U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: which city would you want to live in, think it's nice..etc. Detroit, Atlanta, or Philadelphia?
Detroit 29 7.02%
Atlanta 163 39.47%
Philadelphia 221 53.51%
Voters: 413. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2009, 07:39 AM
 
Location: Atlanta and St Simons Island, GA
20,945 posts, read 32,935,593 times
Reputation: 12603

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by City Fanatic View Post
Most of the areas of Atlanta that are predominately black are pretty depressing areas. For example, West Atlanta and Southwest Atlanta (minus the Cascade area).

Buckhead, Midtown, and the eastern sections of the city are predominately white. That is, the nicer areas of the city are predominately white. The city of Atlanta is also only barely majority black.
The Atlanta neighborhoods that you cite are not depressed as a result of being predominantly black, but of being predominantly poor. There are also the very upscale (and largely black) communities of Lithonia, Ellenwood, Cedar Grove, Arabia Mountain, Cascade Heights (you mentioned), Camp Creek, and Fairburn. The middle-class black community is also well assimilated into communities such as Douglasville, Mableton, Powder Springs, Lilburn, Snellville, Lawrenceville (arguably the most ethnically diverse suburb in the metro), and Conyers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-11-2009, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Cambridge, Isanti County, MN
2,684 posts, read 4,243,682 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Fanatic View Post
Most of the areas of Atlanta that are predominately black are pretty depressing areas. For example, West Atlanta and Southwest Atlanta (minus the Cascade area).

Buckhead, Midtown, and the eastern sections of the city are predominately white. That is, the nicer areas of the city are predominately white. The city of Atlanta is also only barely majority black.
The city of Atlanta was over 60 percent black last time I checked, and that was within the past 5 years. That is not "barely" the majority.

Do you live in Atlanta? I did.....3 years in Buckhead and 20 years in other various spots in and around the city. Yes, there are places that are predominately white or black, but just as many that are totally integrated, including where I lived off of Piedmont Rd. in Buckhead. My apartment complex was what some would consider "high end" and had many, many black tenants. Compare that to Detroit, where hardly ANY whites live in the city and hardly ANY blacks live in the suburbs. Again, can't speak for Philly, having never been there.....maybe someone else can help me out.

You seem pretty agitated by some of our assertions in correlation with city integration, and you seem even more determined to convince us that segregation is still the rule around every bend. Sorry, that's just not the case everywhere anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2009, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
926 posts, read 1,862,680 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Fanatic View Post
There you go bringing European colonialism into this, when such ended over fifty years ago. Why are places that never experienced colonialism, such as Liberia, no better than places that experienced colonialism. If anything, colonialism helped the African countries, not hurt it. Your argument falls flat on its face in terms of the facts.
City, I'm just going to assume you're being sincere in your ignorance, so I'll be sincere in my answer. Even if a power is technically no longer in power, they hold economic and political resources that maintain their dominance.

In many predominately black cities and countries, they have little economic power (which can translate into political influence) because of centuries (in the United States) and decades (in Africa, where it was just as extreme) of being excluded from prominent political positions, overt racial discrimination that kept blacks from attaining economic power, and institutionalized racism (such as, for example, in school systems and health care which tend to be underfunded in black communities).

Still, many black neighborhoods were very prosperous even right after slavery. Yet, some whites thought that prosperity was threatening to them (read up on Black Wall Street in Oklahoma). Which is why the Ku Klux Klan was revived during Reconstruction right when Blacks were attaining political power. If you want to think about this in the modern sense, there are many poor whites who feel that with a Black man in power, it is a threat to them and the well-being of whites. That is why there has been more anxiety and violent attitudes with anything Barack Obama has done than probably any other modern president.

Further, because we started late in the game with numerous barriers even after slavery, black families had less time to accumulate wealth and fewer resources to learn how to do so (they certainly don't teach "wealth building" in schools) and this has led to intergenerational poverty. We all know that with economic resources come better opportunity, a greater chance to be educated, and influence to sway business and politicians to upkeep and invest in neighborhoods. Without this, many black communities suffer.

