HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 12:37 AM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
Within another 10 to 20 years, the old "European" Caucasian population in Southwest Detroit will be non-existent. Most tracts are already below 20%, and that number is falling.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 3:33 AM
nei nei is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
There's no reason to ignore, downplay, or deny. But there's also no reason to single out. Why is Detroit singled out when other major cities have worse population decline?

If you want to point out cities on the basis of population loss, why wouldn't you point out those metros that have the worst population loss? Why would you instead point out those which have very bad, but not the worst loss?
If we're just considering city propers..

to be non-PC, the likely reason Detroit is singled out is compared to all the declined cities it is the only one with almost no white population left, and mostly black. But it's also a reflection of inner city poverty.

There's another big difference. Pittsburgh's population partly declined by a decrease in the amount of children and smaller household sizes. Detroit has a rather high household size and a high % of children. So even with a similar population decline, Detroit will feel much more abandoned, because the loss of households is larger. Detroit also has a severe ring of decay surrounding downtown, and worst by downtown; other cities in decline, particularly Pittsburgh have numerous healthy neighborhoods near downtown.

Overall by metro, Detroit doesn't stand out, it's city proper decline makes it "special".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 4:37 AM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
I would say the relative wealth of the suburbs make the metro stand out, particularly in comparison to most other Great Lakes cities.

What's interesting about Pittsburgh is that while the city certainly suffered, much of the decline was felt in many of the smaller industrial towns that line the river valleys. In Metro Detroit, virtually all of the decline was registered in the city, and in particular the old-school working-class neighborhoods immediately outside the Greater Downtown area.

In Metro Pittsburgh, the decline was so wide-spread, you can't really get an individual perspective, while in Metro Detroit, the decline was so concentrated, anybody with a two-bit camera can show the world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 1:54 PM
AccraGhana AccraGhana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
If we're just considering city propers..

to be non-PC, the likely reason Detroit is singled out is compared to all the declined cities it is the only one with almost no white population left, and mostly black. But it's also a reflection of inner city poverty.

There's another big difference. Pittsburgh's population partly declined by a decrease in the amount of children and smaller household sizes. Detroit has a rather high household size and a high % of children. So even with a similar population decline, Detroit will feel much more abandoned, because the loss of households is larger. Detroit also has a severe ring of decay surrounding downtown, and worst by downtown; other cities in decline, particularly Pittsburgh have numerous healthy neighborhoods near downtown.

Overall by metro, Detroit doesn't stand out, it's city proper decline makes it "special".
I think that there is a far right element that likes to showcase Detroit as the poster child of what happens when "liberalism" takes over, as well as, what happens when African Americans take over. In other words, there are elements that want to associate liberalism and African Americans with crime, violence, dysfunction, decay and economic decline. Thus....they keep the focus on Detroit because it SEEMS to confirm a particular political and social narrative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 4:25 PM
Tuckerman Tuckerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by AccraGhana View Post
I think that there is a far right element that likes to showcase Detroit as the poster child of what happens when "liberalism" takes over, as well as, what happens when African Americans take over. In other words, there are elements that want to associate liberalism and African Americans with crime, violence, dysfunction, decay and economic decline. Thus....they keep the focus on Detroit because it SEEMS to confirm a particular political and social narrative.
This is a very good point. The residuals of racism in the US are still quite profound and Detroit is an excellent case-history of that. While there is plenty of white poverty, the proportion of poverty within African-Americans remains high and sustained by continued effects of two centuries of racism. These effects change very slowly and remain most prominent, IMO, in housing and education. Positive change can be sped up by good governance and policy; unfortunately at this point in time good governance seems to be sadly lacking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 7:44 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by AccraGhana View Post
I don’t think I quite follow what you mean when you say that the city leaders were ok with racial concentration and that the city was destined to become a black city. LA had the Watts riot and did not become a black city following that. In fact, even though the Detroit riots happened the year prior, many American cities erupted in riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr and they were not destined to become black cities. Furthermore, it was blacks who were attempting INTEGRATION and fighting against segregation and in favor of busing while many whites were in opposition to such. Thus, I do not think that it is accurate to say that blacks were ok with racial concentration, as much as it was simply something that leadership was resigned to the fact they could not control it. If some whites did not want to live around blacks and they could afford to move black leadership had no choice but to accept it if no laws against discrimination was being broken.
The blue collar whites in Detroit probably saw efforts to "integrate" and "fight against segregation" as an effort to take over and change the character of their respective ethnic enclaves of the city. They did not want this character to change; was this wrong? Also, I doubt blacks wanted to live next to white people for its own sake.

