Conservative suburbs (Chicago, Ohio: sales, move, estate)

[IlWesleyanGuy]

Originally Posted by bungalowdweller

You are a high-minded person but you don't see the whole issue. You are chalking things up to racism that cannot be attributed to racism but rather, sadly, experience. NO ONE is saying that good citizens are limited to one or two races.

Your first statement/question "why are people posting things like it is an asset to have one minority and a burden to have another" is a good one. But it is neither arrogant nor ignorant. People have come to these conclusions through experience and objective data.

For example, do you know that Oak Park watches very carefully their percentage of racial makeup and in areas that are considered "too black" perspective black homeowners have been steered to Westchester and North Berwyn? And that such "steering" is considered l-e-g-a-l?

NOT because the O.P. Housing Authority doesn't want black people. (At least that is what they would have told you at the time.) O.P. is determined to STAY integrated and they understand that after any area reaches a certain percentage point of a-n-y race, that area is resegregated to the predominant race.

It is also an objective truth that certain minority groups are over-represented in terms of poverty, criminality, educational attainment, under or unemployment, number of people to a home,etc. Why would neighbors care about this? Because it affects property value and quality of life. Because it effects taxation. Because it can dramatically raise homeowners,business, and auto rates, to name a few. There are a whole host of factors at play. Why do you think that entire businesses and factories moved out of urban locations to the suburbs over 30 years ago? Finding sufficiently qualified employees is a major reason, as is crime and increased cost of doing business.

Areas that are seen as less desirable decline. Many of the minorites living in those areas who are hardworking and upstanding won't stay either because they want their investment in their home to grow, not stagnate. And they will openly tell you that they want to live in a town that is predominantly white because they know that towns that are majority white tend to have better school systems, less crime and are more attractive. This isn't racist or arrogant---it's a fact of life.

When neighborhoods reach the racial "tipping point" many people are no longer interested in how decent or wonderful the incoming people are. Many times, most of the people coming in ARE decent. The issue becomes a financial one. Since you've never experienced any of the examples I've outlined previously, I can tell you that you probably aren't aware that a house or business in a town that is changing is worth much more at the time of the initial change than later, after it has been resegregated into a minority town. It becomes as much of a money issue as a safety issue.

Some racial groups a-r-e a burden to the greater taxpaying population. Increased need for social services for people who seem unable to care for themselves, increased police and fire because of greater criminality and arson, more schools that offer specialized services, the list goes on and on.

Did you ever wonder how towns change from one racial group to another? Or do you assume that the "racist" people run as soon as they see a brown or black face?

Do you know that many times organized gangs are used as "front men" to come into communities and commit crimes to frighten people to sell, thus ensuring the incoming group buys homes at bargain prices?

Have you ever thought about what happens to the fabric of a community when the entire community is run out by incoming people who have no desire to become part of the community but rather take it over and change it in its own image?

It's rarely about Color. It's ALL about Culture. Birds of a feather flock together.

And last time I checked, freedom of association is not a racist thing. If someone wants to live in a predominantly white, gay, Asian, Mexican, Polish, blue-collar or yuppie neighborhood, all power to them. Thank God we still have freedom of choice.

Thank you for the post. This is what I call intelligent discussion. You weren't bashing races. You even pointed out that not all minorities fall into negative stereotypical categories. And you even enlightened me on practices that I was not completely aware of.

But there is a difference between a post like yours and posts of promise1 and others. LookOutKid explained this well in the last post or two.

By the way, I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with people wanting to live amongst those who they identify with. I previously stated this.

And again, I don't believe that it is certain minority groups that burden a community, maybe inadequately educated people, criminals, poor people from that minority group, but its not that race of people. If these people who you say burden a community were generally young then you can make an observation that these people are generally young. But it would be incorrect to say that young people burden communities.

[bungalowdweller]

Originally Posted by Manigault

How can you break this down by racial group when there are more white folks than minorities receiving government assistance? I think you are jumping to a conclusion here.

Some groups with increased need include unwed mothers, the disabled, the aged and people with mental infirmities. To state that such incresed need can be grouped by race is inaccurate and just makes reasonable communication and discussion impossible.

I agree with you that more whites than minorities receive welfare. Certain other entitlement needs Can be traced to race/ethnicity, though. I worked with one of the oldest social service agencies in Illinois, Hull House, and we could determiine what kind of services we'd provide by looking at who lived where.

[promis1]

Originally Posted by Manigault

How can you break this down by racial group when there are more white folks than minorities receiving government assistance? I think you are jumping to a conclusion here.

Some groups with increased need include unwed mothers, the disabled, the aged and people with mental infirmities. To state that such incresed need can be grouped by race is inaccurate and just makes reasonable communication and discussion impossible.

But what percentage of whites receive government assistance in comparison to their overall population. You do realize that whites still have a much larger population in this country in comparison to blacks.

[Lookout Kid]

Black Americans do receive government assistance in the highest per capita ratio of any other racial or ethnic group. Is this really news? I think Manigault is just trying to point out that government assistance isn't a uniquely black experience.

[GoCUBS1]

Just want to reiterate that it is "Black Americans" that are under-achieving not just "Blacks".

Here's an interesting study about Chicago Race/Immigration.

http://4909e99d35cada63e7f757471b724...6,1,Metropolis 2020

Some conclusions:

"African" and "Afro-Caribbean" black Chicago immigrants have higher-income and a substantially lower percentage are unemployed and below the poverty line."