Despite this history, many black people work their way into middle class status (as the majority of Black people are in America, albeit we have significantly less wealth than whites due to the above mentioned factors), are well-educated, and seek to pass this down to their children. Unfortunately, a lot of these successful black families move out of the neighborhoods they grew up in, which can further lead to the decline of an area (i.e. Auburn Ave in Atlanta, which was once the "richest Negro street in the world," and had become abandoned after integration and rich black folk moved to the suburbs New Georgia Encyclopedia: Auburn Avenue (Sweet Auburn)).

This is no different in Africa where, even though Blacks have political positions, they are controlled economically by just about everyone but Africans. That same Liberia you cite is basically leased out to Western rubber companies for little of nothing, creating slave-like conditions for the people who work in them, as are many other African countries that are controlled economically by Western and Asian companies (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31444) . Presidents/prime ministers are merely figure heads if you're in a capitalist system. We can see this again in the US with Obama, as he has had to appease America's corporate powers with all of his major legislation thus far (health care and the financial industry). We live in a global economy, and have been since the transatlantic slave trade, that relies on the exploitation of poorer nations. The practices are basically the same even if the figureheads look different.

The answers aren't easy, and it's easy to be as simplistic as you are. It's expected, actually. But a real knowledge of Black history (which most people don't really have) will lend you to see the reality of the situation.

It takes time, resources, patience, and a commitment to black communities for them to grow... and they will!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2009, 04:34 PM
 
Location: metro ATL
8,190 posts, read 11,857,234 times
Reputation: 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Fanatic View Post
There you go bringing European colonialism into this, when such ended over fifty years ago. Why are places that never experienced colonialism, such as Liberia, no better than places that experienced colonialism. If anything, colonialism helped the African countries, not hurt it. Your argument falls flat on its face in terms of the facts.
Liberia doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's not an island. It still suffers from the ill effects of colonialism. And why you seem to think that a people can be subjugated, oppressed, and exploited for years and years and all of a sudden leave all vestiges of that history behind within a short period of time is mind-boggling. If you ask a question, be ready to deal with the answer given. Otherwise you're being a troll.

And to say that "colonialism helped the African countries" show that you have very little to no knowledge of pre-colonial West African empires which were thriving and flourishing waaayyyyy before contact with Europeans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2009, 04:34 PM
 
925 posts, read 2,230,868 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovinDecatur View Post
The Atlanta neighborhoods that you cite are not depressed as a result of being predominantly black, but of being predominantly poor. There are also the very upscale (and largely black) communities of Lithonia, Ellenwood, Cedar Grove, Arabia Mountain, Cascade Heights (you mentioned), Camp Creek, and Fairburn. The middle-class black community is also well assimilated into communities such as Douglasville, Mableton, Powder Springs, Lilburn, Snellville, Lawrenceville (arguably the most ethnically diverse suburb in the metro), and Conyers.
Why are they poor? Why is it that the majority of black areas in the U.S. are poor?

Lithonia is NOT upscale. Why do people claim such? It is middle class.
Ellenwood is NOT upscale. It is lower-middle to middle class.
Cedar Grove is NOT upscale
Arabia Mountain is not a town, but more or less a small section of a small area.
Cascade Heights has some upper middle class neighborhoods, but they are surrounded by places such as Adamsville, or other nearby areas, locations where the crime rate is high and you find bars on windows.
Fairburn is NOT upscale. It is a lower-middle to middle class suburb.
Camp Creek is mostly middle class, with a few upper middle class subdivisions. Down the road, however, it's dangerous.

None of the barely majority white suburbs you mention have well assimilated blacks. In all of these locations, whites are leaving because blacks are moving in, changing the composition of the schools (which tends to drive up the disruption. They also tend to have greater cases of violence), and because they want to live amongst their own, the same reason blacks are moving there. Blacks see the changes occurring, and they want to be around their own, figuring that many of these places will flip in due time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2009, 04:39 PM
 
Location: metro ATL
8,190 posts, read 11,857,234 times
Reputation: 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizchick86 View Post
City, I'm just going to assume you're being sincere in your ignorance, so I'll be sincere in my answer. Even if a power is technically no longer in power, they hold economic and political resources that maintain their dominance.

In many predominately black cities and countries, they have little economic power (which can translate into political influence) because of centuries (in the United States) and decades (in Africa, where it was just as extreme) of being excluded from prominent political positions, overt racial discrimination that kept blacks from attaining economic power, and institutionalized racism (such as, for example, in school systems and health care which tend to be underfunded in black communities).

