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.
I believe I had that when I said:
"Yes, that was racism, pure and simple. People have differences, and when one or both groups of people are unwilling to accept those differences and adhere to the doctrine that "all men are created equal", then anger, riots, and anarchy is the result."
But, you go on with your bad self, not acknowledging the fact that somebody is listening and trying to make sense of things. And, be sure to continue to paint everybody with a broad brush too, because that will really take you places. I was an eight year old kid in 1967.
I never owned slaves, like the 3,000 Black men in Virginia who owned other Black men circa 1750. There's more to the picture than meets the eye. I wasn't there in Africa when Black tribal leaders conquered and sold most of the slaves that came out Africa. I wasn't there in 1750, and I wasn't there in 1967. Think about it. I can see that you have an angry agenda.
The cards have been dealt ... Are you gonna check, raise, or fold up shop???
The Whites left Detroit 50 years ago ...
Your move ...
And TODAY whites are leaving suburbs like Redford, Warren, Center Line, Harper Woods, St. Clair Shores, and Eastpointe, just like they left Detroit, because black people are moving in. They are even leaving well-off communities like Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield - largely because of black folk IMO.
So things haven't changed, just the municipal boundaries.
It started just after the 1943 riots, but did not get into full swing until the GIs returned and the builders started mass producing cheap homes for them to buy with GI bill money. Neither prejudice nor the riots were the reason for moving out for some and not the only reason for others. People got home and found the cities crowded dirty and expensive (not to mention dangerous). They found they suddenly could afford a home out in the "country" With a cute little yard and a fence and garage for less moeny than a place int the city. People always try to pin things onto a single issue in order to support their argument, cause or worldview, when it is never a single issue. Maybe whites left the City because they could get a nicer, cleaner place of their own out in the countryside and still buzz into work in less than an hour rather than paying more to rent (or buy) in the city and get a tiny lot if any, possibly no parking or parking problems, crowds, bad smells, bad air, higher crime. . . . staying in the cities seemed foolish at the time. Yes there were some people who cared about getting away from Black people but it was not the prevailing reason as is often touted. It was cheaper and better housing.
I think what he was getting at is that blacks wanted the same thing. Blacks would have loved to moved out to the suburbs too....but things were different. How the GI Bill Left Out African Americans | Demos
Quote:
Some suburbs yes they were clearly unwelcome, other suburbs were built specifically for blacks. Other suburbs were shared (but segregated). No question at the time people thought the races should stay separated. Even in the military, they were often segregated. However they also stayed int he City because they wanted to be with other blacks. Welcome or not, no one wants to go be the only people of your race in your community. This is true of pretty much every ethnicity, which is why ethnic people cluster instead of assimilating and mixing in. The USA has nbever been a true melting pot, but a jigsaw puzzle of enclaves of people of various ethnicities and/or religions.
Blacks wanted to be around blacks because that is where they would not be harassed for being black. They wanted bigger yards, garages, etc too. Also keep in mind that blacks were integrating majority white Detroit. That shows a propensity to live around people not of their same race. Blacks would have moved to the suburbs in much greater numbers.....if not for barriers.
Quote:
You are correct I think. Whites struck first by creating suburbs that specifically or implicitly excluded blacks. Blacks built their own enclave and wanted whites excluded in the same manner. Like many suburbs never said Blacks could not live there, they still made it clear they were not welcome. Likewise Mayor young made it clear to white the were not welcome in the "Motherland" Now we seem to be inching past all that crap on both sides, slowly, but making some progress, but then people keep popping up who want to bring back the old standoff. One day, people will stop living in the past and start building a new world. Even Metro Detroit will be part of that. But it will take a long time. We need to change out some generations first and we need to get over past issues and look forward instead. Then it will happen. I wish it would happen in my lifetime, but I doubt it will.
That is really not true. That is an attempt to draw a moral equivalence to suggest that blacks were just as racist as whites. Keep in mind that the only issue that blacks had with whites was rooted in they way white society treated blacks. Blacks resented that. White racism, on the other hand, viewed blacks as lazy, criminal, irresponsible, less intelligent, etc. It was an attack on the nature of being black and they did not want to live next to such people. That is different from becoming insular because others reject you so you in turn seek to affirm yourself. They would have never came up with slogans like "black is beautiful" if society was not making black seem ugly. Hyper Black unity was a direct consequence of racism. It was a means of protection, physically and psychologically.
Quote:
Something I do not know, maybe someone does. Were suburbs built for black people (like Inskter) awful places form the get go? Were they built awful, or did they become awful later? If they were nice and became awful, what was the reason? (Money? Lack of Support? Corruption? Ennui?)
Anything built new is going to look nice initially. However, if society is not addressing underlying social ills, new buildings and dwellings will soon reflect it.
And TODAY whites are leaving suburbs like Redford, Warren, Center Line, Harper Woods, St. Clair Shores, and Eastpointe, just like they left Detroit, because black people are moving in. They are even leaving well-off communities like Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield - largely because of black folk IMO.
So things haven't changed, just the municipal boundaries.
Your move, sir.
You first see it in the schools. Once a school district starts to get too black or a particular school, you will then note a rapid drop off in white students in less than a decade. The residential demographic then starts to shift.
Look at the graph of the demographic change of the student body at Harper Woods High Shcool
[quote=Indentured Servant;50019286]While the GI bill was not the only way to buy a house, it was the ticket for a lot of people. Still others were buying houses without GI bill money. They wanted nicer houses in a nicer place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
Blacks wanted to be around blacks because that is where they would not be harassed for being black. They wanted bigger yards, garages, etc too. Also keep in mind that blacks were integrating majority white Detroit. That shows a propensity to live around people not of their same race. Blacks would have moved to the suburbs in much greater numbers.....if not for barriers.
