Would you agree that Detroit is a failed city? (Holly: real estate, crime)

[PosterExtraordinaire]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

when the factories folded so did detroit. 460 million of federal money attempted to put humpty dumpty back together again. did not work.

Detroit is not a failed city, it's just a different city. It's poorer and smaller.

I think for a lot of white folks, a majority black city is a failed city. You don't hear that garbage for all those podunk west virginian coal mining towns, or sleepy cities like Portland.

[SadieMirsade]

Originally Posted by PosterExtraordinaire

Detroit is not a failed city, it's just a different city. It's poorer and smaller.

I think for a lot of white folks, a majority black city is a failed city. You don't hear that garbage for all those podunk west virginian coal mining towns, or sleepy cities like Portland.

What a LAME ARGUMENT.

A lot of MidWestern Whites may be a bunch of racists,
but you've got amnesia.
Or you're blind, deaf, dumb?
Which is it?

I wouldn't wanna live next door to amnesia, either.
No wonder people fled, and don't plan to come back.

They don't want to be accused of being racist, every time they point out something wrong with Detroit.

No offence, but being rational goes along with being sane,
and a functional, well-adjusted citizen.
No wonder Detroit's a mess.
There's a whole bunch of people who think "Everything's just fine".
"If only them mean, vengeful Whites would stop spreading lies about our great city".

[PosterExtraordinaire]

Originally Posted by SadieMirsade

What a LAME ARGUMENT.

A lot of MidWestern Whites may be a bunch of racists,
but you've got amnesia.
Or you're blind, deaf, dumb?
Which is it?

I wouldn't wanna live next door to amnesia, either.
No wonder people fled, and don't plan to come back.

They don't want to be accused of being racist, every time they point out something wrong with Detroit.

No offence, but being rational goes along with being sane,
and a functional, well-adjusted citizen.
No wonder Detroit's a mess.
There's a whole bunch of people who think "Everything's just fine".
"If only them mean, vengeful Whites would stop spreading lies about our great city".

I'm calling it like I see it. Why does Detroit get all this attention? There are a ****load of drab ****ty white podunk towns out there. No one calls them failed. They just call them poor, maybe kinda rustic. But with Detroit it's failed, as soon as you step in you get shot.

Answer me this, when has one of you white angels out there get shot stepping into the city limit?

I don't give a **** who has fled. They can stay there. You see me saying come back? I got a cheap house outta it. I'm fine with it.

[Yac]

Everybody please calm down and actually try to help the op without fighting over it.
Yac.

[zthatzmanz28]

COmpare the past (1930s-1950s) with the 1960s, 1970s,1980s with the 1990s, 2000s and if one doesn't see a definate pattern that is easily identifiable (dosen't matter what word is used--decline, collapse, failure, etc) it is what it is. When whatever left, be it the people, business, industry--(though to be honest the industry has been gone for some time), there was no one willing and able to pick up the pieces. Then the city went xenophobic and isolated itself from the outside world. Those elected to guide the city took it into multiple icebergs and many Waterloos. Eventually the political structure assumed financial control and the fleecing of its citizens continue to this day.

[intelfan11315]

Originally Posted by PosterExtraordinaire

Detroit is not a failed city, it's just a different city. It's poorer and smaller.

I think for a lot of white folks, a majority black city is a failed city. You don't hear that garbage for all those podunk west virginian coal mining towns, or sleepy cities like Portland.

What I think is funny is a black person that can't formulate an argument or think critically, so the first thing they say is "racism". It must be really nice to always be able to use the word racism and not have to actually think about reasons.

Did it ever occur to you that white flight didn't happen because of so much racism... ? How is white flight racist? When a city is deteriorating and housing prices are becoming cheaper, the black people moved in. Things were cheaper, meaning people who were more poor were buying, in other words the crime rates began going up and the housing prices began to fall. The white people who were actually smart, got up and left and did something good for their family, it is not their fault the black people stayed. The black people could have just as easily left, but they chose to stay there.

The reason Detroit gets so much press is not because of racism, it is because Detroit was perhaps one of the most important cities of the United States and went to almost nothing. No city of that scale changed so much, and Portland is still a great city. How does Portland in any way compare to Detroit?

Call white flight all you want, and blame white people, but it doesn't get you anywhere. Just another lazy black person looking for an easy way out and an easy target to blame without actually having to work. I think it is pathetic when someone has to use the race card for every situation because they just cannot use their brain.

[Indentured Servant]

Hi Tom,

What I would tell you is that when Detroit proper was booming, that over half of the contiguous human settlement area of the region resided within the city limits. Indeed, in 1950, American human settlement areas were mostly urban and not suburban. Since the advent of superhighways, America became suburban, often at the cost of the urban core. Hence, I would make the argument that the concept of “City” is really passé. Metropolitan areas are now what “Cities” used to represent. Hence, today cities are akin to neighborhoods within a contiguous human settlement cluster.