Their are plenty of examples throughout history of ethnic clashes between groups, trying to push each other out of regions/cities; do we need to ennoble the black population's expansion into different areas of Detroit as something fundamentally different than an ethnic conflict of this sort? After all, we are not talking about the South and Jim Crow here, but a city which in 1960, had the highest percentage of black homeownership in the country; with a black crime rate that was not appreciably different than the white crime rate, and with marriage rates high and out of wedlock births quite low by today's standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AccraGhana View Post
Actually, the 90’s were fairly good for the State of Michigan and Detroit. The state recovered its population loss from the 80’s…..and then some…..reaching just about 10 million residents (actually the state surpassed 10 million in about 2001) and the black population of the city of Detroit increased by about 20,000 during the 90’s. So I do not accept the “NAFTA” theory of decline.
ok, maybe this started a decade later in the Bush era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AccraGhana View Post
The black Decline in Detroit was mirrored in many cities, including Chicago and Cleveland to name a few. In other words, many cities experienced abnormal changes in its black population in the decade of the 2000’s. Thus, one has to seek a NATIONAL causation and not attempt to find a local causation. When patterns are broken then one has to ask “what changed”. The answer to that question is HOUSING POLICY, MORTGAGE RATES, and LENDING STANDARDS which created a shifting outward from the core as everyone sought to move up in home and move further out and nearly everyone could get financing to do so.

In order for people in homes, say the inner-ring suburbs, to move out further into bigger homes and better communities, they first needed to sell their homes. These homes and better schools were seen as a step up for many black inner-city residents who could now purchase such homes for the first time due to easy credit and the fact that many people in the suburbs were so desperate to sell their homes that traditional racial resistance waned. Hence, it’s my belief that the housing bubble the last decade is the primary culprit of black population decline in many cities and not crime.
Here I agree with your point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 8:00 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by AccraGhana View Post
I think that there is a far right element that likes to showcase Detroit as the poster child of what happens when "liberalism" takes over, as well as, what happens when African Americans take over. In other words, there are elements that want to associate liberalism and African Americans with crime, violence, dysfunction, decay and economic decline. Thus....they keep the focus on Detroit because it SEEMS to confirm a particular political and social narrative.
Perhaps, but it's not racism or far rightism to recognize that blacks have vastly large rates of social dysfunction and crime than other groups in the US. This is an uncontestable and uncomfortable truth and to argue that somehow the media or Republicans are unfairly emphasizing this "narrative" is putting one's head in the sand.

It would be interesting to hear what you think are the reasons for the vast expansion and divergence in crime and social dysfunction in the black community compared to other groups since around 1960, when black and white were relatively close on their types of indicators. Especially since you don't seem to believe that economic and NAFA/globalization related factors are as important as I seem to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 8:26 PM
AccraGhana AccraGhana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuckerman View Post
This is a very good point. The residuals of racism in the US are still quite profound and Detroit is an excellent case-history of that. While there is plenty of white poverty, the proportion of poverty within African-Americans remains high and sustained by continued effects of two centuries of racism. These effects change very slowly and remain most prominent, IMO, in housing and education. Positive change can be sped up by good governance and policy; unfortunately at this point in time good governance seems to be sadly lacking.
We live in a world of constant deception and deflection and those with true power and influence are the ones who get to control the narrative, because they control the instruments of propaganda, meaning the media. Hence, the race link to the problems of Detroit, and in particular the white racism link, gets written out of the narrative by the powers that be to make the narrative one of political ideology with an unstated subtext of racial inferiority as the black leadership is labeled corrupt and incompetent and the people that elect then are seen at inept for choosing them, not to mention violent due to the crime rate.