Still, many black neighborhoods were very prosperous even right after slavery. Yet, some whites thought that prosperity was threatening to them (read up on Black Wall Street in Oklahoma). Which is why the Ku Klux Klan was revived during Reconstruction right when Blacks were attaining political power. If you want to think about this in the modern sense, there are many poor whites who feel that with a Black man in power, it is a threat to them and the well-being of whites. That is why there has been more anxiety and violent attitudes with anything Barack Obama has done than probably any other modern president.

Further, because we started late in the game with numerous barriers even after slavery, black families had less time to accumulate wealth and fewer resources to learn how to do so (they certainly don't teach "wealth building" in schools) and this has led to intergenerational poverty. We all know that with economic resources come better opportunity, a greater chance to be educated, and influence to sway business and politicians to upkeep and invest in neighborhoods. Without this, many black communities suffer.

Despite this history, many black people work their way into middle class status (as the majority of Black people are in America, albeit we have significantly less wealth than whites due to the above mentioned factors), are well-educated, and seek to pass this down to their children. Unfortunately, a lot of these successful black families move out of the neighborhoods they grew up in, which can further lead to the decline of an area (i.e. Auburn Ave in Atlanta, which was once the "richest Negro street in the world," and had become abandoned after integration and rich black folk moved to the suburbs New Georgia Encyclopedia: Auburn Avenue (Sweet Auburn)).

This is no different in Africa where, even though Blacks have political positions, they are controlled economically by just about everyone but Africans. That same Liberia you cite is basically leased out to Western rubber companies for little of nothing, creating slave-like conditions for the people who work in them, as are many other African countries that are controlled economically by Western and Asian companies (LIBERIA: Rubber Workers Charge Slave-Like Conditions - IPS ipsnews.net) . Presidents/prime ministers are merely figure heads if you're in a capitalist system. We can see this again in the US with Obama, as he has had to appease America's corporate powers with all of his major legislation thus far (health care and the financial industry). We live in a global economy, and have been since the transatlantic slave trade, that relies on the exploitation of poorer nations. The practices are basically the same even if the figureheads look different.

The answers aren't easy, and it's easy to be as simplistic as you are. It's expected, actually. But a real knowledge of Black history (which most people don't really have) will lend you to see the reality of the situation.

It takes time, resources, patience, and a commitment to black communities for them to grow... and they will!
EXCELLENT response--although it appears the answer that City Fanatic is really looking for is that Blacks are a genetically inferior, less evolved people who just can't seem to shake their primitive predispositions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2009, 04:44 PM
 
925 posts, read 2,230,868 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northman View Post
The city of Atlanta was over 60 percent black last time I checked, and that was within the past 5 years. That is not "barely" the majority.

Do you live in Atlanta? I did.....3 years in Buckhead and 20 years in other various spots in and around the city. Yes, there are places that are predominately white or black, but just as many that are totally integrated, including where I lived off of Piedmont Rd. in Buckhead. My apartment complex was what some would consider "high end" and had many, many black tenants. Compare that to Detroit, where hardly ANY whites live in the city and hardly ANY blacks live in the suburbs. Again, can't speak for Philly, having never been there.....maybe someone else can help me out.

You seem pretty agitated by some of our assertions in correlation with city integration, and you seem even more determined to convince us that segregation is still the rule around every bend. Sorry, that's just not the case everywhere anymore.
I'm fully aware that blacks have made it their destiny to flock to metro Atlanta in droves.

I'm also fully aware that with the masses of black newcomers to the region occurring so quickly, particularly coupled with today's economy, the white residents do hang on to their homes longer than they once did. However, few white people will seek out those same areas once blacks start moving to them in high numbers. Over time, with each new resident, the neighborhood becomes darker and darker, to the point that ten or fifteen years down the road you have a majority black area, and all the crime and failing schools that follow. I've seen it many, many times as a lifelong metro Atlanta resident.

While the region is becoming more black and non-white, the actual city of Atlanta has been becoming more white, at least it was up until a few years ago. As such, comparatively speaking to the 73% black figure in 1990, a figure in the fiftiesh percentile is only barely majority black, considering that trends have shifted dramatically in a relatively short period of time.

