Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
this article from the red eye is pretty interesting although the neighborhoods don't seem that diverese, they are domianted by either white/black/hispanic or are even in percentages of those three and im suprised by the low income percentages..
Chicago diversity | RedEye | Home (http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-072808-hoods-side,0,380194.story - broken link)
That's a Red Eye Article that's almost a year old....
Most Chicagoans are well aware of how racially divided most of the city is. It's sad, but it's true. At least the city represents a multitude of races and incomes: I'm from Metro Detroit originally, and in the City of Detroit, it's 88% African-American and leans strongly to lower and middle class. It's sad, but true.
So even though Chicago's neighborhoods may be seperated, people of all economic status and different races all call the city itself home.
This "integration" ideal that's about 50 or so years old (or so) doesn't suddenly negate 6000 years of history and some of the basest human instincts.
In the context of history, ideals are vogues; profoundly relevant to contemporaries, but often times a bit of a joke in hindsight. As unimaginable as it seems right now- as we're all collectively frozen beneath the glacier of political correctness and the sacred cow "integration ideal" which itself is so mindlessly and endlessly promoted it borders on being a mass delusion- it is indeed entirely possible that humanity will look back on this period that we're in right now and snicker, just as we do about bizarre cultural ethoses our forefathers were convinced would eventually go on to change the world but inevitably, wound up a footnote in the books, brushed aside by the fundamental, inescapable nature of man.
In short, you can't drum-circle your way out of human nature. Chicago isn't "integrated" because that's what the residents have largely chosen.
This "integration" ideal that's about 50 or so years old (or so) doesn't suddenly negate 6000 years of history and some of the basest human instincts.
...In short, you can't drum-circle your way out of human nature. Chicago isn't "integrated" because that's what the residents have largely chosen.
thats exactly it, here on the southside go ask anyone on the street and ask them to tell you where to find any group of people and the'll tell you, that the irsh live in Beverly or Mt. Greenwood; if you ask for Poles are in Garfeild Ridge, West Eldson or Archer Heights; Mexican are in Chicago Lawn, Back of the Yards and Brighton; and the blacks are everywhere east of kedzie and south of 55th. Birds of a feather flock together, you can change the culture but you can't change human nature, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chicago Diversity