I find it frustrating that when people bring up the ramification of racism that people become defensive and feel that all white people need to be defended. There is no intelligent person who blames all or even the majority of white people for racism, yet, when one points out the REAL damage caused by the whites who were and are racist, for some reason most whites become uncomfortable and defensive, which then hinders constructive dialogue. The truth is that racism shaped and evolved what we see in America today in regards to the different socioeconomic and geographic realities in America today and such is true in the sub instance of Detroit as well.

In most other northern cities racism split the cities from within, creating dividing lines and zones. What makes Detroit unique is that racism polarization manifested between city and suburbs, which was likely expedited by Detroit being one of the first large cities to elect a black mayor. Gary Indian was another city that elected a black mayor in the late 60’s and early 70’s which also expedited white flight due to racial attitudes of those times. Gary, Indiana is a small microcosm of Detroit that shared the same problems of the city of Detroit….and it’s not due to coincidence.

Anyone explaining the problems of Detroit without including white racism, along with the decline of the auto industry, a national subordination trend and the like…….are being deceptive. The least cause of Detroit’s problems, in my opinion, is the sexual activity and alleged corruption of its leaders. Detroit was well into its decline before any elected official was convicted of corruption. Detroit’s problems are due to a lack of revenue, which is due to a lack of people and businesses. Some will say that crime drove out the people and businesses but then how does one explain how Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and other cities manage to have crime and vitality.

Last edited by AccraGhana; Feb 24, 2013 at 11:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 8:38 PM
AccraGhana AccraGhana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Their are plenty of examples throughout history of ethnic clashes between groups, trying to push each other out of regions/cities; do we need to ennoble the black population's expansion into different areas of Detroit as something fundamentally different than an ethnic conflict of this sort? After all, we are not talking about the South and Jim Crow here, but a city which in 1960, had the highest percentage of black homeownership in the country; with a black crime rate that was not appreciably different than the white crime rate, and with marriage rates high and out of wedlock births quite low by today's standards.
If we can conclude that what was true for the whole MUST be true for its parts, then I would agree with your logic. However, just because there is plenty history of ethnic groups trying to push out other ethnic groups is not grounds to suggest that blacks in America have been guilty of such. I would like to see some documented history of African Americans doing this. The racial history of America is NOT "a wash" or "even Steven" by any means. It was totally one sided with blacks usually being the victims, notwithstanding Django.

Back then there was rampant "steering and redlining" by banks and real estate agents, as well as homeowners who were reluctant to sell to blacks. Blacks migrated to areas that they could afford and that did not try to keep them out. Blacks were not trying to push anyone out of communities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 8:47 PM
AccraGhana AccraGhana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Perhaps, but it's not racism or far rightism to recognize that blacks have vastly large rates of social dysfunction and crime than other groups in the US. This is an uncontestable and uncomfortable truth and to argue that somehow the media or Republicans are unfairly emphasizing this "narrative" is putting one's head in the sand.
I know I for one certainly am not uncomfortable talking about black dysfunction and crime…..because it’s true. However, I think most black folks want to talk about things in the context of cause and effect and actions creating reaction (as everything evolves into what it is from a temporal continuum o.f actions begetting reactions) Black crime and dysfunction is simply a keen grasp of the obvious. However, presenting the observation without an explanation (what cause produced the effect or what actions produced that reaction in blacks) leaves the impression that the dysfunction and crime is innate (part of the NATURE of black people) as opposed that a condition that was caused or was a reaction to something else.

