I didn't interpret it that way. Growing more ethnically diverse, doesn't mean you started from no ethnic diversity at all.
>Second,
>it smooths over or misses the fact that looked at from a different
>angle, California has become less diverse, not more:
>
>
>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040524/ai_n14576840/
This doesn't indicate less ethnic diversity. It's point is to talk about the demographic shift where blacks are no longer the biggest minority group. (I read Earl Ofari Hutchinson's The Latino Challenge to Black America last year in the run up to the election. Worth a read. Slim volume.)
The numbers cited in the article describe a 3-5% dip in the black population in two different places. That doesn't mean blacks have disappeared and do not contribute to the "diversity" of california.
A room of 20 people:
5 black 5 chinese 5 puerto rican 5 indian 2 mexican 2 european descent 1 russian
changing that to 4 blacks and 6 chinese does not make the room less ethnically diverse.
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)