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 are an interesting one to say the least, arjay.
I remember when you first started posting on here; you could barely restrain your conservative leanings. Then at some point you went all flip/floppy into talking half parts progressive stuff & half parts conservative stuff.
Now you're talking like Atlanta is supposedly some Scandinavian/Portland/Seattle-styled paradise.
Yep, you certainly are an interesting person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
One thing you can say about the city of Atlanta is that we massively support our schools. No other system in the state and very few nationally can touch us.
Aries, my friend, you'll have to temporarily remove your filters to understand what the author is actually saying. The article says nothing whatsoever to suggest that whites aren't open to progressiveness unless they are in a "majority white atmosphere."
That's because that is obviously not true -- you can start with little old Atlanta and run down a very long list of major U.S. cities that are both progressive and that have large and influential black populations.
What the article says is that the media, academia and certain planning circles have concocted a definition of what constitutes a model "cool" or progressive city, which they have unfortunately limited to cities with relatively small black populations.
That says a lot about bias in academia and the media, but it doesn't address the reality of how people of various ethnicities actually live in American cities. And it certainly doesn't support the notion that white people aren't open to progressive ideas unless they are the dominant group.
Just take a look at your own environs.
Sumpin' funny, Arj?
You still need to re-read the article--carefully this time. You are purposefully playing naive and misintepreting. Boa sorte.
Now you're talking like Atlanta is supposedly some Scandinavian/Portland/Seattle-styled paradise.
Oh, I haven't suggested that at all.
However, we do lavish financial support on our schools here in the city of Atlanta. We are way ahead of other places in Georgia and most of the US. I mentioned Iowa because it was claimed that Iowa is renowned for its support of public education, but they don't come close to what we spend here in the ATL. And we certainly spend a lot more on our schools than so-called progressive havens like Portland and Seattle. Those are just the facts.
We are not without our progressive virtues on the many other fronts I mentioned either. Show me another city our size that tackles giant infrastructure and and transportation projects like we do. I'd put our cultural scene up against Portland or Seattle, too. Wouldn't you?
You still need to re-read the article--carefully this time. You are purposefully playing naive and misintepreting. Boa sorte.
Aries, I gave you a detailed, straight up analysis of the article.
So it's curious that you continue to retreat to a patronizing "read the article" type response, as if you have divined mysteries that are beyond the ken of others.
The article says nothing to support the claim you and Roslyn made that "whites are only open to progressiveness in a majority white atmosphere." As I pointed out, that would obviously be counter-factual anyway.
However, since you don't want to substantively engage the point we can just let it lie. Selah.
Actually arjay, the cruxof the problem is that you don't seem to have a good grasp on what progressive means. Spending lots of money does not equal progressiveness, especially if most of yhat money winds up in the hands of administrators. Atlanta's lack of progressiveness is mostly not its fault. It's hamstrung by a woefully regressive state and a metro area that is positively backwards. It is the same in much of the south and highly unlikely to change. You can spendall the money you want, but when local control literally requires a onstitutional amendment well, not a whole lot of progressiveness there. Progressiveness requires a forward thinking mindset and a spirit of "we're all in this together," spirit. There is no us vs them. as you know, this area is nothing but that! The Atlanta metro, with its "what's in this or me?" Mentality is the furthest thing in the world from progeessive. We have cities trying to secede from counties and a movement to create whole new majority white and affluent counties! And lets face it, those movements are at least partially motivated by race. I'm not surprised you can't see it, and therein lies the problem.
Actually arjay, the cruxof the problem is that you don't seem to have a good grasp on what progressive means. Spending lots of money does not equal progressiveness, especially if most of yhat money winds up in the hands of administrators. Atlanta's lack of progressiveness is mostly not its fault. It's hamstrung by a woefully regressive state and a metro area that is positively backwards. It is the same in much of the south and highly unlikely to change. You can spendall the money you want, but when local control literally requires a onstitutional amendment well, not a whole lot of progressiveness there. Progressiveness requires a forward thinking mindset and a spirit of "we're all in this together," spirit. There is no us vs them. as you know, this area is nothing but that! The Atlanta metro, with its "what's in this or me?" Mentality is the furthest thing in the world from progeessive. We have cities trying to secede from counties and a movement to create whole new majority white and affluent counties! And lets face it, those movements are at least partially motivated by race. I'm not surprised you can't see it, and therein lies the problem.
You do realize it is like this in most of the North East? That local control(ie Dunwoody's own school system) would create separation. Being all in this together would mean DeKalb would work together to make change.
Also people in white majority N. Fulton want to separate because they have been subsidizing S. Fulton. In majority black areas homes are traditionally appraised for less which means the mill rate has to be higher to collect the necessary tax dollars. This has caused for property taxes on homes in N. Fulton to be substantially higher than what they would be if S. Fulton was more accurately appraised. It is easy to see why N. Fulton is fed up with taking on what could be considered a tax burden. If S. Fulton and N. Fulton were not separated I would probably feel different(like DeKalb). But right now they are basically two separate counties operating under the Fulton County name. They are basically a husband & wife doing separate maintenance instead of divorce.
Isn't what they want local control?
I live in CoA and would love for the city to expand into S. Fulton(Westlake, Tri-Cities clusters, etc.)(even if it would cause my tax bill to increase)(it would also cause the tax bill of my investment properties to increase). Eventually people will realize S. Fulton has been undervalued.
