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.
You've introduced an interesting topic to this discussion, black flight. Honestly, I think I have always been aware of the issue, but I haven't given it much thought.
I couldn't find much on the topic, but I did find an article on it. I guess ATL, as recently as just 2 years ago, was ranked #1 with the highest amount of black flight.
As far as your question, I have never understood why blacks vote for democrats year after year. It doesn't even seem to matter who the candidates are. I would think that there would be more diversity of thought. Blacks did come out for Trump marginally better than they did for Romney, maybe that is partially because Trump is a strong supporter of law enforcement. It could also be that he is as anti-establishment as you can get and has a strong business background. I think that some blacks are anti-establishment as well, atleast in some respects, so maybe their is a connection there. Still, Clinton got 88% of the black vote. You brought up Barry Goldwater, but I doubt most people today even know who he is.
I live in the Atlanta area. Alot of that Black flight is related to gentrification. Atlanta is one of the fastest gentrifying cities in the USA. On the flip side, Blacks who make a decent income can move into the nice areas of Atlanta.
St. Louis might be going through gentrification, but not at the same rate as Atlanta. The percentage of Blacks in St. Louis proper is holding steady.
I personally never gave much thought why Blacks vote the way they do. I only care about what I personally do. I never understood why anyone would be concerned about who I vote for. I figure "my vote, my business". As for Blacks voting for Trump and Romney, I can explain it like this. Percentage wise, Trump got slightly more votes than Romney. However, most Blacks who voted for Trump don't live in the ghetto. A large number are likely middle upper class. But even alot of middle to middle upper class Blacks vote Democrat. And here is another factor you need to consider. Black voter turnout has dropped. That plays more a factor than anything else. It had very little to do with law enforcement. It had more to do with this: The same blacks who voted for conservatives voted for Trump. Blacks who voted during the Obama days likely sat out this time.
Something else. Trump has said some demeaning things regarding Blacks. That "what do you have to lose" speech was a joke. He wasn't even in the Black neighborhoods in Milwaukee. He was in West Bend. Anyone who would support a national stop and frisk is a threat to me.
I live in the Atlanta area. Alot of that Black flight is related to gentrification. Atlanta is one of the fastest gentrifying cities in the USA. On the flip side, Blacks who make a decent income can move into the nice areas of Atlanta.
St. Louis might be going through gentrification, but not at the same rate as Atlanta. The percentage of Blacks in St. Louis proper is holding steady.
I personally never gave much thought why Blacks vote the way they do. I only care about what I personally do. I never understood why anyone would be concerned about who I vote for. I figure "my vote, my business". As for Blacks voting for Trump and Romney, I can explain it like this. Percentage wise, Trump got slightly more votes than Romney. However, most Blacks who voted for Trump don't live in the ghetto. A large number are likely middle upper class. But even alot of middle to middle upper class Blacks vote Democrat. And here is another factor you need to consider. Black voter turnout has dropped. That plays more a factor than anything else. It had very little to do with law enforcement. It had more to do with this: The same blacks who voted for conservatives voted for Trump. Blacks who voted during the Obama days likely sat out this time.
Something else. Trump has said some demeaning things regarding Blacks. That "what do you have to lose" speech was a joke. He wasn't even in the Black neighborhoods in Milwaukee. He was in West Bend. Anyone who would support a national stop and frisk is a threat to me.
I don't think anyone is necessarily interested in who you voted for personally, and I could be wrong, but I don't believe anyone in this thread asked who you voted for. I'm not sure how that is even relevant to the discussion. That said, you do realize that there are professional pollsters who try to figure out what issues are important to certain groups, and why they back a certain candidate? The information obtained can be used to alter an election. Politicians are constantly tweaking their message to try to appeal to the various voting blocks based on what story the polls are telling. I personally do not believe the polls, especially after this last election, but to a degree, I still think they convey interesting information.
For those who question the motives of the individual soldier during the Civil War, both north or south, please note the example of 'follow the leader' we have witnessed the last few days on this thread. Some have pointed fingers at others and told them that city crime or politics was irrelevant to the argument of statue removal and another thread should be started. Some of these same individuals have spent the last few days arguing about everything but the statues on this thread - although another thread was started. Proving most Americans who are involved in a cause on either side, are following the herd mentality.