"The social and economic profile of Afro-Caribbeans and Africans is far above that of African-Americans and even better than that of Hispanics."

Having grown up in a racially diverse Chicago suburb (Waukegan) and in the Caribbean, I may have a different experience/perspective than some of you. I truly believe that it's not about race. If it were, why would one black sub-group (African and Caribbean immigrants) perform so much better than others of the same skin color? Having lived in the Caribbean, I can tell you that the educational systems and parental/community involvement on some of those islands is superior to ours.

To me, it comes down to parenting and education. My black friend who got a full ride to Harvard had excellent, involved parents. As did my Mexican friend who graduated from the Northwestern Economics and MBA programs and now runs a successful company. The Illinois suburb where I grew up had white ghettos, black ghettos, hispanic ghettos filled w/drugs, gangs and crime. And non-existent parents. The crime areas were all the same to me.

You're all entitled to your opinions and to live wherever you want. But because someone doesn't share your experience/belief, do you really need to contemptuously label them "PC liberal do-gooders?" Do you really need to preach to us about who we should or should not marry? Do you really need to self-righteously proclaim that you are brave to "speak the truth." Based on our own experiences, many of us do not believe in your truth. I have a different view and you will never convince me otherwise.

[bungalowdweller]

Originally Posted by GoCUBS1

Just want to reiterate that it is "Black Americans" that are under-achieving not just "Blacks".

Here's an interesting study about Chicago Race/Immigration.

http://4909e99d35cada63e7f757471b724...6,1,Metropolis 2020

Some conclusions:

"African" and "Afro-Caribbean" black Chicago immigrants have higher-income and a substantially lower percentage are unemployed and below the poverty line."

"The social and economic profile of Afro-Caribbeans and Africans is far above that of African-Americans and even better than that of Hispanics."

I can tell you that the educational systems and parental/community involvement on some of those islands is superior to ours.

To me, it comes down to parenting and education.

Excellent points. It reminds me of an incident that occurred a long time ago when I was running a youth program in Uptown. One of my African clients was quite concerned about the behavioral effects of the American born neighborhood black kids (Americans) on his boy. (They were recent immigrants.) He wanted to transfer his kid to another youth program I was running that was about a mile to the west. In that group, it was much more diverse, with Appalachian miners' kids, American Indians off of the reservation, Hispanic kids, Vietnamese boat people, the Hmong, and a few low-income white kids.

He told me that he felt he had more in common with the other immigrant groups than with the all black-American group his boy was enrolled in. He said flatly, "I'm an African. We don't walk like this," (Imitating a black expression of the time known as "p-imping." When I couldn't accomodate him because he didn't live in that neighborhood, he pulled his kid out of the program.

You're right. The home is everything.

[IlWesleyanGuy]

So uh, what town is the most conservative suburb?

[promis1]

Originally Posted by IlWesleyanGuy

So uh, what town is the most conservative suburb?

Sounds like Orland Park. ElmwoodPark is still pretty conservative too. Not sure where else. I hear that Wheaton is-not too interseted-too far west. I really like Elmhurst- I am sure there is still a ton of conservatives there- does not look like they embrace diversity so much.

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by Manigault

Usually a dominant culture does not embrace 'half-castes'. And many Americans are familiar with the 'one-drop' rule, that is, if you had one drop of non-Caucasian blood, then a person was not considered white. Finally, because there have been so many shades of non-whites, people of mixed race have been much more comfortable and were much more readily absorbed in the minority communities than in white areas. So can you blame these folks for considering themselves minorities?

Franco Harris and Roy Campanella are in the Italo-American Sports Hall of fame so they can't be too ashamed of their white forebears. Vin Diesel, Mariah Carey, Carol Channing, and The Rock all have black ancestors but don't dwell on it.

The funniest example of all this occurred in many US whites who claimed some ancestors who were American Indians. Before Loving v. VA struck down laws against interracial marriages, there was a special exemption in VA for claimed descendants of Pocahontas!

European culture in the US is dominant and is not watered-down by interracial marriages. There are many doctoral theses on how the Irish, Italians and Jews went from being minorities to being considered 'white'.

You made some good points. I also want to say that race is socially contruct. Alot of it is to benefit whites. I do believe that Italians, Greeks Jews, and Irish was added to the white box simply for population gain. They adding people for fear of the white population becoming a minority. Several years back, Arabs ask for a seperate box of their own. Well the scenario of that they didn't get one. Even though Arabs are under the white box in the US census, they are treated as a minority. So I do kind of believe Arabs are being used for population gain. I even heard at one time they tried to put Indians as white, but that didn't go through of course.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426

You made some good points. I also want to say that race is socially contruct. Alot of it is to benefit whites. I do believe that Italians, Greeks Jews, and Irish was added to the white box simply for population gain. They adding people for fear of the white population becoming a minority. Several years back, Arabs ask for a seperate box of their own. Well the scenario of that they didn't get one. Even though Arabs are under the white box in the US census, they are treated as a minority. So I do kind of believe Arabs are being used for population gain. I even heard at one time they tried to put Indians as white, but that didn't go through of course.

Well perhaps it is really because actually most Greeks,Italians, Irish, Jews and Arabs ARE CAUCASIAN or if you prefer Caucasoid.

The races are not based off of skin color my friend they are based off of skull structure and skull form.

Greek, Italian, Hebrew, etc. are not RACES, they are ethnicities!!!

Wow what a concept huh?