Quote:
It would be interesting to hear what you think are the reasons for the vast expansion and divergence in crime and social dysfunction in the black community compared to other groups since around 1960, when black and white were relatively close on their types of indicators. Especially since you don't seem to believe that economic and NAFA/globalization related factors are as important as I seem to.
Oh....that is simple....DRUGS!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 8:59 PM
Segun's Avatar
Segun Segun is offline
<-- Chicago's roots.
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,929
""I’d rather see Hitler and Hirohito win than work next to a n***er."
__________________
Songs of the minute - Flavour - Ijele (Feat. Zoro)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjEFGpnkL38

Common - Resurrection (Video Mix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmOd0GKuztE
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 9:04 PM
animatedmartian's Avatar
animatedmartian animatedmartian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,945
Great piece about the Detroit News during the 1970s. Most of it is about the process of making a newspaper but a good bit is about Detroit itself and the people of the time.

Video Link


The more I learn about how Detroit was then, the more I feel like it was a typical big city back then and went through similar events like any other large city of its age. But then that confuses me on how it ended up in such odd circumstances of today unless Detroit really is the exaggerated effect of the norm that happened elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2013, 9:26 PM
Segun's Avatar
Segun Segun is offline
<-- Chicago's roots.
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by AccraGhana View Post
I know I for one certainly am not uncomfortable talking about black dysfunction and crime…..because it’s true. However, I think most black folks want to talk about things in the context of cause and effect and actions creating reaction (as everything evolves into what it is from a temporal continuum o.f actions begetting reactions) Black crime and dysfunction is simply a keen grasp of the obvious. However, presenting the observation without an explanation (what cause produced the effect or what actions produced that reaction in blacks) leaves the impression that the dysfunction and crime is innate (part of the NATURE of black people) as opposed that a condition that was caused or was a reaction to something else.
[QUOTE]

Furthermore, the propaganda of the media ignores the efforts of grassroots organizations, and appoints several black celebs as spokespeople for "the black community", the more ineffective, the more press time they'll get (Jesse, Al), then when someone demonizes the poor without holding all parties accountable (Bill Cosby), it gets disproportionate coverage on right-wing media. When in reality, every single grassroots movement has leaders who've said the same things to their people as Bill Cosby! They just choose not to do it on public forums like the Cos, you don't air out your dirty laundry. Look at how our country can use "News" to twist the facts around. 1984 for real.

Quote:

Oh....that is simple....DRUGS!!!
Don't forget the systematic destruction of the civil rights movement and any organized black mobility movement by the efforts of the CIA and J.Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO program. If violence by racists whites, and redlining wasn't enough, you had portrayals of blacks as inherently more violent, lazy....so when blacks organized in their own forced segregated communities to become more upwardly mobile, the US Government pretty much crushed that too.....This was a psychological attack from all angles, and its legacy still exists. No wonder why there were riots in the late 60's.
__________________
Songs of the minute - Flavour - Ijele (Feat. Zoro)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjEFGpnkL38

Common - Resurrection (Video Mix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmOd0GKuztE
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2013, 12:11 AM
AccraGhana AccraGhana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
[QUOTE=Segun;6027282]
Quote:

Furthermore, the propaganda of the media ignores the efforts of grassroots organizations, and appoints several black celebs as spokespeople for "the black community", the more ineffective, the more press time they'll get (Jesse, Al), then when someone demonizes the poor without holding all parties accountable (Bill Cosby), it gets disproportionate coverage on right-wing media. When in reality, every single grassroots movement has leaders who've said the same things to their people as Bill Cosby! They just choose not to do it on public forums like the Cos, you don't air out your dirty laundry. Look at how our country can use "News" to twist the facts around. 1984 for real.



