multicultural Chicago?

[PAKennedy]

Originally Posted by LM1

It is an "either/or proposition". Just because one (gentrification) creates the temporary illusion of the other (integration) doesn't mean that "integration" is what's occurring.

The philosophical precepts that motivate integration are something a world away from what motivates the action of gentrification.
Integration is a grandiose social ideal. Inner-City gentrification is a mainly economic phenomenon. Ask any long-time black resident of the 120's in Harlem about the differences between "gentrification" and "integration". One involves people and cultures co-existing, the other involves people "moving in".

Actually, gentrification, by definition is integration. It doesn't always have to be smooth or even successful in the long term, but is nevertheless integration. Though what i think LM1 was getting at is that it's strategic and never carries the same spirit as natural integration.

Again, by definition it is not an phenomenon, but rather generally a political maneuver planned and executed when conditions in the region under observation are socially and/or economically unsavory and outcry becomes a political threat.

Originally Posted by LM1

No, I am simply pointing out that a lot of the white, idealist "urban pioneers" are only willing to "integrate" into areas that already have a substantial Caucasian foothold. They wouldn't dare raise their own children in one of the gray squares- the wouldn't dare live in one of the gray squares- although they are more than happy to promote integration as an ideal, in spite of the fact that they themselves are totally unwilling to help facilitate integration by living in the least integrated area.

Funny, how a black family moving into a white neighborhood is "integration", but a white family not even considering moving into a starkly black neighborhood is "understandable".
You ever ask yourself why this is?

I understand your point, however it is important to take into account that social conditions have evolved greatly as compared to the social conditions that were in place when the most segregated neighborhoods were formed.

Because most of Chicago's middle-upper-class sophisticates and socialites are rather progressive and significantly more liberal than they used to be, their neighborhoods, which largely still hold whites in the majority, are very likely to accept any new minority they receive. However, in the "little grey boxes" on the maps, there lies a recent trend of racial intolerance (see discussion on Latino/African-American integration) and much general racial animosity (understandable, especially after lack of support by the traditionally white government both recent [locally] and during the civil-rights movement [federally]), not unlike the white neighborhoods of the civil-rights era south.

If you'd like to know why a White family wouldn't move into the predominantly black areas of Chicago today, consider being a black family moving into a predominantly white neighborhood of Birmingham in 1967. It probably wouldn't matter at all to most people, but you wouldn't move there for fear that there would be someone who would inappropriately project their animosity onto you.

Originally Posted by LM1

The qualifier in my statement was "delusionally strident", not "loudest". Yes, for some reason, whenever I encounter a completely delusional white proponent of "integration", they themselves aren't taking any steps with their own lifes decisions to make it happen. Anecdote? Yes. I suppose there's a chance that I'm encountering these people at a disproportionate rate as a matter of pure chance, but I doubt it.

You should consider that often, the loudest proponents of a change are merely that, proponents. They inspire the common man to begin change. Leaders don't do, they direct. The fact that they themselves don't move into a "grey box" is irrelevant. MLK never moved into an all-white, racist neighborhoods and cities and changed their outlook. He inspired people to do it. Interesting how leaders, the ones who often literally do the least are the ones credited and criticized for their causes.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by PAKennedy

Actually, gentrification, by definition is integration. It doesn't always have to be smooth or even successful in the long term, but is nevertheless integration. Though what i think LM1 was getting at is that it's strategic and never carries the same spirit as natural integration.

Well I don't want to keep beating this dead horse, but this is another of his assumptions that he takes for granted and I don't, and therefore we are never gong to see eye to eye. I personally know a lot of people who moved into the Cabrini-Green area with the spirit of integration being one of their main motivating factors, though candidly many later came to regret their decision. Some have stuck it out, some have moved on.

[LM1]

Originally Posted by PAKennedy

Actually, gentrification, by definition is integration. It doesn't always have to be smooth or even successful in the long term, but is nevertheless integration. Though what i think LM1 was getting at is that it's strategic and never carries the same spirit as natural integration.

Again, by definition it is not an phenomenon, but rather generally a political maneuver planned and executed when conditions in the region under observation are socially and/or economically unsavory and outcry becomes a political threat.

Both are examples of what a friend of mine likes to call "hyperliterality."
When words or terms that have multiple uses or intimations are furiously boxed into their Funk and Wagnalls definition in an effort to negate a broader truism. Usually, whenever I hear the words "is defined as..." I quit listening, right there. There's a sort of person who runs dialogues in circles, perpetually quarreling over the pedantry of word usage. This is the most frustrating yet pointless person to try to have a discussion with, as you won't get anywhere- save for spending all your time defining what the word "is" is.