We have cities trying to secede from counties and a movement to create whole new majority white and affluent counties! And lets face it, those movements are at least partially motivated by race. I'm not surprised you can't see it, and therein lies the problem.
We can all see that there's an element of race involved in the "new cities" moment, Roslyn. (Although it's evident that that are other motives as well, such as the quality of schools and local control over spending and services).
But you're talking about the whole region; I'm comparing cities.
If you want to compare regions, don't forget that so-called progressive havens like Portland are surrounded by suburban counties with rock-ribbed Republican majorities. Immediately to the east of the city of Portland, for example, is Dist. 2 (74% Republican), Dist. 4 (67% Republican) and Dist. 3 (54% Republican).
It's the same with other purported bastions of progressivism. For instance, liberal little Austin pulls a 52% Democratic majority, but neighboring Dist. 14 goes 76% Republican, Dist. 10 is 65% Republican, and District 31 on the northside is 82% Republican.
Right next door to liberal Minneapolis are Dist. 6 (represented by Michele Bachman); Dist 3 (58% Republican); and Dist. 2 (64% Republican).
So you have to compare apples to apples. In terms of the surrounding metro, metro Atlanta is not particularly dissimilar to other urban regions around the country.
If you are comparing cities to cities, Atlanta clearly holds it own. I won't repeat the litany of progressive initiatives in the city of Atlanta, but they cut across everything from healthcare to education to infrastructure, the environment, transportation, the arts and culture. And -- contrary to what has been suggested -- many of those movements have had major participation and leadership from whites, even though they are a minority in the city.
One more time arjay as you clearly seem determined to miss the point. Atlanta is an anomaly that may or may not survive. If you look at the patterns of white flight in other cities it usually signals the city's death. Presumably Atlanta had a large enough black middle class to prevent this happening. Even so, it is surrounded by a metro that seems determined to strangle it. Which is the usual result of such situations. See Birmingham. So yes, because of the large population of blacks with money Atlanta has managed to survive, but note, most of the white people have fled to the various metro counties and many are doing their best to secede. And that is my exact point, whites in general have no desire to live in even a marginally progresdive city like Atlanta unless it's majority white. The explosion of population of the metro counties and the secesh movements are an object lesson in thepoint I've been making.
And that is my exact point, whites in general have no desire to live in even a marginally progresdive city like Atlanta unless it's majority white. The explosion of population of the metro counties and the secesh movements are an object lesson in thepoint I've been making.
You're conflating the city with the overall region, Roslyn.
In the city of Atlanta proper -- clearly the most progressive area in this region -- the white population has been growing at at one of the fastest rates in the country. Progressive whites seem eager to live there, even though they are a minority.
(Blacks have been fleeing the city at an even higher rate, which raises the question about whether they prefer to live in a progressive city).
Now, let's turn to the metro area as a whole. It has also shown strong growth, including major gains by minorities in the suburbs, which were once the exclusive enclave of whites. In some cases (notably Gwinnett), whites seem content to live as simply one more minority. If there's any talk of "new city" movements in Gwinnett I haven't heard it.
Still, there's no question that we can draw some broad conclusions about suburban whites tending to move away when there are large minority populations. We've seen that in both Fulton and DeKalb.
However, that's the opposite of what we are seeing in more progressive areas like the city proper.
The point is that the dynamics are far more complex than simply saying that "whites are only open to progressiveness in a majority white atmosphere." The facts simply don't support that.
You're conflating the city with the overall region, Roslyn.
In the city of Atlanta proper -- clearly the most progressive area in this region -- the white population has been growing at at one of the fastest rates in the country. Progressive whites seem eager to live there, even though they are a minority.
(Blacks have been fleeing the city at an even higher rate, which raises the question about whether they prefer to live in a progressive city).
Now, let's turn to the metro area as a whole. It has also shown strong growth, including major gains by minorities in the suburbs, which were once the exclusive enclave of whites. In some cases (notably Gwinnett), whites seem content to live as simply one more minority. If there's any talk of "new city" movements in Gwinnett I haven't heard it.
Still, there's no question that we can draw some broad conclusions about suburban whites tending to move away when there are large minority populations. We've seen that in both Fulton and DeKalb.
However, that's the opposite of what we are seeing in more progressive areas like the city proper.
The point is that the dynamics are far more complex than simply saying that "whites are only open to progressiveness in a majority white atmosphere." The facts simply don't support that.
Arjay, you are making the whites in Atlanta sound like they are all similar politically to liberals in San Francisco and Seattle. However, one reality is that the majority of the affluent whites of Buckhead have chosen to send their kids to private schools instead of sending them to North Atlanta High School which is a majority black school. If they are the "progressives" you claim, wouldn't they be eager to have their kids in the same classrooms with blacks from south Atlanta, instead of sheltered at Lovett which costs over $20K per year to attend? A writer at the Atlanta Business Chronicle wrote 20 years ago that Atlanta Public Schools would be better if the welathy whites chose to support them with their feet. Recently, the firing of North Atlanta's principal had racial overtones with the white students supporting him in the newspaper picture.
If you haven't noticed, there were a lot of Republican campaign signs on West Paces Ferry this election season. Just because these whites pay more in property taxes doesn't mean that they are enthusiastic about it. What choice do they have when they are a political minority in the City of Altanta? Remember, Hunter Hill, a Republican represents this area in the GA State Senate and Phil Gingrey, a conservative Republican, in Congress.
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.
