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 see. When it finally becomes an all black society, the problem is whitely again. Yeah its tough to be black, but I just don't see how whitely can win since whitely done something wrong whether whitely is leaving or going.
The thing is that Detroit of today (black) is juxtaposed with Detroit of yesterday (white). Detroit's rise to nearly 2 million people was a status accomplished with the help of 1.6 million whites. Thus, why is it wrong to say that Detroit's decline is primarily the result of white flight, when less than 100 thousand whites remain today? Also, many of Detroit's legacy cost comes from when the city was predominately white and the same 135 square miles and its infrastructure needs to be serviced and maintained by less than half the people that created all that stuff and by a population much poorer than when the city was majority white.
Because people are finding metal (examples of corruption and mismanagement) is because people with metal detectors have converged on Detroit, while not doing so in the same degree in other cities. Detroit's problems and decline is not rooted in corruption and mismanagement. Rather, Detroit's decline EXPOSED corruption and mismanagement, which largely takes place in most cities to one degree or another....or has at one time or another.
The thing is that Detroit of today (black) is juxtaposed with Detroit of yesterday (white). Detroit's rise to nearly 2 million people was a status accomplished with the help of 1.6 million whites. Thus, why is it wrong to say that Detroit's decline is primarily the result of white flight, when less than 100 thousand whites remain today? Also, many of Detroit's legacy cost comes from when the city was predominately white and the same 135 square miles and its infrastructure needs to be serviced and maintained by less than half the people that created all that stuff and by a population much poorer than when the city was majority white.
What is wrong with it? For one thing its what black separatists always wanted. Never mind the irony of being blamed for leaving. Do you think the last remaining whites would like to stay to answer for the whites who are leaving? The real problem is you are running out of things to blame. And what is worse is this place is filling up with people who don't think they owe you anything.
Quote:
Because people are finding metal (examples of corruption and mismanagement) is because people with metal detectors have converged on Detroit, while not doing so in the same degree in other cities. Detroit's problems and decline is not rooted in corruption and mismanagement. Rather, Detroit's decline EXPOSED corruption and mismanagement, which largely takes place in most cities to one degree or another....or has at one time or another.
What is wrong with it? For one thing its what black separatists always wanted. Never mind the irony of being blamed for leaving. Do you think the last remaining whites would like to stay to answer for the whites who are leaving? The real problem is you are running out of things to blame. And what is worse is this place is filling up with people who don't think they owe you anything.
.
First, black separatism was a phenomenon that was a consequential reaction to white racism and the inability of white society, at that time, to treat black humanity with the dignity it deserved. Thus, if something is a symptom or reaction to racism, that something does not exonerate or debunk the claim that white racism has been at the root of the problem. Hence, pointing the finger at black separatism, a symptom, is still pointing the finger at white racism, as the root cause.
Secondly, a majority white city does not become a majority black city if blacks want to be separate. A city or area does not morph from predominately white to predominately black without blacks demonstrating the will to integrate. It took blacks MOVING INTO WHITE COMMUNITIES, which is not the actions of separatist, for those communities to go from white to black. Indeed it is the WHITES, who were behaving as separatist and blacks were behaving as integrationalist. In fact, that is what blacks were fighting for, integration and all one has to do is look at the archives to see who were acting as separatist by their reaction to busing, school and neighborhood integration during that era. So its total BS to argue blacks wanted to be separate, when the law had decided that separate was inherently unequal in Plessy Vs Ferguson, and blacks were fighting for integration in public accommodations, schools, neighborhoods, housing, employment ect. Its just total BS to argue your point.
Third and lastly, lets say there is a husband and wife and the husband makes a lot more money than the wife and they buy a home together, maximizing the home they can purchase via their combined income. Of course, with the home comes the mortgage cost, the maintenance cost, the utility cost and more, which is all relative to the size of the structure. Now say all of a sudden the Husband ups and leaves the household, without having to pay the wife a dime or any of the cost of the home. What happens to the house with just the women remaining and her much lower income? What happens to the ability to pay the bills, keep the maintenance up, and pay the mortgage and other cost? To the degree that the women can borrow, she may be able to maintain things for awhile, but its obviously an untenable situation because OF THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND.
Its not meant to be a perfect analogy, but to simply demonstrate how something was created with a combined contribution, then fell apart when the largest contributing part divorced from the situation. Whites were the husband and blacks were the wife and together, in 1950, it built a home that was the forth of 5th largest city in the Nation. Subsequently, whites filed divorce from blacks and moved out, when blacks lashed out, in the form of a riot, IN RESPONSE to an abusive spouse that had been mistreating them since their union. Whites had the income and wealth disproportionately, as a result of their historical abuse and privilege, and when they took that wealth away, the city became untenable for the historically disenfranchised and abused, black demographic.
