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.
Then where are all the black people in Seattle and Portland and Minneapolis, Denver... It isn't because it is large. It's b/c Chicago has stronger black roots. Arguably more part of Chicago's history than they are in Houston.
How are you defining "stronger"? You know nothing about Houston to suggest that it doesn't have strong black roots, which date all the way back to slavery.
You all keep pointing out that northern blacks have their roots in the south. Well, Houston is one of those southern cities. This is one of the cities where southern foods and things like the blues, ragtime, jazz, and gospel spent their early days. Due to the prosperity, Chicago has been a more popular city for blacks over the past 50 years, but Houston's cultural roots go deeper.
As OC pretty much pointed out, Chicago's black population is physically larger, but they're about the same percentage wise.
The rib tips are ok. Ribs are decent as well. But BBQ is simply not one of Chicago strong suits. I'll say that Chicago has great soul food though. But what city with large Black populations doesn't. Chicago black population is about 500k more which is decreasing as Houston's black population is exploding.
New York...for some reason. People also keep telling me that soul food in DC isn't that good.
The rib tips are ok. Ribs are decent as well. But BBQ is simply not one of Chicago strong suits. I'll say that Chicago has great soul food though. But what city with large Black populations doesn't. Chicago black population is about 500k more which is decreasing as Houston's black population is exploding.
Chicago's soul food isn't anything special, IMO. I'm not sure about Houston, but the soul food in Atlanta is much better than Chicago's.
How are you defining "stronger"? You know nothing about Houston to suggest that it doesn't have strong black roots, which date all the way back to slavery.
You all keep pointing out that northern blacks have their roots in the south. Well, Houston is one of those southern cities. This is one of the cities where southern foods and things like the blues, ragtime, jazz, and gospel spent their early days. Due to the prosperity, Chicago has been a more popular city for blacks over the past 50 years, but Houston's cultural roots go deeper.
As OC pretty much pointed out, Chicago's black population is physically larger, but they're about the same percentage wise.
No, that is where you are wrong. Where is Houston Jazz and Blues history then, is it stronger than chicago if purpotedly had roots there? That was happening in New Orleans and Memphis when they were bigger than Houston itself and had already migrated up to Chicago. Chicago's black population has been physically larger and more part of the city there for a century.
Blacks were doing their thing in Chicago back in the 1920s with Jazz, along with New York, what the heck was going on in Black Culture in Houston at that point? There was almost a mirror literary Harlem Renaissance in Chicago in 20s-40s, what was going in Houston?
Black Metropolis was written in the 1940s, about black culture in Chicago in the 1930s, what was going on in Houston then in terms of black culture?
Since the 1900, there have only been 4 black U.S. senators, 3 of them including Obama are from Chicago.
The northern cities accepted blacks for jobs and their culture when southern cities like Houston wouldn't even hire them much less give them any form of education into the mid 60s and 70s, segregation, jim crow laws, etc.
Are you seriously saying Houston's black culture has been more prosperous and eventful than Chicago's? Or that it is just more historic and they have been there longer...We are still talking about Houston...in Texas...right? Yeah there were black folks there, just as there were in every city in the south, but what was actually coming out of there? Were they thriving?What were they producing in significance?
Chicago has not been a more popular city for blacks over the past 50 years, try over 100 years, but of that, the past 30 years they have been leaving in a reverse migration.
No, that is where you are wrong. Where is Houston Jazz and Blues history then, is it stronger than chicago if purpotedly had roots there? That was happening in New Orleans and Memphis when they were bigger than Houston itself and had already migrated up to Chicago. Chicago's black population has been physically larger and more part of the city there for a century.
Blacks were doing their thing in Chicago back in the 1920s with Jazz, along with New York, what the heck was going on in Black Culture in Houston at that point? There was almost a mirror literary Harlem Renaissance in Chicago in 20s-40s, what was going in Houston? The northern cities accepted blacks for jobs and their culture when southern cities like Houston wouldn't even hire them much less give them any form of education into the mid 60s and 70s, segregation, jim crow laws, etc.
Chicago has not been a more popular city for blacks over the past 50 years, try over 100 years, but of that, the past 30 years they have been leaving in a reverse migration.
Everything you're saying here only proves that Chicago was a more popular and more prosperous city for blacks; not that its roots were any stronger or deeper. I don't think you truly understand what "roots" mean.
I never said Texas was the focal point for southern black culture, but that doesn't mean there wasn't plenty of it to be found here. Jazz started in New Orleans, but ragtime and boogie woogie started in Texas. The blues were heard along the Gulf Coast and eastern Texas before they even made their way up to Memphis and Chicago. I suggest you discover the history of that.
Northern cities' claim to fame, in this area, is black culture that they got FROM the south. Chicago's black community wouldn't be what it is without the southern blacks moving there in the first place.
...But now that there's already been one or two people that have also claimed Chicago's southern food and/or barbecue is nothing to get excited about, I think we can move on and get back on topic. It's pretty much a moot point.
Everything you're saying here only proves that Chicago was a more popular and more prosperous city for blacks; not that its roots were any stronger or deeper. I don't think you truly understand what "roots" mean.
I never said Texas was the focal point for southern black culture, but that doesn't mean there wasn't plenty of it to be found here. Jazz started in New Orleans, but ragtime and boogie woogie started in Texas. The blues were heard along the Gulf Coast and eastern Texas before they even made their way up to Memphis and Chicago. I suggest you discover the history of that.
Northern cities' claim to fame, in this area, is black culture that they got FROM the south. Chicago's black community wouldn't be what it is without the southern blacks moving there in the first place.
And why did they move there... oh yeah, massive oppression across the entire region. Houston also has a rich history of slavery if you want to talk about roots. Chicago was definitely a more popular and prosperous for black's. In the 1950s Chicago had over 800k black people already in the city limits, larger than Houston's entire population. You can have the roots. I know the history, and Houston was definitely not a focal point for black culture up until recently, you had to pass a law in the late 70s just to get a black person on city council.
Taking it to its logical conclusion, doesn't that mean that most food sucks everywhere since most food is some variation of a 'transplanted cuisine'?
That means the only good food is the stuff you can pull out of the ground as it naturally is. I've always wanted to be on a diet of seeds and berries.
Exactly, that is why I mentioned "roots" as slavery too, depends on how far you want to go back. Good cuisine is good cuisine. Chicago is not a BBQ and soul food wasteland like other northern cities indeed are, but it had to go through all kinds of historical evidence just to fathom it.
Taking it to its logical conclusion, doesn't that mean that most food sucks everywhere since most food is some variation of a 'transplanted cuisine'?
That means the only good food is the stuff you can pull out of the ground as it naturally is. I've always wanted to be on a diet of seeds and berries.
I didn't say transplanted foods. I said transplanted cuisine. People will tell you that Italian food in New York isn't as good as actually being in Italy. Louisiana Creole food in Houston isn't as good as in New Orleans, and, as some here have agreed, southern food and most barbecue won't be as good in Chicago as it is down south.
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.
oh yeah, massive oppression across the entire region. Houston also has a rich history of slavery if you want to talk about roots. Chicago was definitely a more popular and prosperous for black's. In the 1950s Chicago had over 800k black people already in the city limits, larger than Houston's entire population. You can have the roots. I know the history, and Houston was definitely not a focal point for black culture up until recently, you had to pass a law in the late 70s just to get a black person on city council.