Don't forget the systematic destruction of the civil rights movement and any organized black mobility movement by the efforts of the CIA and J.Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO program. If violence by racists whites, and redlining wasn't enough, you had portrayals of blacks as inherently more violent, lazy....so when blacks organized in their own forced segregated communities to become more upwardly mobile, the US Government pretty much crushed that too.....This was a psychological attack from all angles, and its legacy still exists. No wonder why there were riots in the late 60's.
I agree with all of that. The real corruption was the moral corruption of racism and its impact on African Americans....and by extension....the city of Detroit. Yet, the popular narrative of Detroit problems somehow excludes this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2013, 12:35 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Segun View Post
Furthermore, the propaganda of the media ignores the efforts of grassroots organizations, and appoints several black celebs as spokespeople for "the black community", the more ineffective, the more press time they'll get (Jesse, Al), then when someone demonizes the poor without holding all parties accountable (Bill Cosby), it gets disproportionate coverage on right-wing media. When in reality, every single grassroots movement has leaders who've said the same things to their people as Bill Cosby! They just choose not to do it on public forums like the Cos, you don't air out your dirty laundry. Look at how our country can use "News" to twist the facts around. 1984 for real.
This seems true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Segun View Post
Don't forget the systematic destruction of the civil rights movement and any organized black mobility movement by the efforts of the CIA and J.Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO program. If violence by racists whites, and redlining wasn't enough, you had portrayals of blacks as inherently more violent, lazy....so when blacks organized in their own forced segregated communities to become more upwardly mobile, the US Government pretty much crushed that too.....This was a psychological attack from all angles, and its legacy still exists. No wonder why there were riots in the late 60's.
This is the crux of the debate, was the decline in black society (and Detroit) the result of government conspiracy, or many factors in economics, politics, cultural change. I lean toward the latter, but am unsure as to the degree that government action or inaction abetted the decline. But I don't agree that "psychological attacks" or government action against "forced segregated communities" (eg black panthers) caused black marriage rates, homicide trends, single motherhood, etc etc to change from 1960 on. if anything, the demeaning of blacks and poor treatment was far worse before 1960 than after.

And you're pretty cavalier about riots in the 1960s, many of which took place in cities like Detroit with large black middle classes. As I said Detroit and DC had high rates of black homeownership, low unemployment, and relatively stable communities then. Most of the riot damage was to black owned businesses or white owned businesses that catered to blacks. You read about the riots, and some of justifications given for destroying shops were ridiculous: "their prices were too high" or "they were selling shoddy merchandise" etc. It wasn't a bread riot, and I've never understood the effort to rationalize the riots as some kind of legitimate Les Miserables-esque response. There should have been riots in the south, not downtown DC or Detroit. The riots destroyed black economic power at a time when skittish or racist white economic power structure was already not inclined to invest in the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2013, 1:15 AM
AccraGhana AccraGhana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
This seems true.



This is the crux of the debate, was the decline in black society (and Detroit) the result of government conspiracy, or many factors in economics, politics, cultural change. I lean toward the latter, but am unsure as to the degree that government action or inaction abetted the decline. But I don't agree that "psychological attacks" or government action against "forced segregated communities" (eg black panthers) caused black marriage rates, homicide trends, single motherhood, etc etc to change from 1960 on. if anything, the demeaning of blacks and poor treatment was far worse before 1960 than after.

And you're pretty cavalier about riots in the 1960s, many of which took place in cities like Detroit with large black middle classes. As I said Detroit and DC had high rates of black homeownership, low unemployment, and relatively stable communities then. Most of the riot damage was to black owned businesses or white owned businesses that catered to blacks. You read about the riots, and some of justifications given for destroying shops were ridiculous: "their prices were too high" or "they were selling shoddy merchandise" etc. It wasn't a bread riot, and I've never understood the effort to rationalize the riots as some kind of legitimate Les Miserables-esque response. There should have been riots in the south, not downtown DC or Detroit. The riots destroyed black economic power at a time when skittish or racist white economic power structure was already not inclined to invest in the city.
What you ignore is that riots were not an ORGIN, but rather, a REACTION to pent up frustrations and anger emanating from racism and police brutality being one of the extensions of that racism. In other words, the riots were a symptom of the racism and not separate and distinct phenomena that spurred the cities decline.

