Quote:
Originally Posted by NovationMortgage
Miami, although one of my favorite periods in life, was FAR more racially charged than Atlanta for a city where there are many races. In Atlanta, as a white man, there are no places that come to mind where I just wouldn't go but in Miami there were places I definitely avoided. Is there prejudice and bigotry here? Heck yes! Is it everywhere? Not even close. I've had worse experiences in Detroit, "I don't believe I'd go through there if I was you. I'd go around the long way" said the black shopkeeper to me when I asked directions. Are there rednecks here? Yes, just like the ones in New Jersey and Seattle. Here there are just a lot more negative impressions because of the characterization of people with deep southern accents as uneducated, backwoods idiots. Put that concept out of your mind and that will help. There is discrimination from all sides toward another but by no means is it everywhere, everyone or all the time.
I second Pirate, " I can't give a simplistic view because race relations are complicated."
|
I think that is the difference between the South(and metro Atlanta to a certain extent) and the rest of the nation. The southern accent tends to stand out. There are problems everywhere from NJ to even Seattle(I must admit it). The difference is that you may not see a Confederate flag flown or here a southern drawn like you would in Georgia. That is the difference.
As for complicated race relations, each city has a unique narrative. Atlanta's narrative is a city that had the Jim Crow laws just like everywhere else in the South, but there was a relatively large black middle class and institutions such as Spelman, Morehouse, etc. Few other places had this. That is the difference. Blacks had to learn to be self-sufficient because of this. Race relations went to an alltime low in the 1960's during the Civil Rights movement and there was even a riot in addition to the 1906 riot. Few people ever want to admit this. More blacks started going to Atlanta in later years for jobs. Most were middle to upper class. Many settled in Atlanta because they wanted to live in a rich area and be all black. Alot of whites moved to Atlanta for jobs(as well as relatively mild winters and a relatively cheap place to live). Atlanta was a place to work. Atlanta tried to pride itself as the "city too busy to hate" and many people believed it. It isn't true. The difference is that Atlanta had an image to promote, so it became pretensious. Atlanta had the "white flight" just as other cities did. Atlanta didn't have a rust belt economy so it could hide anything. That and alot of apathy have created sort of a "quiet riot".
Chicago's narrative was a city that attracted blacks due to better job opportunities and what appeared to be an escape from the Jim Crow south. Blacks poured into Chicago in droves. Many found work. Some didn't and had problems. Chicago also had its problems. Blacks and whites competed for blue collar jobs and tensions were the result. Housing discrimination was rampant, hence why most blacks lived in relatively poor areas. Police relations were bad too. All of this led to problems in the sixties with race riots. Chicago may have not had the Jim Crow etiquette like there was in the South, but there were problems. A considerable loss in the middle class due to dwindling job opportunities caused a considerable migration of blacks from Chicago(and other Rust belt cities) to Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, and even Minneapolis to a smaller extent.
The Twin Cities narrative, though relatively calm, was of a city that never had a large black population to start with and prejudice was more hit or miss and spotty. Minneapolis-St. Paul didn't have the large migration of blacks that other northern cities had because it wasn't a large industrial hub. Minneapolis also had housing discrimination just like most US cities had before the civil rights movement and even a riot. The fact is Minneapolis and St. Paul never gained a reputation for being bigoted in spite of any problems at all. The decline of industrial jobs in the rust belt combined with manufacturing jobs in the Twin Cities being vacant enabled a second migration from the rust belt to the Twin Cities. Blacks began taking jobs that few people would take. There were also black professionals that decided to settle in Minnesota. However, some came to Minnesota simply to live off of welfare because welfare was being cut in other states. Racial tensions did come to the surface under other problems such as rising crime. Basically, the narrative of the Twin Cities is of a city that never had a bad reputation but did have some hidden racism.
ATL: A city with alot of pretensions
CHI: A city that got bad as time went on
MPLSSTP: A city with a somewhat gentle past but there were still problems.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 400,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 13,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. Within the last few months our forum was cited in an article in 15 newspaper and in a story on AOL's homepage.
11-25-2007, 08:40 PM
This Is Why!!
Linear Mode
