I am like them" also necessarily and significantly identifies a group of people who do not belong - the "colorless." It's saying basically "everyone except for them." All tribal distinctions and racial labels can be problematic, but this is worse than most. And the way that the term is very often used you can see how it is being used to demean, marginalize, exclude, or minimize those who don't belong more than anything else. And that's exactly what those who coined the phrase wanted.

So the question is, as with any term, who is defining the term and who is using it for what purpose. For minority groups, having a unique racial identifier can be powerful and positive: harken back to distinct histories and traditions, resist cultural assimilation by the majority, etc. From what I understand (having some familiarity with identity politics), the phrase "__ of color" currently serves that role. It is very similar to the super problematic word "colored," yes. But there is no good solution for a unique racial identifier when the connotations of our words are shot through with histories of racial inequalities.

the people who defined the term and the way that it is being used is explicitly unambiguously racist. Sometimes they try to make it seem like a positive thing (I don't believe it is), but it's still racist. It was coined by people who didn't like white folks and wanted a way to say "everyone else," to differentiate the "oppressed" from the "privileged," and exclude the latter.

I think kal is articulating a real problem for which liberal or PC culture currently has no solution: there really are different rules for different groups. Liberal culture preaches equality but tolerates the exclusion or denigration of someone for being white, straight, male, or Christian. This is of course because of the perception that people falling into these groups are privileged, which is true in the most simplistic sense, but I still can't decide whether it's fair. On one hand, there is no denying that it's harder in most cases to not be white than to be white and to be LGBTQ rather than straight, etc. On the other, as kal points out, when you actually unpack the logic behind a lot of what these people say, they come off rather hypocritical. And for self-disclosure: I am very liberal, and I really struggle with what is going on in the movement right now. A lot of it just doesn't make sense. It's about exclusion rather than equality or justice.

I don't identify with the labels liberal or conservative, at least not in a contemporary political sense. Many of my ideas can be described as classically liberal. But many people today who are labeled as conservative or "alt-right" are really classically liberal. In my view both the far-right and far-left are insane.

The solution IMO is to stop focusing on what you perceive makes us different and instead focus on what makes us similar. That's it. To that end, recognize the fact that the concept of "race" is a lie invented by European colonial empires and that objectively it does not exist in humans; that we are all the same race, we are all part of the same family, there are no discrete cogent groups of people different from one another in their culture or history or collective experience as transmitted through their DNA. Stop using terms like "black" and "white" which are really irrelevant and inaccurate anyway. Start talking about people as if they were people. Individuals.

Not just members of some large monolithic group. Recognize that privilege comes from geography and socio-economic status and has nothing to do with anything your ancestors went through. Recognize that we all share ancestors in common and you are not them. You are you. Tribalism is the root of all evil. Identifying people according to racial or other group labels destroys the capacity for empathy with those in the out-group, it leads to conflict, competition, resentment, bitterness, and baseless pride and arrogance.

This doesn't have to be a left or right thing. In my lifetime I've seen this idea migrate from one to the other. In my youth, in the USA, "conservatives" used to include old school racists and segregationists. and "liberals" were preaching that we should be color-blind (which was great, we made an enormous amount of progress with this philosophy). While I was in college I started to see this idea crop up that to be color blind was somehow wrong.

and now it's the "liberals" who are *obsessed* with race and racial politics. Identity politics, "social justice," and the politics of grievance are completely counter-productive. It divides people and pits them against each other and so completely misses the point of so many things. It also depends upon false narratives, as racist narratives always have. and as Marxist narratives always have. But these lies take on a life of their own as they always do in ideologically-driven movements, where ideological purity matters more than facts. In the past 10 years race and gender relations have been set back at least a generation. It's really disheartening. But the solution is what I said above. If people understand that we're all largely the same, then we can help those in need because we will see them as essentially like us, just, in need.

... and to the assertion that there exist different rules for different groups of people, in the USA in the present I honestly don't believe this is so and have never seen good evidence to the contrary; but if it were the case, then the correct response would be to view any different treatment of any individuals or groups of individuals as bad because we recognize that we are all the same and deserve to be treated the same. Trying to focus on and label people according to racial groups exacerbates any such problem, and makes those not in the group less likely to want to help. Efforts to combat police brutality, poverty, drug addiction, or unfair pay would all be much more effective and universally appealing if NOT pursued through a racist or sexist agenda to advantage or disadvantage (or even just ignore) one or more group(s) of people.

I would have got 16/20 if I had spelled Baltimore right

I never think to guess Baltimore. On any quiz. I guess I really need to visit it.

Funny... judging from my stats I must have taken this quiz 5 times now. I've missed Indianapolis twice, Charlotte 3 times, and Milwaukee 4 times, never getting 100%, but those are the only 3 I ever miss. Wonder why I've got a mental block on just those 3.

Probably because Charlotte’s a forgettable town, while Indianapolis (home of John Green) and Milwaukee (too cold) are both thought of as being pretty white.

well I got them all this time and don't even remember making this comment 3 months ago. Looks like the quiz was updated, too, as the 5 points are new.

Strategy: start with the biggest cities in America (#s 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8). When those were taken care of, move on to the biggest cities that were left south of the Mason-Dixon line and also around the rust belt (everything else except Boston).

Jacksonville is #12 in total population and #12 in black population lol.

And NYC is #1 in total population and #1 in black population. It's not that funny.

Sat and stared at the screen for 2 minutes trying to guess the last answer while my wife was on Facetime with our friends in that town. I'm as thick as mince sometimes.