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.
So a city can't be a city without non-whites? Effectively, you're saying that whites can't form a city? What kind of thinking is this?
You took it way out of context. New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, and DC are some of the most noted cities in America. They have a very wealthy, educated white crowd in these cities. I should of been more clear, but how much "city life" can be found in Des Moines or Salt Lake City without it being very suburban in character in the vast majority of these cities. I was just putting it out there that predominately white cities prefer the suburban quality they have than the "City quality"- Whether the vast majority of these predominately white cities are well educated or not can't come close to the margin of educated white people in NYC, SF, and Boston.
You took it way out of context. New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, and DC are some of the most noted cities in America. They have a very wealthy, educated white crowd in these cities. I should of been more clear, but how much "city life" can be found in Des Moines or Salt Lake City without it being very suburban in character in the vast majority of these cities. I was just putting it out there that predominately white cities prefer the suburban quality they have than the "City quality"- Whether the vast majority of these predominately white cities are well educated or not can't come close to the margin of educated white people in NYC, SF, and Boston.
All of those cities, except DC, were over ninety five percent white one hundred years ago, many less than fifty years ago, and the same dense areas, a product of development being built for walking, carriages, and street cars, were in existence at the time. Des Moines and Salt Lake City have experienced most of their growth since World War II, and hence they're going to be more suburban in nature.
The reason NYC, SF, and Boston are so educated is because they correlate to a higher cost of living, which generally can only be supported by some type of education or training that enables one to obtain employment that pays well.
That said, most of the very high cost of living areas within these respective cities are not in the "non-white" or "diverse" sections of the city, rather they are in the mostly white sections of the city. The super high salaries, garnered through education, enables them to live sealed off from many lower educated non-whites, and it is enough to offset the lower salaries of other groups to produce a high cost of living/high income figure for the city. Lower-income whites in such cities have few options, so desiring to live amongst their own group, just as all groups do, they seek residence elsewhere. This inflates the educated percentage of the white populace for the city, as, on average, lower-income whites are less educated, and being "forced out", they're not in the statistics.
I once was asked by a professor how to improve race relations. I told him frankly that differences between the races will always exist, and as a result, different groups will seek out their own group determination or destiny, and that they have a right to do so.
However, until that time, given current policies and the problems that would happen in such a transitionary state, the best we can hope for is to revert policies back to the past to the point where the least demographic change is enabled, by severely limiting immigration, or changing the components, thereof.
On a personal level, I argued that making whites out to be the victimizer and non-whites, namely blacks, the oppressed, it does nothing but breed animosity and contempt. Blacks and non-whites feel slighted and as if they've been victimized, while whites feel unfairly labeled and ostracized. It only breeds greater resent, but the ******* left-wing Marxist thought otherwise and dismissed the logic in my statement.
Why is Casey B editing beneficial content that backs up arguments?
Casey, I certainly hope that you are not a cultural Marxist of the Frankfurt School persuasion, but I'm afraid that you are. After all, silencing free speech is what they all too often do when they're afraid that someone may reveal some knowledge that may snap some liberal out of the brainwashing that has been foisted onto them.
Why would you remove the content by the Filipino man who made a great argument?
You took it way out of context. New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, and DC are some of the most noted cities in America. They have a very wealthy, educated white crowd in these cities. I should of been more clear, but how much "city life" can be found in Des Moines or Salt Lake City without it being very suburban in character in the vast majority of these cities. I was just putting it out there that predominately white cities prefer the suburban quality they have than the "City quality"- Whether the vast majority of these predominately white cities are well educated or not can't come close to the margin of educated white people in NYC, SF, and Boston.
All of those cities, except DC, were over ninety five percent white one hundred years ago, many less than fifty years ago, and the same dense areas, a product of development being built for walking, carriages, and street cars, were in existence at the time. Des Moines and Salt Lake City have experienced most of their growth since World War II, and hence they're going to be more suburban in nature.
The reason NYC, SF, and Boston are so educated is because they correlate to a higher cost of living, which generally can only be supported by some type of education or training that enables one to obtain employment that pays well.
That said, most of the very high cost of living areas within these respective cities are not in the "non-white" or "diverse" sections of the city, rather they are in the mostly white sections of the city. The super high salaries, garnered through education, enables them to live sealed off from many lower educated non-whites, and it is enough to offset the lower salaries of other groups to produce a high cost of living/high income figure for the city. Lower-income whites in such cities have few options, so desiring to live amongst their own group, just as all groups do, they seek residence elsewhere. This inflates the educated percentage of the white populace for the city, as, on average, lower-income whites are less educated, and being "forced out", they're not in the statistics.
And that's why I originally said that they are generally not found in "cities", but more so in a suburban environment (even if that may be a technical "city")
A lot of the white people working and thriving in Manhattan are most likely transplants from a suburb in America.
Most whites avoid living inside an actual city with an urban enviornment like a bad habit unless they are extremely wealthy or indifferent.
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.