I think you absolutely understand what I was saying.
That while "integration" in its most sterile definition may be nothing more than a simple verb, I'm having a hard time believing that you are completely unaware of the social connotations that come along with it. Those dynamics are very philosophical and near contrary to the predicates that motivate gentrification.

However, in the "little grey boxes" on the maps, there lies a recent trend of racial intolerance (see discussion on Latino/African-American integration)

LMAO @ "a recent trend".
What a starkly naive thing to say. If you think that "racial intolerance" in predominantly black communities is a "recent trend" and not something that has existed as long a gray squares have, I have a bridge to sell you.

If you'd like to know why a White family wouldn't move into the predominantly black areas of Chicago today, consider being a black family moving into a predominantly white neighborhood of Birmingham in 1967. It probably wouldn't matter at all to most people, but you wouldn't move there for fear that there would be someone who would inappropriately project their animosity onto you.

Correct.
The idealists fear blacks as a whole- the idealists fear blacks when they outnumber whites- the idealists fear blacks in their most natural state and environment... They have no problem with black friends, black colleagues, black employees or black bosses- matter of fact, they absolutely LOVE black people and want to give them lots of free stuff to help ease the pain of the past... but all their idealism and nonsense aside, when the rubber hits the road, they still know better than to 'integrate' into the areas where "those people" live when they're not the majority anymore. Their delusional idealism still holds that "integration" is the best course of action for everyone else, in spite of the fact that they themselves are completely aware of the consequences of it and are unwilling to practice it with their own lives...

Leaders don't do, they direct.

Wow. I am actually amazed that you said that out loud. Do you seriously believe that? I'm not shocked that such a mentality exists, mind you, but I am a bit taken back, since people like you are usually bright enough to keep that under wraps...

Good leaders "do". Bad leaders merely "direct".
There are factual exceptions to this (like a General not picking up a rifle and digging into a trench) however, those exceptions do not apply to philosophical proponents of ideals that they themselves are unwilling to practice. That's called hypocrisy, my friend. The fact that you don't think a good leader should be practicing what they preach just shows me that you are the sort of person who has a terribly skewed view of leadership; the absurdly pompous "common man" crap aside... Based on your views of "leadership", I know how you voted in the last election.

[PAKennedy]

Originally Posted by LM1

Both are examples of what a friend of mine likes to call "hyperliterality."
When words or terms that have multiple uses or intimations are furiously boxed into their Funk and Wagnalls definition in an effort to negate a broader truism. Usually, whenever I hear the words "is defined as..." I quit listening, right there. There's a sort of person who runs dialogues in circles, perpetually quarreling over the pedantry of word usage. This is the most frustrating yet pointless person to try to have a discussion with, as you won't get anywhere- save for spending all your time defining what the word "is" is.

I wasn't trying to push the Webster's definitions on you, but the argument was over the word, i'm just mediating.

Originally Posted by LM1

LMAO @ "a recent trend".
What a starkly naive thing to say. If you think that "racial intolerance" in predominantly black communities is a "recent trend" and not something that has existed as long a gray squares have, I have a bridge to sell you.

High black population in these areas are a rather recent trend, in terms of the city's history. Look up the demographics for Chicago 50 years ago. There weren't many races locally to resent. To me, thats fairly recent. My reference was precisely related to the squares turning grey from other colors.

Originally Posted by LM1

Good leaders "do". Bad leaders merely "direct".

Direct was a poorly chosen word to illustrate my point. What I was looking for was rather motivate and inspire, but i felt like I had used that earlier in my post and I despise when people overuse words in their writing, I'd never do that myself.

Originally Posted by LM1

The fact that you don't think a good leader should be practicing what they preach just shows me that you are the sort of person who has a terribly skewed view of leadership; the absurdly pompous "common man" crap aside... Based on your views of "leadership", I know how you voted in the last election.

This is where I guess my mistaken diction threw you away from my point. Leaders often aren't literally the ones to shoot the bullets in a war. They strategize, inspire, and cause movements. Bringing me back to the idea that just because someone is a proponent of diversifying the grey squares, but doesn't choose to move into one themselves, it doesn't mean that they are working against what they claim to stand for. They can be the Generals needed without shooting the bullets. I think you knew what I meant too, but if not, I'll take the fall.

But I think you'd be surprised to know how i voted.