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.
I look at it as a conversation or a debate. Not an argument. If you look at it that way, oh well. Not my intention to argue if we provide statistics and facts. It's basically a discussion.
Well, according to Webster, this is an argument.
Quote:
That's fine. But I know myself a little bit better. And I AM open to other ideas and opinions and if I disagree with one, I will respond to it.
I don't believe you know much about DC at all. Take a trip to Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax County, Arlington, etc. etc. and tell me all you see is people that is of a military base. There is a huge military presence here, true. There is also a huge government presence here. There is also a strong connection to every country in the world becuase it IS the capital of the United States. I work with several Africans ranging from the nation of Ghana to the nation of Senegal. I don't think they have anything to do with military base and I don't think they cared before they came over to the US. But I do know they knew what was the capital of the United States and how big it was and the opportunities it has. If you look at lists that have all the immigrants moving to DC, it is 2nd behind New York on the east coast. This area is a melting pot.
Oh, please. You don't know how many times I've been to D.C. Over and over again, lol. I've corrected my self after saying it wasn't a real city, but it's still too military-ish to me. Also, keep in mind that I am not talking about the D.C. area. I'm talking about D.C. itself, for the most part. Still, I never said it wasn't a melting pot. Just not as much as Houston.
And no one's backtracking. I'm just proving my point. You're the one dodging them.
Backtracking was referring to the question you asked about D.C.'s consulate when it is well known that as the capital city, the Embassies are located there. Then, you started saying that you knew that someone was going to bring up Embassies, but you were the one asking the question.
No one is saying that Houston isn't a great city or that it isn't large or diverse. For someone who gets very defensive when people make sweeping generalizations about Houston or the South, you make some sweeping generalizations of your own by saying that D.C. is not a "real city" or that it's just a "military base" or that it is nowhere close to Houston in diversity.
I am an ethnic minority who did not come here because of any military or government reasons. I came here because the high paying job market growth in this area will always be stable for obvious reasons, and I'm willing to pay for the expense of living in this area because of it. Trust me, D.C. is a "real city".
As for having a smaller population in the city of D.C. itself, do you realize how small D.C.'s city limits are? With most of that space taken up by Federal buildings and other organizations? How can the city of D.C. expand? It's a city-state. That's why you have to include the metro area no matter what when talking about Washington D.C. The population density is very large throughout the whole metro area.
I know that you are tired of others putting down Houston and the South. But, please don't let that make you become overzealous in bringing Houston about in every subject and make downgrading remarks about other cities. Washington D.C. had nothing to do with Houston in the article, yet you casually throw out the remark that it isn't a "real city" and nothing compared to Houston.
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,084 posts, read 12,681,203 times
Reputation: 1974
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenken627
I know that you are tired of others putting down Houston and the South. But, please don't let that make you become overzealous in bringing Houston about in every subject and make downgrading remarks about other cities. Washington D.C. had nothing to do with Houston in the article, yet you casually throw out the remark that it isn't a "real city" and nothing compared to Houston.
I have to agree. I love Houston too, but to say that D.C. isn't a real city and Houston is is laughable and doesn't help (y)our cause. If anything, such comments turn more people "off" to Houston than "on". It's not necessary to put other cities down just to make your preferred city look good. It's silly, I don't understand why anyone does it. It's one thing to correct people's misconceptions, quite another to boast one city's merits over another to the point of being ridiculous. The relentless Houston cheering section - aren't some of y'all getting a little hoarse?
Backtracking was referring to the question you asked about D.C.'s consulate when it is well known that as the capital city, the Embassies are located there. Then, you started saying that you knew that someone was going to bring up Embassies, but you were the one asking the question.
What are you talking about? I said that because after all the talk about consulates that I've done on this site, no one has brought up embassies and I was waiting for someone to do so.
Quote:
No one is saying that Houston isn't a great city or that it isn't large or diverse. For someone who gets very defensive when people make sweeping generalizations about Houston or the South, you make some sweeping generalizations of your own by saying that D.C. is not a "real city" or that it's just a "military base" or that it is nowhere close to Houston in diversity.
First of all, I've never gotten "very defensive" towards anyone. I just speak up. Second, if you would read, you would have seen that I took back the statement of D.C. not really being a real city. It qualifies as a city in my book, just no so much as other places. I never said it was just a military base, I said it was like a military base. I spent part of my childhood on a military base, and when I go to D.C., that's what it feels like to me. And third, I did not say that it wasn't even close to Houston in diversity, I said that it probably was. Read.