One of the questions that was asked earlier of this thread was what is the end goal. This question has been mostly ignored, but on other threads about his topic in other sections of city data, one of the out of state members involved in this thread stated in another thread about Confederate statue removal "Here is the end goal. It is about setting right what was wrong. Those Confederate statues represent so much about what was wrong with the South. The end goal is to tear down the last vestiges of a dark and nasty era for the South.Recognizing that Confederates deserve no honor is the first step. It is the first step in radically changing things for the better."
My question again, asked by others as well, is when will all that was wrong be set right, and who decides? The last vestiges of the Southern era? Who defines that? And the first step - what is the last step? Is there a defined goal here - or are we just making this stuff up as we go?
Right now, Houston, Texas is being forced to defend the statue of Sam Houston, who like many of the founding fathers, was a slave holder, but history shows, was no friend to the Confederacy, fought the expansion of slavery, and was the only Southern governor who tried to keep his state "in" the union. If this flies, there isn't a historical statue in America that will be safe.
And for those who like to bring up a statue of Hitler in Paris as an example of no one besides the defeated Confederacy puts up statues to defeated enemies or 'traitors', please note that you can find a statue to George Washington in Trafalgar Square in the middle of London. That is General George Washington of the rebellious and ultimately victorious, American colonies. There is a small monument in North Carolina to a Colonel James Stuart - of the enemy British Army during the Revolutionary War. And in the Saratoga National Historical Park in New York, there is a monument to America's most noted traitor - Benedict Arnold.
I am no longer interested in defending the statues, because no statue defines my past, and removing a rock does not change our history. I do not dispute historical facts on why the Civil War was fought, but I get irritated when present day know it all's, try to define my dirt poor Southern ancestor's purpose for fighting for the Confederacy. After reading this and other threads, and realizing the pain some of them cause many American's, I concede their presence could be offensive to some. I am also appalled that some of the loudest of those defending the statues represent the lowest form of life white America has ever produced, and proves the bigotry black American's are fighting.
But I am very fearful of this slippery slope that has been mentioned. Those who want the monuments removed today say they belong in museums and cemeteries - but will they ever see the light of day again? Really? Take down the statue in St Louis and whats the next "step" to purge it of Southern vestiges?
Who speaks for the defeated Confederacy? Who speaks for the freed slaves? And what are your qualifications to speak on their behalf? Do you feel qualified to speak for your great, great grandfather because you lived their life, thought their thoughts, felt their pain and suffering?
Or is the only thing you inherited from that era bigotry - or a sense of payback?
If so, you learned nothing from your ancestors. You are much better off learning from those who have gone before, because fighting the dead is a battle you can never win.
Right now, Houston, Texas is being forced to defend the statue of Sam Houston, who like many of the founding fathers, was a slave holder, but history shows, was no friend to the Confederacy, fought the expansion of slavery, and was the only Southern governor who tried to keep his state "in" the union. If this flies, there isn't a historical statue in America that will be safe.
I still can't rep you because you're the only good poster in this thread, but I will point out that this particular point isn't as big of a deal as the headline implies. Antifa is an extremist group that isn't representative of the broader views of the anti-Confederate left, as evidenced by this quote from the article:
Quote:
Ashton Woods, with BLM Houston told KPRC 2 while they are in favor of removing symbols of the Confederacy, they are not affiliated with this group.
In other words, most people are capable of drawing some distinction between "removing Confederate memorials" and "removing any historical artifact with under six degrees of separation from slavery". A Sam Houston statue doesn't honor the Confederacy or its cause.
I still can't rep you because you're the only good poster in this thread, but I will point out that this particular point isn't as big of a deal as the headline implies. Antifa is an extremist group that isn't representative of the broader views of the anti-Confederate left, as evidenced by this quote from the article:
In other words, most people are capable of drawing some distinction between "removing Confederate memorials" and "removing any historical artifact with under six degrees of separation from slavery". A Sam Houston statue doesn't honor the Confederacy or its cause.
Antifa does represent an extreme. Most people who are anti-Confederate aren't trying to take Sam Houston down. As you have said, we know the difference.
I did have to laugh this morning at a quote from rep Steve King of Iowa, complaining that Obama caused a lot of division in this country, accompanied by a picture of him at his desk with a small Confederate flag on display.
