Is the Southside really that bad? (Chicago, Orland Park: crimes, loan, home)

[MannheimMadman]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

Manheim,

There are different levels of trash. Some "bad" are worse than others.

My former renters were bad in that they did not pay bills and were generally dishonest but they did have jobs (mostly with the state). They were gangbangers or bigtime drug dealers (one guy sold weed).

Had they been worse trash I would be dead or drowning in debt from court costs of them suing me.

so they 'banged and dealt drugs on the side while they worked for the state? Either way, I wouldn't want those types of folks or section 8's as neighbors.

[BG0508]

It seems to me that the Black people integrating the Southside in the 60s are exactly the kind of people you'd want to have as neighbors. People who work hard to provide and seek a better life for themselves and their families. But they were spurned instead of embraced, to a degree much worse than Italians, Jews or Irish experienced (although they certainly were discriminated against). There have been many instances in American history where the "White" establishment refused to embrace upwardly mobile, law-abiding and talented Blacks. In the first ten years after emancipation, 25% of slaves had become landowners, but the doctrine of White supremacy couldn't stomach their success. Many were killed, cheated or forced to leave their land due to vigilantism. The violent campaign by Whites that eventually ended Reconstruction was nothing short of state-sponsored terrorism. Jim Crow is a huge contributor to the migration of Blacks to the southside. I don't even need to go into the racist conditions that also hugely contributed to that concentration. Many of the "ghetto" Black descendants on the Southside would have never come into being if their ancestors had not needed to come the equally racist and constricting north in such huge numbers. Believe me, I am not one to make excuses for people who are criminals or have a false sense of entitlement, but I am also not going to gloss over the cultural consequences of generations of oppression. Only the strongest - mentally, and morally - have the wherewithall make it out of these conditions intact. Everyone else is left behind, and many of those succumb to their environment.

All of the safe (code for "white") neighborhoods are not safe because they are inhabited by people of a certain race. If the Black middle and upper class existed in similar numbers in insulated (and/or protected) locations they would dominate equally safe neighborhoods. Mark my words, the larger the Black middle class becomes and the more it is able to insulate itself similarly to Whites and others, the more difference there will be between them and "ghetto" Black neighborhoods. The difference is that Blacks, even middle and upper class Blacks generally do not have the multi-generational wealth and institutional proctection to insulate themselves.

Crack open a history book - every time the opportunity arises a devastating social upheaval occurs. That's changing though.

So the way I see it, had white flight not occurred, had these people been able to see past their own prejudices and welcome people who were probably extremely similar to them beneath surface differences, we'd be talking about a very different southside.

And whatever statistics race-baiters want to use are immaterial - these problems are cultural, and cultures are heavily influenced by the environment. If you think a poor Black person in an urban ghetto and a poor trailer park rural White person can't have similar pathologies because of their genetics then you haven't seen enough to know better.

[valleys_of_hills]

So you're blaming Jim Crow for the crime problems? Crime was much lower before the late 60s, when racism and discrimination was much more severe. The Civil Rights Movement occurred, and crime skyrocketed in the late 60s and 70s. There were times in the past, before WW2, that the percentage of black children born out of wedlock was the same as white children, and black labor participation rates were higher than white participation rates. Culture is what matters... not racism. Black incarceration rates have long been lower in the South. Believe it or not, black ghettos were not always places of high rates of (violent) crime.

[EventHorizon]

Originally Posted by valleys_of_hills

Believe it or not, black ghettos were not always places of high rates of (violent) crime.

That is very true. Government sponsored programs during and after desegregation are to blame for the heinous crime rate in the inner city. There is no other way to look at the problem other than to copy what we did not do before desegregation; notably, subsidize black ghettos. Even though manufacturing jobs went overseas, this trend was set in motion forty years ago, and those who lived in black ghettos were the last group to adapt and diversify to the new economy. That is a situation where blame cannot be shifted. Things weren't equal before the 1960's, but at least they (blacks) were employed and had vibrant inner city communities.