Buckhead is majority white. The mansion area of Buckhead is over eighty-five percent white. Most of the intown neighborhoods on the city's east side, such as Virginia-Highland, Ansley Park, Morningside, Inman Park, Druid Hills, etc. are majority white, though they may only be in the 70-80% white range.

The western parts of the city limits are overwhelmingly black, somewhere from 95-100% black. The same could be said for most of the southwestern section of the city limits. Comparatively speaking, the city of Atlanta is mostly segregated, compared to the more diverse suburbs. I only say such to bring up the facts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2009, 04:49 PM
 
925 posts, read 2,230,868 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizchick86 View Post
City, I'm just going to assume you're being sincere in your ignorance, so I'll be sincere in my answer. Even if a power is technically no longer in power, they hold economic and political resources that maintain their dominance.

In many predominately black cities and countries, they have little economic power (which can translate into political influence) because of centuries (in the United States) and decades (in Africa, where it was just as extreme) of being excluded from prominent political positions, overt racial discrimination that kept blacks from attaining economic power, and institutionalized racism (such as, for example, in school systems and health care which tend to be underfunded in black communities).

Still, many black neighborhoods were very prosperous even right after slavery. Yet, some whites thought that prosperity was threatening to them (read up on Black Wall Street in Oklahoma). Which is why the Ku Klux Klan was revived during Reconstruction right when Blacks were attaining political power. If you want to think about this in the modern sense, there are many poor whites who feel that with a Black man in power, it is a threat to them and the well-being of whites. That is why there has been more anxiety and violent attitudes with anything Barack Obama has done than probably any other modern president.

Further, because we started late in the game with numerous barriers even after slavery, black families had less time to accumulate wealth and fewer resources to learn how to do so (they certainly don't teach "wealth building" in schools) and this has led to intergenerational poverty. We all know that with economic resources come better opportunity, a greater chance to be educated, and influence to sway business and politicians to upkeep and invest in neighborhoods. Without this, many black communities suffer.

Despite this history, many black people work their way into middle class status (as the majority of Black people are in America, albeit we have significantly less wealth than whites due to the above mentioned factors), are well-educated, and seek to pass this down to their children. Unfortunately, a lot of these successful black families move out of the neighborhoods they grew up in, which can further lead to the decline of an area (i.e. Auburn Ave in Atlanta, which was once the "richest Negro street in the world," and had become abandoned after integration and rich black folk moved to the suburbs New Georgia Encyclopedia: Auburn Avenue (Sweet Auburn)).

This is no different in Africa where, even though Blacks have political positions, they are controlled economically by just about everyone but Africans. That same Liberia you cite is basically leased out to Western rubber companies for little of nothing, creating slave-like conditions for the people who work in them, as are many other African countries that are controlled economically by Western and Asian companies (LIBERIA: Rubber Workers Charge Slave-Like Conditions - IPS ipsnews.net) . Presidents/prime ministers are merely figure heads if you're in a capitalist system. We can see this again in the US with Obama, as he has had to appease America's corporate powers with all of his major legislation thus far (health care and the financial industry). We live in a global economy, and have been since the transatlantic slave trade, that relies on the exploitation of poorer nations. The practices are basically the same even if the figureheads look different.

The answers aren't easy, and it's easy to be as simplistic as you are. It's expected, actually. But a real knowledge of Black history (which most people don't really have) will lend you to see the reality of the situation.

It takes time, resources, patience, and a commitment to black communities for them to grow... and they will!
Everything you mention is easily refutable. I've gone through it multiple times with other posters. There's so many holes that can be poked through it, which I might do this weekend if I have the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2009, 04:50 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
6,819 posts, read 9,385,358 times
Reputation: 6024
I voted for Philadelphia but I also like the Atlanta area and would recommend the OP check out both making a final decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2009, 05:01 PM
 
787 posts, read 1,424,125 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Fanatic View Post
There you go bringing European colonialism into this, when such ended over fifty years ago. Why are places that never experienced colonialism, such as Liberia, no better than places that experienced colonialism. If anything, colonialism helped the African countries, not hurt it. Your argument falls flat on its face in terms of the facts.


If you don't think Liberia was colonized, then you're smoking something.


All of the actions and "benefits" of colonization were undertaken...albeit by people of the same race as the colonized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top