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.
By far, the most segregated cities are in the northeast and midwest, and the most integrated ones are mostly found in the south.
I'm white and I feel much more comfortable in black neighborhoods in the south than I do in Chicago. I can go to black neighborhoods here and people don't really notice me or seem to care. When I look someone in the eye, instead of being mugged I usually get a smile, a waive or a nod. If I start a conversation with someone 9/10 they will continue it and we will have a very happy nice interaction, people will open the doors for me and say bless you when I sneeze.
When I went to SS Chi almost every person I saw threw angry looks my way, almost every male under 25 mugged me with anger like he was trying to scare me, and almost everyone I came in contact with refused to even talk to me unless they were hurling an insult in my direction or subtly trying to hurt my self esteem. I felt like this is an area where I could be attacked or even murdered just because of my skin color. My friends who are black have had similar experiences in white neighborhoods in Chi and in the south.
Interesting maps.
I guess you're right about the southern cities more integrated than the northeast and midwest.
While many of the most crime-ridden cities are located outside the South, it is true that a number of Southern states have high crime rates at the state level. However, one mistake people make is to assume that this means the entire region is seething with violence. As with other regions, the crime rate in the South varies widely from place to place, so you do have a legitimate gripe about stereotypes that the South is one big cesspool of crime.
I'm not sure that people make up lies about the South. I believe that instead what you have is people who are unfamiliar with the region making assumptions about the South based on history that is decades old, and hearsay from people who know no more about the South than they do but talk as if they're experts. I guess some people just find it easier to make assumptions than to find out the facts. Sadly, some also are most likely pathetic souls who need someone to feel superior to in order to have any sense of worth, and find the South to be a convenient target because of longtime stereotypes about the region. Sad but true.
Boston's reaction to busing in the 70s was as egregious as the South of the early 50s. The sole reason the city embraced the less talented Fred Lynn above the HOF quality Jim Rice was based on race.
Though the quoted post is not about the South, it's an example of the same kinds of assumptions that lead to a lot of uninformed criticism of the South. Looking at Boston in the '70's, the bussing riots happened over 35 years ago, yet people still tag Boston with the racist label. 35 years ago is more recent than the most infamous times in the South, yet 35 years is still long enough for a lot to change. Despite this reality, there are still people today who assume Boston is a den of racism because of a view that has been passed down over the decades. Too many people base their assumptions about Boston today on hearsay about something in the past.
Even at the time the bussing riots were happening the situation was more complex than a matter of straightforward racial prejudice. Boston has a long tradition of pride in and identity with one's local section of the city. In the '70's, neighborhood schools had long been part of the social fabric intertwined with that very local pride. When children were being subjected to compulsory transfers to schools all over the city, many residents saw this as an attack on home and hearth in their local neighborhoods. Certainly racism was an important factor in the tension of this period, but the situation was much more complicated than an example of racism pure and simple. It's easier to make simplistic assumptions, though, so the notion of racist Boston that has been passed along through hearsay for 35 years was based on a lazy misunderstanding of the situation's complexity from the very beginning.
Fred Lynn? I don't know what happened to him, and why he didn't last and have a very long major league career, but the fact is that for his first few years he deserved to be a sensation. First rookie in MLB history to be MVP, and one helluva ballplayer. Outstanding hitter and a whiz in the field. While Jim Rice was the better pure hitter, for a few years Lynn was in fact the superior all-around player. You can't reasonably expect people at the time to have known that Rice would last, and spend his entire career with the Red Sox, while Lynn would blow town a few years later, and fade as a player with other teams. You can't expect people at the time to have had crystal balls, and based on what was happening at the time, Lynn was the better fit to be the rookie sensation.
Looking at other favorite players among Sox fans at the time, the beloved Yaz, hero of the Impossible Dream season in '67, occupied a spot by himself, revered in a way that was different from the excitement generated by new up-and-coming talent. Truth be told, among the Sox' young players, and veterans who had played for other clubs but were new in Boston, the guy many fans would have considered the most popular of the bunch was Luis Tiant.