Quote:
As for having a smaller population in the city of D.C. itself, do you realize how small D.C.'s city limits are? With most of that space taken up by Federal buildings and other organizations? How can the city of D.C. expand?
No offense, but that's not our problem.
Quote:
I know that you are tired of others putting down Houston and the South. But, please don't let that make you become overzealous in bringing Houston about in every subject and make downgrading remarks about other cities. Washington D.C. had nothing to do with Houston in the article, yet you casually throw out the remark that it isn't a "real city" and nothing compared to Houston.
For a second, stop pretending I'm the bad guy and get the facts straight. No one threw Houston into the discussion. We had been talking about it long before you even joined the conversation, so whatever. Read the past posts.
And I'm not downgrading any city. Don't choose to look at it that way just because you don't like what I'm saying. If I think what someone typed was wrong (whether I'm correct or not) I'm going to make a reply. So we can act like kids and get offended over silly stuff, or we can act like adults and have civilized disputes.
I have to agree. I love Houston too, but to say that D.C. isn't a real city and Houston is is laughable and doesn't help (y)our cause. If anything, such comments turn more people "off" to Houston than "on". It's not necessary to put other cities down just to make your preferred city look good. It's silly, I don't understand why anyone does it. It's one thing to correct people's misconceptions, quite another to boast one city's merits over another to the point of being ridiculous. The relentless Houston cheering section - aren't some of y'all getting a little hoarse?
See that's why you need to read the posts for yourself instead of going off of what someone else says because that user doesn't even have my statements correctly. And seeing as how both of you have my motives wrong, I could choose to view this as personal. I haven't offended anyone, so I would ask for the same respect.
From what I've observed, most of the very successful blacks in NYC (such as executives in corporate settings or medical professionals) don't remain in the predominantly black neighborhoods here - and why should they? If they can afford it, believe me, they get out. Predominantly black neighborhoods in NYC may have safe "pockets" of culture and vibrancy, but for the most part they tend to be dangerous and lacking in opportunities.
In NYC, it does seem that poor blacks far outnumber more educated blacks who are well-off financially. The educated, wealthy or middle-class blacks tend to move to more integrated areas -- but there aren't as many as you would think. I live in a Manhattan neighborhood that is a mix of middle-class and affluence, and I realized the other day that only one black person lives on my block. One. Really. Hardly any black people live around here. In fact, not one has lived in my building since I moved here in the mid-1980s (it's a small building, just 20 apartments, so I see everyone). You start to see more blacks about fifteen blocks north of me - where some projects are.
So, while yes, there are many successful and hard-working blacks residing all over NYC (and it is a big enough city that it appears to non-NYers that there are so many here achieving success), discrimination is still an issue, and a larger proportion of NYC blacks do not rise above poverty level. The inner-city hip-hop culture dissuades most of the young black men from pursuing education and mainstream success because doing that is too "white." It is such a huge problem here that CUNY (City University of New York) has begun a "Black Male Initiative" to try and change their attitudes (they are finding that black women in general are much more determined to become successful).
Because of how expensive it has become here, fewer people can afford to leave the depressed areas behind, even if they have good jobs with fairly decent incomes. Of course, there are movers and shakers who try to stay in the bad neighborhoods and fight for better conditions, but they burn out fast.
All that said, it is still totally possible to have huge success here no matter what your ethnicity and I do love this town for that (and other things).
And what major city dosent?? Just because blacks live in the city dosent mean they ALL are in poverty. There are many black doctors, judges, and lawyers who CHOOSE to stay in black blue-collar areas in the city for various reasons. Many city employees are black and REQUIRED to live in the city. You are making unfounded sweeping generalizations.
Im quite confident that most african americans are aiming for the middle class.
And who gives a flim-flam. You again somehow equate segregation to "low quality of life". I dont see the connection. More whites segregate themsleves than blacks and are doing just fine.
Id be less concerned about the poverty and more about the crime.
I just want to point out two things in response to your statement:
1. Poverty breeds crime and comes from poor education and employment opportunities. In order to eradicate crime, we must increase our educational standards all over this country and provide jobs for those educated and skilled people who want to work. Without doing these things, we will continue to see poverty and thus more crime. That having been said, we should be more concerned with poverty and our public school educational system.