I am no longer interested in defending the statues, because no statue defines my past, and removing a rock does not change our history. I do not dispute historical facts on why the Civil War was fought, but I get irritated when present day know it all's, try to define my dirt poor Southern ancestor's purpose for fighting for the Confederacy. After reading this and other threads, and realizing the pain some of them cause many American's, I concede their presence could be offensive to some. I am also appalled that some of the loudest of those defending the statues represent the lowest form of life white America has ever produced, and proves the bigotry black American's are fighting.
Nice post! The simplest answer that I can come up with is that people need to quit being so easily offended. Being offended is a choice that one makes. You can choose to be offended, or you can choose not to be. It's that simple. It seems like the mainstream media and politicians spend half their time educating their audience on what issues they need to be offended about. Their main goal is to generate controversial stories (aka fake news) in order to drive up ratings. The result is a divided nation and wacko extremism (aka terrorism) like we just recently saw in Alexandria, VA. Heck, even the American flag is offensive to some these days! OK, so don't fly one. The national anthem is offensive to others. Alright, well take a knee and don't put your hand over your heart. Likewise, if the Confederate monument bothers you that much, then don't go look at it! Problem solved. People just need to grow up and stop acting like entitled brats.
Anytime there is a huge gap between city and metro stats, it needs to be considered. A safety and quality of life evaluation needs to be done neighborhood by neighborhood while looking at personal lifestyle and demographic information. That is if one is attempting to look at facts.
With that being written, Atlanta doesnt seem like a let your guard down type of city. Pittsburgh, Boston and Portland does. Many would brag that x city is safer then y city when they clearly aren't when evaluating the whole picture. I feel that way about the Atlanta St. Louis comparison. I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time but I doubt it.
Just the same, I was talking about city limits.
Atlanta might not seem like a "let your guard down" kind of city. However, in my case, the worst stuff that ever happened to me took place in the suburbs. I've never been assaulted in Atlanta. I've been assaulted in far-flung suburbs. The crime in metro Atlanta is more spread out. With that written, most of it is towards the south and areas along I-20. And based on what many people from St. Louis have told me, they feel safer in metro Atlanta.
Pittsburgh wouldn't be a place where I let my guard down. Pittsburgh has some very rough areas. What makes Metro Pittsburgh, however, the population is dropping. Many who stay are those who can't do better.
Atlanta might not seem like a "let your guard down" kind of city. However, in my case, the worst stuff that ever happened to me took place in the suburbs. I've never been assaulted in Atlanta. I've been assaulted in far-flung suburbs. The crime in metro Atlanta is more spread out. With that written, most of it is towards the south and areas along I-20. And based on what many people from St. Louis have told me, they feel safer in metro Atlanta.
Pittsburgh wouldn't be a place where I let my guard down. Pittsburgh has some very rough areas. What makes Metro Pittsburgh, however, the population is dropping. Many who stay are those who can't do better.
Ok. I've never had anything bad to happen to me in St. Louis. I grew up here, left for 20 something years and have been back for 3 yrs.
I like Atlanta and have had some fun times there over the years as a visitor. Never had anything bad happen to me. Running poor people out of the city limits and bragging on low crime is not good and doesn't do a comparison good.
My experience in Pittsburgh is limited. The statement "People who stay can't do better" is a low blow. I'm sure the boosters from Pittsburgh will bounce back at you and write something negative about Atlanta.
I know it's a separate entity. And back to the topic at hand. The fact that St. Louis is separate from the county will make for an interesting situation. St. Louis city doesn't want that statue. St. Louis County, however, does.
When it comes to cities, we are only talking about the city limits. If we want to talk about metros, then we have to say explicitly metros. Comparing city to city is what we were currently on.
I really don't know how St. Louis metro is, other than some sketch suburbs like Ferguson and East. St. Louis.
Yes but what I meant is that it is not fair to compare St. Louis city crime stats with places like Atlanta because St. Louis, being 'locked in' by the city/county separation means that there are no suburbs, just the 'inner city core'.
When you look at Atlanta's crime stats, because they've been able to incorporate more area into their city limits over the years (inclusive of suburbs, which, almost everywhere in the U.S are safer than inner cities) it has brought their crime per capita rate down.
As for African Americans doing poorly in St. Louis City, yes, unfortunately that is the case for many.
However, in St. Louis County (not far from the city limits) is Pasadena Hills, which with a median household income of over $91,000, is amongst the top 20 wealthiest predominantly African American cities in the U.S.
Like many other cities, many successful African Americans in St. Louis moved to the suburbs following desegregation and the civil rights movement.
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.
