Compton, Watts, and parts of South LA need to be gentrified!

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by antialphabet

Were white gangs in those days (50s) referred to as gangs?

no, they really weren't. They were small groups that may have been called gangs and were white, but I don't think they were really thought of as gangs, like the mexicans in east L.A and even Lincoln Hieghts. Some were in the Lincoln Heights area, some even in Highland Park and certianly in the East L.A. area, but most were Mexican gangs..

Nita

[majoun]

Originally Posted by antialphabet

Were white gangs in those days (50s) referred to as gangs?

The Spook Hunters of South Central definitely were. They introduced the drive by shooting into South Central, and were as dangerous as any street gang in L.A. at that time.

As for the other white gangs, today they wouldn't seem dangerous at all but then the black and Latino gangs of those days wouldn't seem dangerous by today's standards.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by King0fthehill

Indeed. Baldwin Vista is a gem of sorts, with really big homes nestled in winding hills, commanding grand views of the city. However, based on my experiences (my aunt lives there) not many non-blacks know about the place, and its often viewed with disdain by most of my white friends (south of the 10 stigma?). Its a real shame that the real estate agents feel the need to associate it with Culver City....especially since the Culver City that it is closest to (industrial areas) isn't really synonomous with the trendy, hip Downtown area. And even then, the bulk of Culver City is nothing like that area.

Those industrial areas are the home to a pretty thriving art scene.

And the residential areas of Eastern Culver City - the southeasternmost part of the west side - are white plurality unlike the areas east of the CC/LA borde, and I think that's why real estate agents call Baldwin Vista "Culver City adjacent" - just to get non-blacks interested.

Oh, definitely. The aforementioned "ghettos" of the Westside are ripe for gentrification, along with parts of Venice and Sawtelle.

Except for Oakwood (and Cadillac-Corning which seems to have totally escaped any type of gentrification, unlike even Oakwood), none of those areas would be considered "ghettos" if they weren't on the West Side.

OTOH, I still don't know why "urban pioneers" insisted on pushing east into borderline far nabes with no real appeal or significance. Instead of going for fringe nabes like say..Lincoln Park, Highland Park, Cypress Park, etc way out there, when they could've found a cheaper,more centrally located place, just south of the 10, in a charming neighborhood not overrun by mexican gangs to boot. Maybe they don't want to be around blacks?

April 1992 is the reason why. Northeast L.A. didn't see any rioting - in fact the gangs there kept the rioters out - and that's what made it more attractive to the urban pioneers.

Yep. I've already seen it in its infancy in Jefferson Park, Arlington Park and Leimert Park. I'm glad these Blacks, like many others, aren't ditching the city, and instead are investing into previously blighted places and spurring organic growth and brighter futures.

Interesting article on black gentrification in West Adams -

jasmynecannick.com: Los Angeles' Black Gay Mecca: West Adams?

[ToughLuv]

Yea that should have been started in my opinion.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by majoun

The Spook Hunters of South Central definitely were. They introduced the drive by shooting into South Central, and were as dangerous as any street gang in L.A. at that time.

As for the other white gangs, today they wouldn't seem dangerous at all but then the black and Latino gangs of those days wouldn't seem dangerous by today's standards.

I think the differenced today and in the 50s and 60s is like so many other things then compared to now: not only are the gangs more violent, they start at a much younger age..

Nita

[Mike121]

Originally Posted by buckeyenative01

Some of the better areas in what many consider South Central include Leimert Park and Baldwin Hills.

Leimert Park and Baldwin Hills are South LA, but, they aren't South Central. Central Avenue, which is where "South Central" gets its name, is 5 miles away and is on the other side of the 110 freeway.

Like everthing in LA, the borders of Historic South Central are a little fuzzy, but probably don't extend west of Normandie.

[fatmancomics]

Originally Posted by nmnita

As for gangs, if you had lived in L.A back when you would know the gangs did exist but not in So Central as much as the east side and not primarily blacks, but hispanics..many did not live long enough to get out of their teens. I can remember innocent toddler shot down by gang menbers by accident: wrong house and this was 30 and 40 years ago. Yes, the gangs were organized and had little if anything to do with desegregation. What happened later is a different story.

