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.
1. MKE is not like LA. I lived in OC for 3 years, then moved to LA for 2 years, Los Feliz for 2 years, and Redondo Beach for 2 years. Not similar at all.
2. Brookfield, New Berlin, Pewaukee, Sussex, Elm Grove, etc. are all extremely safe. Very suburban, very low crime, good schools, etc. I live out here.
3. Suburbs closer in to the city are also quite safe. I would have no problem living in most of these suburbs with my family of 5.
4. Many parts of the city are quite safe, too, although there are areas to stay area from. My brother's (East side) main concern is college drunks breaking stuff.
How would you say MKE is different from LA or OC?
To be honest I've had trouble with at least one "gang banger" (not sure if that's the right term) in a spinner equipped Escalade wanting to run me off the road. Typical 300 lbs, bling-bling looking sort. So even in 2% black OC I've seen the issue crop up.
Yeah, I hear that college party thing, LOL! Can't figure out when it all got so mean. Geez even the Air Force Academy has had really bad things happening at times. (Which depresses me greatly, it was really the only college I ever actually *wanted* to attend.)
jMadison is just being realistic. One can't deny that when there are many blacks living in a neighborhood there is also high crime. if someone wants to deny that reality then go live in an area that is 40% black or more and see if you don't change your mind. But keep in mind that the reality of black crime doesn't mean that one hates all blacks and therefore this thread is not racist. Why doesn't jMadison have a right to stay away from areas that have a large black population if crime is rampant in those areas? And why doesn't jMadison have a right to express his views even though his views represent a reality that some of you deny. And lastely, why don't whites have a right to form their own neighborhoods and then defend their neighborhoods of integration of unwanted kinds and the right to defend our neighborhoods when crime creeps in?
Well, yes, I say that 40% figure and I definitely got worried at that point. No doubt about it.
Here's the whole problem with this thing. Any individual might be quite OK, no matter what their background is. But as a whole some groups do have problematic numbers.
Since it is America, and we (rightfully, I think) did away with slavery and segregation, one can't really say, let's have a [pick your ethnicity] only place. At least not as a legislated rule. So the usual method of dealing with the problem is "white" flight (I'm not so sure it's only whites). Problem with that is, it only works for so long. Consider the Somali refugee resettlement going on in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Maine and New Hampshire for example.
So I don't really know how we stay true to the written ideals, and solve the problem at the same time. I could waste pages with ideas, but ultimately none would be ideal.
It's a tough problem, to be sure.
In my own life I just try to avoid that which I'm uncomfortable with. Unfortunately I'm not rich enough to just pick an out of the way spot I like and live out my days there. Survival sometimes forces me to have to worry about where it is I'm going next.
In any event, if you look at what has happened in West Palm Beach and Riviera Beach over the last 4 decades (For example, the WPB Law Enforcement asking for help from the National Guard) wanting to stay out of way of "the dominoes" as one poster put it, does seem to have an irrefutable common sense logic to it. It certainly flies in the face of ideals, but these days, what doesn't?
I just know for me, I'm am significantly more at peace when I'm not immersed in the AA thing. It's one of the first figures I look at when looking at having to go somewhere new to work. Of course it's politically incorrect to say it. So it makes it hard to ask the question without a lot of shouting matches occurring.
I think this is a perfectly legitimate concern, and a tactful way to state it. But when you immediately state black == problems, that's what's frustrating to me. Surely in all your years on this planet you must have encountered *at least one* black person that didn't try harm/kill/maim you.
Black people don't commit crimes expressly because they are black. It's just not that simple. That may not be what you meant, but without explanation that's what it comes out as. It's an antiquated notion that really has no place in an educated society. Dig deeper and we'll find plenty of valid socio-economic reasons for the disparity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMadison
Since it is America, and we (rightfully, I think) did away with slavery and segregation
To be honest I've had trouble with at least one "gang banger" (not sure if that's the right term) in a spinner equipped Escalade wanting to run me off the road. Typical 300 lbs, bling-bling looking sort. So even in 2% black OC I've seen the issue crop up.