But no....this is NOT the story told. The narrators want to ignore the husband leaving and the abuse the husband inflicted upon the wife, which created the backlash and attitude in the wife. Rather, the inability to maintain the household and keep it up to the standards that existed previously is redirected to the incompetence of the wife to manage money and the wife's ideology. The lack of perfection in financial and other matters created the opening to blame all the problems of the household on the wife....or blacks, and hence deflect from the real truth of the matter.
Blacks have controlled Detroit since the early 1970's, creating a tidal wave of graft and corruption that TAXPAYERS - black and white - fled.
The only people left are the leeches.
This is what happens when the corrupt rule.
Well....the devil is in the detail. If 100 whites and one black did something, one could say "blacks and whites", which, deceptively, paints a picture of equality of occurrence, when in truth its not. The truth is that Detroit, today, still has 75% of its peak black population (the peak occurred in 2000) while whites have less than 5% of the peak white population in Detroit (its peak was 1950). Thus, although its true that both blacks and whites have moved out of the city, the detail of the percentage change in peak white and black population shows that, for all intents and purposes, its mainly been white flight. It was the housing bubble fiasco that led to the massive shift from blacks from the city to the suburb, not just in Detroit, but in most large urban areas, from 2000 to 2008...and hence the 2010 census figures.
First, black separatism was a phenomenon that was a consequential reaction to white racism and the inability of white society, at that time, to treat black humanity with the dignity it deserved. Thus, if something is a symptom or reaction to racism, that something does not exonerate or debunk the claim that white racism has been at the root of the problem. Hence, pointing the finger at black separatism, a symptom, is still pointing the finger at white racism, as the root cause.
Secondly, a majority white city does not become a majority black city if blacks want to be separate. A city or area does not morph from predominately white to predominately black without blacks demonstrating the will to integrate. It took blacks MOVING INTO WHITE COMMUNITIES, which is not the actions of separatist, for those communities to go from white to black. Indeed it is the WHITES, who were behaving as separatist and blacks were behaving as integrationalist. In fact, that is what blacks were fighting for, integration and all one has to do is look at the archives to see who were acting as separatist by their reaction to busing, school and neighborhood integration during that era. So its total BS to argue blacks wanted to be separate, when the law had decided that separate was inherently unequal in Plessy Vs Ferguson, and blacks were fighting for integration in public accommodations, schools, neighborhoods, housing, employment ect. Its just total BS to argue your point.
Third and lastly, lets say there is a husband and wife and the husband makes a lot more money than the wife and they buy a home together, maximizing the home they can purchase via their combined income. Of course, with the home comes the mortgage cost, the maintenance cost, the utility cost and more, which is all relative to the size of the structure. Now say all of a sudden the Husband ups and leaves the household, without having to pay the wife a dime or any of the cost of the home. What happens to the house with just the women remaining and her much lower income? What happens to the ability to pay the bills, keep the maintenance up, and pay the mortgage and other cost? To the degree that the women can borrow, she may be able to maintain things for awhile, but its obviously an untenable situation because OF THE LOSS OF THE HUSBAND.
Its not meant to be a perfect analogy, but to simply demonstrate how something was created with a combined contribution, then fell apart when the largest contributing part divorced from the situation. Whites were the husband and blacks were the wife and together, in 1950, it built a home that was the forth of 5th largest city in the Nation. Subsequently, whites filed divorce from blacks and moved out, when blacks lashed out, in the form of a riot, IN RESPONSE to an abusive spouse that had been mistreating them since their union. Whites had the income and wealth disproportionately, as a result of their historical abuse and privilege, and when they took that wealth away, the city became untenable for the historically disenfranchised and abused, black demographic.
But no....this is NOT the story told. The narrators want to ignore the husband leaving and the abuse the husband inflicted upon the wife, which created the backlash and attitude in the wife. Rather, the inability to maintain the household and keep it up to the standards that existed previously is redirected to the incompetence of the wife to manage money and the wife's ideology. The lack of perfection in financial and other matters created the opening to blame all the problems of the household on the wife....or blacks, and hence deflect from the real truth of the matter.
That's the biggest piece of verbal BS I've seen in a while.
Maybe you can get a job telling these kinds of lies somewhere.
That's the biggest piece of verbal BS I've seen in a while.
Maybe you can get a job telling these kinds of lies somewhere.
How about the Democratic Party?
Your rebuttal is brief for a reason and that reason is that you cannot demonstrate the part that is a lie. No one comes on a forum to debate and passes up the opportunity to refute a lie, with the truth, if they know the truth.
If you are not recognized as the ORACLE of all knowledge, then simply saying that something is a lie has no standing. You must DEMONSTRATE that something is a lie by PRESENTING THE TRUTH. However, you could not present the TRUTH to debunk what you said was a lie because the archives of history shows that what I have said is the truth and you repeating it would only confirm what I said.
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.
