Why is the Chicago "Blaccent" More Southern than Boston/NYC/Philly's? (Manhattan: university, restaurant)

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by MichiVegas

If you go to the "Crooklyn" of 2014 you are as likely to see coco bread, Haitian storefront churches, ital restaurants, and the like as you are to see stereotypical African American attributes. The West Indian presence is very obvious, and dominates the biggest black neighborhoods in Brooklyn.

Actually, Brooklyn's two largest black neighborhoods--Bedford-Stuyvesant and Brownsville/East New York--are not dominated by West Indians. Fort Greene and Clinton Hill--while rapidly becoming whiter--are still largely regular Black American. Crown Heights, Flatbush and Canarsie are where the West Indian presence is most strongly felt. West Indians are a large presence here, but they are still a minority according to the latest Census.

And again, this has nothing to do with cities that did not have large West Indian populations. West Indians can't explain why Black Philadelphians talk the way they do.

[DAS]

I'll just add that my sister in laws parents were born in NYC from Jamaican and Barbados immigrant parents. My sister in law and her siblings consider themselves AA . They are the 3rd generation here and my nephews are the 4th. They don't know if they have any relative left there. It's just like that after a few generations.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by DAS

Its nothing wrong with disagreeing. Your first paragraph the statement that DC area Blacks come from Virginia and North Carolina does prove true because you are stating that your research source shows that most came from the south.

No. You are conflating two different things.

The first proposition was that the majority of blacks in the DC area came from Southern Virginia and/or North Carolina rather than South Carolina. I said that that didn't make any sense because of South Carolina's considerably larger black population before the Great Migration (only GA, AL, and LA had larger ones) as well as the corresponding decline in its black population. In other words, if the state had more blacks than the other states to begin with, and then lost its blacks at a much higher rate, then it's hard to believe that blacks from SC simply bypassed the DC area. When I ran the numbers, it turned out that blacks from SC outnumbered those from NC and VA. So the data proved the people wrong who were convinced they knew the answer "in their gut."

The second proposition was similar. People had a "feeling" based on their experiences in Thai food restaurants, Whole Foods and Starbucks that the majority of the people moving to the DC area were from the Northeast. Sooo...I just pulled up the Census data from 1970-2010 and destroyed that myth as well.

This all goes to show that anecdote, personal experiences, and "gut feeling" are no substitute for cold, hard and objective data.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by treemoni

I'm talking about institutionalized racism, and I don't expect you to understand.

Relevant to the topic, I could certainly see a valid argument that Chicago has some structural racism more ingrained and institutionalized than NYC's. What are the opportunities you feel are being denied to black Chicagoans that immigrants and non-English speakers receive?

There have been black Chicagoans serving as elected representatives in City, County and State government on all levels for a half-century, at minimum. I don't necessarily disagree with you in spirit, but you don't seem to recognize that long ago your community took over ownership of the means to fix the problems.

[treemoni]

I am not doing this with you, today or any day.

[DAS]

^Reread your paragrah it states South not SC so I was responding from that. It is good to use cold hard facts, however when it comes to data on Black people I'm always suspicious when it is presented as cold hard facts and the facts are from a source trying to tell Black people's story. I think we need to communicate and tell our own stories.

The data you are stating I believe it is true about DC because I have friends that relocated there in the past decade and they have told me that based on their observations.

It's just like on NYC forum when everyone thinks all White people moving to Harlem are gentrifiers. How can that be when they are mostly young, have lousy jobs, live 6 in a 2 bedroom apt and they are not related, and have to go to Landlord Tenant Court on a frequent basis. I'm living there and see it. I don't need statistics that will probably make things look better than they really are.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by treemoni

I am not doing this with you, today or any day.

A little late to pretend you're taking the high road.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by DAS

^Reread your paragrah it states South not SC so I was responding from that.

You misread it.

Proposition 1: More blacks in the DC area came from VA than SC. That's false.

Proposition 2: Most people (that includes non-black people too) migrating to the DC area come from the Northeast. That's false.

Do you see the distinction? The plurality of blacks in the DC area came from South Carolina (SC, NC and VA in that order). Most people moving to the DC area are coming from the South. On a standardized test, it would be important to see the difference between these two statements, right?

Originally Posted by DAS

It is good to use cold hard facts, however when it comes to data on Black people I'm always suspicious when it is presented as cold hard facts and the facts are from a source trying to tell Black people's story. I think we need to communicate and tell our own stories.

The source is the U.S. Census Bureau. It's job is not to "tell Black people's story." It's job is to collect demographic data.

Originally Posted by DAS

The data you are stating I believe it is true about DC because I have friends that relocated there in the past decade and they have told me that based on their observations.

Well, my point is that our personal observations can sometimes be at odds with reality. That's why it's better to rely on data rather than simply making statements based on your own personal experiences, which obviously can't account for the experiences of millions of other people.

[treemoni]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

A little late to pretend you're taking the high road.

It's not the high road, it's avoiding a useless conversation. You are only looking to argue, and I'm not here to convince you of anything.

[DAS]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

You misread it.

Proposition 1: More blacks in the DC area came from VA than SC. That's false.

Proposition 2: Most people (that includes non-black people too) migrating to the DC area come from the Northeast. That's false.

Do you see the distinction? The plurality of blacks in the DC area came from South Carolina (SC, NC and VA in that order). Most people moving to the DC area are coming from the South. On a standardized test, it would be important to see the difference between these two statements, right?



The source is the U.S. Census Bureau. It's job is not to "tell Black people's story." It's job is to collect demographic data.



Well, my point is that our personal observations can sometimes be at odds with reality. That's why it's better to rely on data rather than simply making statements based on your own personal experiences, which obviously can't account for the experiences of millions of other people.

I agree totally with your first proposition, does it matter how I agree with it?

I agree with your points but I'm still suspicious because data can be used to manipulate the reasons for the outcomes.

How do you know most people move because of family? How is this proven? The south is not sympathic to their poor and offer very little services for them. Most people that relocate there from NYC are retirees, or professionals that don't require help from family.