Yeah, I hear that college party thing, LOL! Can't figure out when it all got so mean. Geez even the Air Force Academy has had really bad things happening at times. (Which depresses me greatly, it was really the only college I ever actually *wanted* to attend.)
In SoCal, people of any color are angry on the road. My friend used to ride his motorcycle, and angry commuters would throw junk at him (spit at him too) while he would split lanes. That anger is color blind. That would be a rarity here, the roads aren't so clogged to create much anger on the road.
Anway, in most places in SoCal, you can live in a nice area and be really close to a not so nice area (probably moreso in LA County). In Redondo I lived a mile from the ocean in a family oriented area and I frequently played basketball 10 minutes away in a sketchier area, until one day a guy came by shooting a gun, that was my last day at that court. Out in Waukesha County you aren't really going to find that, there is much less concern (if any) for bad areas. In the city, you will see good and less good (and bad) nearer each other, but I feel there is less bleed from one area to the next. That's just my view.
I think this is a perfectly legitimate concern, and a tactful way to state it. But when you immediately state black == problems, that's what's frustrating to me. Surely in all your years on this planet you must have encountered *at least one* black person that didn't try harm/kill/maim you.
Black people don't commit crimes expressly because they are black. It's just not that simple. That may not be what you meant, but without explanation that's what it comes out as. It's an antiquated notion that really has no place in an educated society. Dig deeper and we'll find plenty of valid socio-economic reasons for the disparity.
I'm with Ron on this one. A tactful way to phrase the question would be something like: "I'm looking for stable, very low-crime areas in the Milwaukee metro. Ideally, these areas will adjoin other stable, very low-crime areas."
This assumes that, of course, the concern is crime in general, and not merely crime generated by specific groups of people. (Milwaukee does have high-crime areas populated by whites and other groups.)
Again, as Ron states, it's erroneous to think that Blacks = Crime. There may be statistical correlations, but you're looking to live in a neighborhood of people, not spreadsheets. If, in another vein, statistical averages show that White = Rich, then only high-paid white-collar whites would be able to settle here. Fortunately, there are many options for all income levels. There may be statistical averages, but that still means that some fall above and some fall below the average.
I think this is a perfectly legitimate concern, and a tactful way to state it. But when you immediately state black == problems, that's what's frustrating to me. Surely in all your years on this planet you must have encountered *at least one* black person that didn't try harm/kill/maim you.
Black people don't commit crimes expressly because they are black. It's just not that simple. That may not be what you meant, but without explanation that's what it comes out as. It's an antiquated notion that really has no place in an educated society. Dig deeper and we'll find plenty of valid socio-economic reasons for the disparity.
I don't really think that one is up for debate.
Well, Ron, I worked in predominantly black Riviera Beach many decades ago. The Black = Crime thing seems to have become a reality in more recent times. Post Gangsta Rapp is how I tend to think of it. In reality, likely more like "the generation that grew up post Civil Rights didn't know the fight and handle the freedoms differently".
I'm not sure. But my anecdotal observation is that blacks went from most oppressed to most dangerous in the last 40 or so years.
The statistical correlation may not indicate causation, but it's a good way to bet. Of course that's where the two way pull starts. Do you go with ideals and risk it? Or do you go with pragmatism and be safe?
Then there's just cultural preference. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm simply averse to AA and AA culture. I'm happier not to be around it, and not have to step on eggshells about it. I can recall once saying "I didn't like the black plastic looking interior of a Dodge Viper" in one shop I worked in with blacks. They looked at me funny and said, "What's wrong with *black* plastic??? I had to sit there and explain that in an $80K car it looked cheap... that the $2 stapler on my desk was black plastic as was the cheap boom box on his... That's before we even get to stuff like "crotch grabbing" and all the other AA cultural traits commonly found where ebonics is the typical dialect.
So for me personally, it's a quality of life/peace of mind issue as opposed to whatever the neo-this-that and the others are all about. I'm just happier without it. Without any need to discuss "superiority", "more evolved, less evolved" and all that. Heck, I could easily craft a case that blacks are *superior* from a darwinistic stand point, LOL!