So, perhaps the most popular of players relatively new to the Sox at the time was black, and among the two rookie sensations of '75, the white guy, who stirred the most sensation, was at the time the better player. This all tends to belie the notion that Lynn as a rookie was more popular than Rice simply because of race. But it's easier to make assumptions than look at facts. As in, I've heard so many people say Boston is racist that it must be true, and so the obvious explanation for why Lynn as a rookie was more popular than Rice must be race, so obviously that's definitive fact, blah, blah, blah.
Only it's not. But this kind of assumption, hearsay, basing current views on old history that was more complex when it was happening than people decades later understand, is exactly the sort of thing that leads to the unfortunate perpetuation of disparaging views regarding the South.
It may be true that folks are making up stuff about the South, but you aren't really making a strong argument.
The South, has, by far, the highest crime rate, both violent and otherwise. This is verified by annual federal data.
Pointing out that there are some cities outside of the South with high crime rates doesn't change the fact that the South, as a region, is easily the most dangerous.
Fact: South IS the most dangerous, uneducated and by far the poorest in the United States.
Quote:
Crime rates vary greatly across the states. Overall, New England had the lowest crime rates, for both violent and property crimes. New England states also had the lowest homicide rates in the country.
A closer look at per capita homicide rates for each state from FBI Uniform Crime Reports Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that Louisiana's per capita homicide rate has ranked 1st every single year from 1989 to 2009, which is 21 consecutive years.
Southern states had the highest overall crime rates. Crime can also be isolated to one particular part of a state. Lafayette, Louisiana, for instance had 6 murders per 100,000 people in 2004, while New Orleans, Louisiana, had 56 murders per 100,000 people according to Bureau of Justice Statistics for the same year.[44]
1: St. Louis (Midwest)
2: Camden (Northeast)
3: Detroit (Midwest)
4: Flint (Midwest)
5: Oakland (West)
6: Richmond,CA (West)
7. Cleveland (Midwest)
8. Compton (West)
9. Gary, IN (Midwest)
10. Birmingham (South)
The numbers tally:
5 for the midwest
3 for the west coast
1 for the east coast
1 for the south
These lists are for fun only. They are based on crime statistics reported to the FBI, which specifically states the rankings "SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CITY TO CITY COMPARISONS." Older land locked cities, St. Louis for example, never were able to annex outlying areas and therefor appear to have more crime than sprawling cities limits 10x the size of St. Louis. A more fair comparison would be to compare metro areas or specific neighborhoods.
Again, using St. Louis as an example, might rank 1st as city, but ranks 103rd most dangrous Metro area.
check out this story "America's 25 Most Dangrous Neighborhoods" and you'll see that a good portion are in the south. In fact, Atlanta has 4 top 25
These lists are for fun only. They are based on crime statistics reported to the FBI, which specifically states the rankings "SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CITY TO CITY COMPARISONS." Older land locked cities, St. Louis for example, never were able to annex outlying areas and therefor appear to have more crime than sprawling cities limits 10x the size of St. Louis. A more fair comparison would be to compare metro areas or specific neighborhoods.
Again, using St. Louis as an example, might rank 1st as city, but ranks 103rd most dangrous Metro area.
check out this story "America's 25 Most Dangrous Neighborhoods" and you'll see that a good portion are in the south. In fact, Atlanta has 4 top 25
The list you sent me for the most dangerous neighborhoods is a joke. Ive been to some of those neighborhoods and some of them are not even half as bad as other places in there respective cities. No one respects those lists, there basically made up.
All you proved is that Louisiana THE STATE has the highest crime rate, and comparing states is like comparing countries, the area is just too big. It's useless to compare states because it's impossible to spend time in one day in every city in a state.
Next you went to uneducated and poorest. Do you have any links for that? Sounds like more ignorant accusations.
Are there any southern cities surpassing 30% poverty rate that Camden, ESTL, Detroit, and Cleveland all have?
And are there any southern cities that have areas that look like this?
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.