In light of that, I don’t think Detroit is a failed city, but rather, an area that suffered from zero sum population shifts within the contiguous human settlement area. People shifted from one area to other areas creating gains and losses since the overall population of the area has been relatively stagnant. What Detroit “Used to be” still exists, but the borders have expanded beyond the 135 square miles of the city proper. Detroit today is a sort of microcosm of black America. Detroit is simply the black neighhborhood of the metropolitan human settlement area....like the old "black bottom" used to be. When Detroit was at its peak it was more a microcosm of white America, as the city was about 70% white.

If the City of Detroit were allowed to expand its borders to the degree that the city became 70% white again, you will find the incomes and investments that would not lead one to think that the city has failed. If, in 1950, you isolated the ”black bottom” (Where the majority of blacks were concentrated back then), and defined that area as “Detroit proper”, that city would then reflect the economic reality of blacks in 1950 America….an America where 60% of blacks were living in poverty. It would have been considered a failed city then as well as its hard to support a city, which is based upon tax revenues, from people living in poverty and the descendants of those who never got their 40 acres and a mule, after centuries of oppression.

The topic of your dissertation should be "Has America failed its black citizens", because the only cities that you will find that are considered failures are city that are majority black.....as evidenced by cities that have been taken over by emergency managers.

[MS313]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

But whn you put those facts into context, they don't really mean anything.

The reason Detroit is as big as it is right now is because of what it did right through the 1960s, not because of anything that's taken place since then. It's essentially just "hanging on" because of old status.

The fact that it has gone from the 5th largest city and metropolitan area to 18th largest (and 14th largest), while the other 3 cities (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia) it was comparable to are still up there, tells the real story.

But how I look at it is. A past is what makes a city what it is today. Chicago is at it's lowest population since a century ago, crime and gangs are out of control the only thing keeping Chicago out of the top 10 most dangerous cities is the Northside, corruption is terrible, school system sucks, 1/3 of the people in the city are illiterate, BUT Chicago is still the 3rd largest city and metro area, still is one of the most important cities, ect. But Chicago wouldn't be where it is now if all of that stuff mentioned above was happening 100 years ago, neither would Detroit, or Baltimore or St. Louis ect. So even if it is because of what Detroit was in the past. It's still here so I wouldn't call it "failed". A good example Gary, IN and Camden, NJ. Now those are cities that has lost everything but it's history. There is no status for them to "hang on" to. Their relevance is almost entirely absent. Their old status didn't save them. They have to create a new one. The only difference with Detroit is we don't have to literally start from scratch. We just have to build on to the statuses we already have. Yea of course are statuses have gotten pushed back some but the thing is we still have statuses TO beat. We just have to build on to those already existing ones (and maybe some new ones) to get back on top.

[intelfan11315]

Originally Posted by Indentured Servant

Hi Tom,



The topic of your dissertation should be "Has America failed its black citizens", because the only cities that you will find that are considered failures are city that are majority black.....as evidenced by cities that have been taken over by emergency managers.

Or you could go as far as to say "Have black people failed themselves?"

Instead of looking to blame to government, why don't they go and leave the city and find jobs themselves instead of turning to gangs and drug dealing or buying crack?

Oh wait, it is the government's fault they smoke crack isn't it?

What a flat out joke, instead of blaming the white man for the problems of blacks, why don't they just work and start looking at themselves.

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by burgler09

Or you could go as far as to say "Have black people failed themselves?"

Instead of looking to blame to government, why don't they go and leave the city and find jobs themselves instead of turning to gangs and drug dealing or buying crack?

Oh wait, it is the government's fault they smoke crack isn't it?

What a flat out joke, instead of blaming the white man for the problems of blacks, why don't they just work and start looking at themselves.

Let me pose this question. Why are veterans disproportionately homeless in America? Did America fail the Veterans or did the veterans fail themselves to the degree that a higher percentage of them are homeless than what is true for the non-veteran population? What role, if any, did existing in an environment of war, on the battlefield, contribute to the higher degree of homelessness, post-traumatic stress syndrome, and the like, to higher rates of poverty, homelessness and mental problems for veterans than what exist in the non-veteran population? Does the fact that some people went into combat and returned to become productive stable citizens invalidate that higher incidence of poverty and problems of veterans is not related to the experience of war?

All I am suggesting is that existing in the theater of symmetrical racism, prior to the civil rights gains, and asymmetrical racism post-civil rights, have exacted a toll on the condition of black America. I am not blaming the white man. All I am saying is that actions produce reactions……and if then the shoe fits then the truth should not acquit.

When you ask why don't people do certain things.....are you asking from the experience of walking in their shoes as one who overcame the conditions that individuals who do such things live under and with....or are you just an armchair quarterback with a beer and popcorn thinking that he could have or would have been able to make a better play if you were in their shoes...in the game? The assumption of superiority is the only way one could conclude such. Well....you don't know if you are superior or inferior if you never walked in their shoes.