[Manigault]

So, we had jobs moving overseas, jobs moving to suburban locations, movement to a service economy in Chicago, rapid decline of heavy industry, increasing technology need in jobs, lessening of social constraints against single motherhood, failure of the public schools, a fleeing middle-income class of people, the rise of drug-proliferating gangs and a drug economy

--- AND ---

its the government benefits which caused the rise in crime and joblessness in the ghetto.

Yes, I see.

[Humboldt1]

A culture of entitlement and ineptitude that has unfortunately proliferated in poor black communities is to blame. People who continue to blame others for their problems and are not willing to take rsponsibility for themselves, regardless of who is to blame, are beyond hope. No amount of tax dollars or training is going to help people who aren't willing to take responsibility for themselves and their circumstances.

Blaming Jim Crow or even worse reparation talk is just that, talk. It solves nothing and doesn't allow people on the south side to take responsibility for themselves to improve themselves and their neighborhood. I will work to do all I can in my neighborhoods where I live (including impoverished Humboldt Park) but the people on the southside need to step up and make things better or at least stop blaming others for their problems.

[aragx6]

I agree that they must take responsibility for themselves, but that's because I was (as were most of you) taught the intrinsic value of independence and responsibility from a very young age, not only from your parents but from teachers, other family, peers etc.

The poorest people in our country (of all colors believe me) were never taught that lesson. How then can we expect them to do it?

That's why it's so hard to break that cycle. If no one ever teaches them responsibility, then it never becomes a part of their life, and then they, in turn, pass that on to the next generation.

Racists tend to see this as some inherent genetic trait in blacks instead of looking critically at the reasons behind it. That's what really bothers me. Anyone in that situation would be the exact same way, no matter the color of their skin.

[Humboldt1]

I see it not that black genetics is flawed but that black ghetto culture is flawed.

People of all colors who are raised in broken homes with no fathers are going to have more problems. Unfortunately, a large percentage of blacks come from broken homes or don't even know there fathers, with many young black men being in jail.

This is a cultural flaw, not a genetic flaw. For this reason, the blacks who I work with (including my female boss) have gotten beyond blaming others and have gone out and done it for themselves. Granted, many of my co-workers were raised in nuclear families and afforded the opportunity to go to top-notch universities.

I expect people to take responsibility. I don't care what background they come from. There are no excuses for continuing the cycle that are acceptable to me.

This is why I have proposed limiting population growth among the poor by limiting govt aid above a certain number of children. I know this won't happen as we are too nice but this would work. And I am surrounded by poor Mexicans who do not have half the benefits of blacks or puerto ricans and they seem to be doing it. I don't see why others, particularly blacks from improverished backgrounds can't do the same, as they have more opportunities than some Mexican who comes here with a 5th grade reading level, speaks and reads no english and yet succeeds. There are no excuses that I accept that allow someone who is born here and given the opportunity to be educated in our schools and fed if their parents don't make above a certain amount (which I pay for) to not succeed.

Now, back to the southside and its problems, many of which are highlighted in my post.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

There are no excuses that I accept that allow someone who is born here and given the opportunity to be educated in our schools

Our schools???? Like the $50,000 a year private university you got to attend?

I'm not saying you didn't work hard to get where you are (because I'm sure you did) but you had a lot of things going for you that many many people obviously don't, such as supportive parents.

Also funny that you are so offended at the concept of government aid - I wonder how much money you got for school in grants and subsidized loans ...

[Humboldt1]

For Washington University I was awarded an academic scholarship. I did not get any loans or grants.

It was $28,000 per year when I attended though it might be $50,000 now.

I know alot of people who had far less than me financials and family-wise growing up who are still successes.

If you work hard enough, you can overcome just about anything. For those who aren't willing to work hard to get ahead I don't have time for such people.