Racism need not conspire in a democracy where enough people harbor the mindset. That having been said, J Edgar Hoover did proclaim that the number one threat to the internal security of America, back then, was black militancy, as terrorism is today. The FBI and CIA are not known to be passive observers. Rather, they undertake clandestine efforts to stomp out these threats, with their last resort usually being violence. This is when drugs started to flood America and the black community somehow became the retail market while the suburb is where the whole sale market and people bringing the drugs into the country resided. Soon after the alpha males in the black community stopped being black militants and turned to the more lucrative drug game, as dealers, while some turned into fiends, either way, they were no longer fighting the system. Those who continued the fight got the “last restore” treatment, which was usually some sort of assassination.

There is plenty of historical examples of what happens when people are hooked on controlled substances and the law prohibits its sale. Simply go back to the prohibition era and see how the crime rate and murder rate spiked and how a crime syndicate rose out of that bootleg era. As soon as prohibition ended, the crime rate and murder rate dropped remarkably. Today there is market demand for all types of illegal drugs which creates opportunities for poor people who feel they have no other real options in their environment. It does not take a rocket scientist to predict the impact of drugs on the poor black community back then, given the level of hopelessness and frustration.

In terms of marriage and out of wedlock births, it’s not enough to just talk about what the rates are today, blacks relative to whites, without talking about what the rates were back then, blacks relative to whites. Yes, black’s rate of children born out of wedlock is 3 times higher than whites….but it was also about 3 times higher than whites back in 1960 as well. In other words, the increase in births out of wedlock and the decline in the rates of marriage are NOT endemic to blacks, but rather pandemic for both groups. However, you just do not hear about the increase in white problems because everyone is focusing on the increase for blacks and trying to DEFLECT from the role that racism has played in the unequal black condition by suggesting that it is the result of the increase in out of wedlock births and the like. Even though these same issues has increased for whites as much as for blacks, I do not seen an increase in crime or poverty in the white community as a whole, that these things are responsible for supposedly trigger in the black community. In other words, where is the increase in crime and violence in the white community that is the resultant of the out of wedlock rate of birth for white women increasing from 9% to 27%? When the rate for blacks has increases since the 60's....that rate is then said to be the root of the increase in crime. If this it true....then whites should have seen a big increase in crime and violence given that their rate increased from its baseline in 1960 as the same rate as it did for blacks. However, that is not the case (that the crime and violence increased among whites due to the increase in out of wedlock births since the 60's and the decline in marriage)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 12:03 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by AccraGhana View Post
What you ignore is that riots were not an ORGIN, but rather, a REACTION to pent up frustrations and anger emanating from racism and police brutality being one of the extensions of that racism. In other words, the riots were a symptom of the racism and not separate and distinct phenomena that spurred the cities decline.
Agreed, although the riots might have been more of an unfortunate reaction to the pent-up frustrations that had been brewing for decades at unjust treatment, rather than a reaction to specific grievances that blacks suffered in places like Detroit in the 1960s. Additionally, the riots were made worse by the low educational and societal condition of a great portion of blacks, emanating from a history of racism and denial of opportunity, that lead this group to have a greater propensity to riot and destroy property for its own sake and not related to civil rights frustrations.

I think the the second point is supported by the fact that when say DC had their riots, the city had a black mayor and blacks controlled much of the civil service and leadership, as well as much of the retail trade in places like H Street NE. This didn't help make the riots any less destructive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AccraGhana View Post
Racism need not conspire in a democracy where enough people harbor the mindset. That having been said, J Edgar Hoover did proclaim that the number one threat to the internal security of America, back then, was black militancy, as terrorism is today. The FBI and CIA are not known to be passive observers. Rather, they undertake clandestine efforts to stomp out these threats, with their last resort usually being violence. This is when drugs started to flood America and the black community somehow became the retail market while the suburb is where the whole sale market and people bringing the drugs into the country resided. Soon after the alpha males in the black community stopped being black militants and turned to the more lucrative drug game, as dealers, while some turned into fiends, either way, they were no longer fighting the system. Those who continued the fight got the “last restore” treatment, which was usually some sort of assassination.