In the end though, *worldwide* the stats pretty much say black areas = problem zones.
Now Ann Coulter (?) I think it was said on the radio the other day that out of wedlock birth has a stronger correlation to who's going to be a felon. And, if all other factors are "normalized for" (not sure how that process works) the crime difference between black and white disappears.
But... that begs the question then... why are so many blacks born out of wedlock, on a proportional basis? Is there something about black male culture that the dads aren't around? And why so disproportionate to thier group?
So in the end you end up right back at the same place. The correlation between black and problems is very strong, everywhere on the planet.
I don't know why. I can't say what the fix is. I argue in places that engineering the world for ubiquitous wealth might help. But I get pounced on for that idea being impossible. So I give up. Just have to find the right spot for me. But, being a worker bee, not in the leasure class, not an easy task.
To get away from ghetto and crime? Demographics show an 2007 estimate of 40% black. That usually protends big problems. So suppose someone had to work in MKE. How far do you have to go to get away from MKE? Is it possible to reasonably commute from those areas?
You can live in milwaukee without having to deal with "ghetto black people". Any Milwaukee suburb is good also. 99% of black people in Milwaukee live in the near-north side and spans northwest to northridge. The near south side is very Hispanic if that would bother you, but south of Oklahoma ave is all white. Brown Deer is the only suburb that has a sizable black population but their are upper class as opposed to their ghetto counter parts.
So any suburb will work and the east side and south side of milwaukee will work for your question also. You don't have to go 30min away from Milwaukee to not be bothered by ghetto people. I'm going to stick my neck out on the line here and ask an "assuming" question. JMADISON I'm assuming(risky) that you are from Madison or currently live there. I thought people from Madison are more tolerant than the rest of the state ? I have noticed it's one thing when someone from Madison proclaims diversity but when they have to live among it, it's a different story. I'm only going on past experiences and am not making a blanket statement. But then again if JMADISON stands for james madison or jim madison or john madison then disregard last statement hence...sticking my head out on the line for this ass...umption. I have seen this from liberals that also preach diversity and welcome but not when it's in their backyard. But then again what would this Christian conservative know I only live in Milwaukee's gay area. NIMBY's
No I'm not in Madison. It's a name, LOL! I'm on the west coast these days.
Yes, I agree, there are many "limosine liberals" out there. Boulder strikes me as one such place potentially. Someone once said, "a persons tolerance level is proportional to their distance", LOL!
On the other hand, here on the west coast, I have met what I'd term "militant liberals". They would go so far as to legislate things like bussing, etc. Their hearts may be in the right place, but pragmatically they are just blind.
I'm agnostic, so religious issues are non-issues for me. At least to the extent that the religious folks aren't hurting anyone.
My "battle cry" is "individual freedom" for the most part. But I realize that has to be tempered with the other person's individual freedom as well. Which is why I generally end up arguing that the ultimate system is one in which everyone can live on large properties with some separation from others, as opposed to say, integrated urbanism.
I feel that only two situations would lead to peace among currently antogonisic groups. 1) An overarching threat wherein everyone *must* pull together or die. 2) Sufficient wealth that everyone can pick and choose, or avoid as they see fit, without effect on thier quality of life. Peace through ubiquitous wealth.
Now #1 could happen on it's own. #2 is probably not possible given the current state of our evolution.
About that lane sharing thing with motorbikes over here.
I used to ride. Road for about 20 some years. To my eyes, lane sharing is asking to get hurt. At least a bike sharing with a car. Doesn't surprise me that it P.O.s car drivers. One wobble in a car and you could crush a biker.
As a former biker, even I think they should ban car/bike lane sharing, because it seems to give bikers a license to ride between the cars in a traffic jam at the very least. Strikes me as dangerous and stupid. But bikers with less time (and fewer spills) than myself continue to defend it.
Yes, I agree, there are many "limosine liberals" out there. Boulder strikes me as one such place potentially. Someone once said, "a persons tolerance level is proportional to their distance", LOL!
Right On Brother!!!
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.
I don't really think that one is up for debate.