2. Segregation can be good or bad but it really depends on the situation, location and its overall effects on a population. Self-segregation may help a particular group but it will surely have negative or adverse effects on the population it has segregated itself from. This also depends on the location. In the south, namely places in Atlanta or suburbs of Atlanta, segregation does not equal a lower quality of life for blacks. However, this cannot be compared to northern cities particularly New York as we have very few middle class black suburbs in the north. Here in NYC and other Northern cities, segregation (self or otherwise) adversely affects us.
3. Lastly, you seem to believe in error that there is a large population of wealty blacks living in the NYC area. (I gather this from another statement you've made). This is false. There are some, but the majority of blacks living in NYC are working middle class or working poor. Because the reality is, while our salaries look good on paper, when you compare it to our cost of living and cost of ownership, it leaves a paltry number of wealthy blacks and homeowners.
The fact is, a home in the 'hood, sometimes, a fixer upper costs anywhere from 800k-2mil. That is not the case for places like Atlanta or Houston where that price range will garner you a beautiful fantastic home in a stately suburb. Secondly, homes in NYC that cost this much are often not purchased by black middle class workers because frankly they cost too damn much, and why would you purchase a home in the hood for that amount and still have to put your children through school in a poor school district etc. I could go on and on. Most but not all, blacks owning homes in NYC, owned them since the 1960s-1980s when home prices were reasonable. And now that the property values have gone up, they are simply cashing in and moving away from NYC.
Like citychik said, the majority of wealthy blacks have long since moved to wealthy suburbs in Westchester or Long Island. There are some that maintain homes in the city, but then have their larger homes/estates elsewhere, but this is again, few and far between.
This NY fantasy that people have really needs to cease.
I just want to point out two things in response to your statement:
1. Poverty breeds crime and comes from poor education and employment opportunities. In order to eradicate crime, we must increase our educational standards all over this country and provide jobs for those educated and skilled people who want to work. Without doing these things, we will continue to see poverty and thus more crime. That having been said, we should be more concerned with poverty and our public school educational system.
2. Segregation can be good or bad but it really depends on the situation, location and its overall effects on a population. Self-segregation may help a particular group but it will surely have negative or adverse effects on the population it has segregated itself from. This also depends on the location. In the south, namely places in Atlanta or suburbs of Atlanta, segregation does not equal a lower quality of life for blacks. However, this cannot be compared to northern cities particularly New York as we have very few middle class black suburbs in the north. Here in NYC and other Northern cities, segregation (self or otherwise) adversely affects us.
3. Lastly, you seem to believe in error that there is a large population of wealty blacks living in the NYC area. (I gather this from another statement you've made). This is false. There are some, but the majority of blacks living in NYC are working middle class or working poor. Because the reality is, while our salaries look good on paper, when you compare it to our cost of living and cost of ownership, it leaves a paltry number of wealthy blacks and homeowners.
The fact is, a home in the 'hood, sometimes, a fixer upper costs anywhere from 800k-2mil. That is not the case for places like Atlanta or Houston where that price range will garner you a beautiful fantastic home in a stately suburb. Secondly, homes in NYC that cost this much are often not purchased by black middle class workers because frankly they cost too damn much, and why would you purchase a home in the hood for that amount and still have to put your children through school in a poor school district etc. I could go on and on. Most but not all, blacks owning homes in NYC, owned them since the 1960s-1980s when home prices were reasonable. And now that the property values have gone up, they are simply cashing in and moving away from NYC.
Like citychik said, the majority of wealthy blacks have long since moved to wealthy suburbs in Westchester or Long Island. There are some that maintain homes in the city, but then have their larger homes/estates elsewhere, but this is again, few and far between.
This NY fantasy that people have really needs to cease.
I am from NYC and agree 100% with your post. It's the exact situation I am facing now. I am finishing up my professional degree, and am now looking to move out of NYC altogether because I don't want to pay 1 million for a home in a poverty level environment with a poor performing school district (read: almost all of the predominantly black areas in the city). And I don't want to struggle to afford the astronomical rent for an apartment in a nice, safe, desirable area (forget buying a house in this kind of area = "million(s)") So I need to relocate to a new city.
And yes, once again, the black population in NYC is mostly working poor! Yes, there are a lot of wealthy blacks here, but the number is small compared to the overall population- and they usually move out of predominantly black areas as soon as they can afford to. Segregation is not a good thing here!
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.
lol...but that was'nt ni, lol..lemme stop lol...
On Point