As for the manufacturing jobs, they has disappeared all over our country..We are no longer a country supported by manufacturing. We have become a service and tech country. Manufacturing started moving to other countries back in the 70s. What is still being manufactured here has moved to smaller cities and states where labor is cheaper or has gone to illegals..

You mentioned kids would get out of high school and go to work in the same mills, I don't know where you are getting your information but I don't remember any mills in So Central Los Angeles and very few factories, but there were a few. I don't think you have a very good understanding of what So Central Los Angeles, Watts and Compton have been like for over 50 years. You mention kids graduating from high school, very few kids in those areas ever managed to graduate..

I don't know where you were raised, I do know not in Los Angeles. I think you are comparing L.A. with other parts of the company. Watts, Compton and So Central L.A. has always had high crime, low employment and a high percentage on welfare. It has nothing to do with jobs not being there..If you remember right the Watts riots were in 1965..

We obviously do not agree on many things. You think you are right, I think my way of thinking is right, so I guess we can just agree to disagree.

Listen, just because I wasn't raised in YOUR part of Los Angeles, doesn't mean I wasn't raised in Los Angeles. I came to this country (and this city) with my parents when I was eight years old. The first neighborhood we lived in was North Hollywood and we moved to downtown L.A. near the Good Samaritan Hospital six years later. I didn't make it out of that neighborhood until my mid 20s.
The topic here was Watts, Compton and South L.A. so I was talking about the history of black gangs and, if you bother to look it up, you'll see that black gangs ON THE WEST SIDE have been around since the 20s but they were called "clubs" back then. After WWII, when the black population grew in the areas that this thread mentions, violence against them from the surrounding white community increased and more kids joined gangs to protect themselves from such violence.
But you're right, I didn't live here (hell, I wasn't even alive to begin with) back in the 50s so I must not know what I'm talking about. I mean, if you don't see it then it must not be happening, right?
Like I stated before, my information comes from what I've read (from periodicals, books and the internet) and seen in documentaries so if I'm wrong it's because what I've read and seen is wrong. You'd be surprised to learn just how much is going on under your own nose that you don't know about though. The way that movies make it seem, EVERYONE frequented speak easies in the 20s but I'm sure that most of the American populace wouldn't know how to locate one if you asked them back then.
Those of us who stay out of trouble are usually ignorant of the trouble that surrounds us in our own neighborhoods until it's uncovered and made public.

[buckeyenative01]

Originally Posted by Mike121

Leimert Park and Baldwin Hills are South LA, but, they aren't South Central. Central Avenue, which is where "South Central" gets its name, is 5 miles away and is on the other side of the 110 freeway.

Like everthing in LA, the borders of Historic South Central are a little fuzzy, but probably don't extend west of Normandie.

You're right, and the whole "South Central is now South LA" thing a few years back kinda threw off my geographical understandings of the area.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by fatmancomics

Listen, just because I wasn't raised in YOUR part of Los Angeles, doesn't mean I wasn't raised in Los Angeles. I came to this country (and this city) with my parents when I was eight years old. The first neighborhood we lived in was North Hollywood and we moved to downtown L.A. near the Good Samaritan Hospital six years later. I didn't make it out of that neighborhood until my mid 20s.
The topic here was Watts, Compton and South L.A. so I was talking about the history of black gangs and, if you bother to look it up, you'll see that black gangs ON THE WEST SIDE have been around since the 20s but they were called "clubs" back then. After WWII, when the black population grew in the areas that this thread mentions, violence against them from the surrounding white community increased and more kids joined gangs to protect themselves from such violence.
But you're right, I didn't live here (hell, I wasn't even alive to begin with) back in the 50s so I must not know what I'm talking about. I mean, if you don't see it then it must not be happening, right?
Like I stated before, my information comes from what I've read (from periodicals, books and the internet) and seen in documentaries so if I'm wrong it's because what I've read and seen is wrong. You'd be surprised to learn just how much is going on under your own nose that you don't know about though. The way that movies make it seem, EVERYONE frequented speak easies in the 20s but I'm sure that most of the American populace wouldn't know how to locate one if you asked them back then.
Those of us who stay out of trouble are usually ignorant of the trouble that surrounds us in our own neighborhoods until it's uncovered and made public.

I am trying to approach this in some type of a mature way, but you seem to want to keep this going..As I mentioned last night, we disagree, what more is there to say? Can we just drop it?

Nita