There is plenty of historical examples of what happens when people are hooked on controlled substances and the law prohibits its sale. Simply go back to the prohibition era and see how the crime rate and murder rate spiked and how a crime syndicate rose out of that bootleg era. As soon as prohibition ended, the crime rate and murder rate dropped remarkably. Today there is market demand for all types of illegal drugs which creates opportunities for poor people who feel they have no other real options in their environment. It does not take a rocket scientist to predict the impact of drugs on the poor black community back then, given the level of hopelessness and frustration.
Can't argue here, and i support full drug legalization, coupled with increased police protection in black neighborhoods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AccraGhana View Post
In terms of marriage and out of wedlock births, it’s not enough to just talk about what the rates are today, blacks relative to whites, without talking about what the rates were back then, blacks relative to whites. Yes, black’s rate of children born out of wedlock is 3 times higher than whites….but it was also about 3 times higher than whites back in 1960 as well. In other words, the increase in births out of wedlock and the decline in the rates of marriage are NOT endemic to blacks, but rather pandemic for both groups. However, you just do not hear about the increase in white problems because everyone is focusing on the increase for blacks and trying to DEFLECT from the role that racism has played in the unequal black condition by suggesting that it is the result of the increase in out of wedlock births and the like. Even though these same issues has increased for whites as much as for blacks, I do not seen an increase in crime or poverty in the white community as a whole, that these things are responsible for supposedly trigger in the black community. In other words, where is the increase in crime and violence in the white community that is the resultant of the out of wedlock rate of birth for white women increasing from 9% to 27%? When the rate for blacks has increases since the 60's....that rate is then said to be the root of the increase in crime. If this it true....then whites should have seen a big increase in crime and violence given that their rate increased from its baseline in 1960 as the same rate as it did for blacks. However, that is not the case (that the crime and violence increased among whites due to the increase in out of wedlock births since the 60's and the decline in marriage)
I'll have to think about this. Out of wedlock white births are today at the levels that concerned Daniel Patrick Moynihan writing about black people in the 1960s.

Another interesting argument might center around black mobility compared to white. If you look at Albion Michigan, say, a small manufacturing town with a former specialization in manufacturing, the population today (setting aside the university) is uniformly older white people, and relatively younger black population. Are black people less inclined to search for work in new regions (say TX), and why might this be?

I'm also not quite sold on the lesser relevance of Detroit's manufacturing specialization and downturn in determining the ultimate outcome of things.

Regardless, interesting arguments. Makes me happier that I bought a Ford (built in Mexico, unfortunately, but designed in Europe and the US; I am at peace with my purchase since the company has announced production for the US market is moving to MI and that the ecoboost engines will be built in Cleveland).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2013, 4:40 PM
AccraGhana AccraGhana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 250
The popular narrative is so blame the current dysfunction on out of wedlock births. However, when people generally think of OOWB they picture a poor teenager or young adult living off welfare and public assistance. The truth of the matter is that many middle class women are choosing to have children while not married. The other thing to consider is that many couples live together, for a long time, producing children, without being married. Some friends of ours is getting married in August. They have a 4 year old and a nine year old. They have been living together for as long as we have known them. Both parents are working. Yet, statistically the kids fall into the category of born out of wedlock. I would argue that much of the growth of OOWB does not really fit the de facto stereo type or assumptions that are used in the popular narrative to explain the problems of the black community. Born out of wedlock is not synonymous with a fatherless home, and if it is, it is not necessarily synonymous with a poor women on welfare with no adult male presence in the life of the child. I think that there is a hardcore percentage, maybe about half of the OOWB among blacks, that probably fit the traditional stereotype, however, the other half does not. There are plenty of children being born to a well off mother and there are plenty of children living with both parents who happen not to be married. This is not to suggest that OOWB is not a problem but to say that the high percentage is not what it seems when you look closer at the realities.

Last edited by AccraGhana; Feb 26, 2013 at 7:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2013, 12:53 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
joicks! the state is definately going to temporarily take over reigns of detroit city:


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...30301?irpc=932
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2013, 10:21 PM
dennis1 dennis1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,253
Detroit is about to change heavy once again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:00 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.