Only partly true. Blacks wanted to be around black because it is human nature not to integrate. All humans, not just Black not just Whites or Hispanics or whatever. If you would like to read a dozen studies or more that have shown this I can ask my daughter for citations.
Blacks were not "integrating majority white Detroit." Detroit was already segregated. It was never integrated. Not Black/White, Not Polish/Irish, not integrated. The explosion out to the burbs merely expanded the scope of the segregated communities. As mentioned there were also Black Suburbs created during this time. It is not as if there were no options. There were segregated suburbs and blacks did fill them. I do not know if the flocked to them in massive numbers like the white suburbs, or filled up slowly, but they were there and they were filled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
That is really not true. That is an attempt to draw a moral equivalence to suggest that blacks were just as racist as whites.
They are. Blacks are not superior to whites and whites are not superior to Blacks in any way, there are no special personality traits that are unique to one group or the other. Many Blacks are extremely prejudiced just as many whites are. Many Blacks fight their inherent prejudices and therefore can be said the be less or non-prejudiced and many whites are the same way. Everyone is inherently prejudiced. . Blacks are just as racist as whites and always have been, however they are rarely in a position of superior power that allows them to transform racism into action/oppression.
You do realize that what you are trying to say here is that all blacks are simply better people than any whites because blacks are not racist and whites are. This very statement is racist. Even just the last clause (whites are racist, blacks are not) is both an absurd generalization and a racists statement.
The fact is we are all racist/prejudiced. Every one of use. Those who recognize that and work to overcome it will do better as being seen as non-racist. Most people will try to overcome their inherent racism with varying degrees of success. Some embrace it (both White and Black and every ther race or ethnicity).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
Anything built new is going to look nice initially. However, if society is not addressing underlying social ills, new buildings and dwellings will soon reflect it.
Not necessarily. The projects they recently tore down never were nice. They were built to be slums. There is no scenario where those woudl be a nice place to live. Inkster could have been built as a slum and they just said "Here you go Black people here is a place of really crummy homes, neighborhoods, retail districts for you to live in." Or maybe places like Inkster were originally as nice as Livonia was. I do not know. I am not asking about reasons or arguments people want to make, Just looking for facts. Were the suburbs built to be Black Suburbs nice at first and then got crummy, or were they built crummy and stayed crummy. No need to analyze the reasons until we know the facts.
Other than Inkster, I am not sure which suburbs were built specifically for Black people, I remember reading there were two others, just not sure what they are. Inkster I remember because I was informed that Henry Ford let his inner nazi out a little bit when naming the City and thought it was funny to name a City designed for black people "Inkster"
Not many people have left my Farmington Hills neighborhood. It is a large one. Those who have, left the city due to work in another country (they're ex-pats) or seniors who can no longer stay in their homes. We have an increasing number of young families moving in. I have heard some talk from families who are worried about declining national scores in the schools. Knowing these people, I am doubtful that there is a racist component to their concern. The AA parents here are understandably concerned about the school quality, and declining scores, too. School staff and parents are working hard to remedy the situation, and there have been many improvements within the district in terms of innovation and renovation. Time will tell if this results in higher test scores.
While the GI bill was not the only way to buy a house, it was the ticket for a lot of people. Still others were buying houses without GI bill money. They wanted nicer houses in a nicer place.
All I am pointing out is that society made things more difficult for blacks...that is why there is socioeconomic inequality and geographic inequality (segregated communities). At each step I only seek to explain the origins and evolution of the socioeconomic and geographic displacement between blacks and whites.
Quote:
Only partly true. Blacks wanted to be around black because it is human nature not to integrate. All humans, not just Black not just Whites or Hispanics or whatever. If you would like to read a dozen studies or more that have shown this I can ask my daughter for citations.
Here is the thing. Race is not a biological construct. We have no biological need to naturally be around blacks any more than there is a biological need for blondes to want to live around blondes or blue eyed people only wanting to live around blue eyed people.
Quote:
Blacks were not "integrating majority white Detroit." Detroit was already segregated. It was never integrated. Not Black/White, Not Polish/Irish, not integrated. The explosion out to the burbs merely expanded the scope of the segregated communities. As mentioned there were also Black Suburbs created during this time. It is not as if there were no options. There were segregated suburbs and blacks did fill them. I do not know if the flocked to them in massive numbers like the white suburbs, or filled up slowly, but they were there and they were filled.
Detroit was once over 90% white. Whites did not, all at once, move from every Detroit neighborhood except the lower east side (black bottom), then blacks moved into all the vacant homes. Rather, Neighborhoods transitioned from majority white to majority black by first passing through a brief period of integration. It was blacks moving into these previously all white neighborhoods and whites gradually moving out. This should be common sense.
Quote:
They are. Blacks are not superior to whites and whites are not superior to Blacks in any way, there are no special personality traits that are unique to one group or the other. Many Blacks are extremely prejudiced just as many whites are. Many Blacks fight their inherent prejudices and therefore can be said the be less or non-prejudiced and many whites are the same way. Everyone is inherently prejudiced. . Blacks are just as racist as whites and always have been, however they are rarely in a position of superior power that allows them to transform racism into action/oppression.
Yes, neither group is superior or inferior.....so there is absolutely no reason there should be such discrepancies in crime, rates of poverty, unemployment, etc, etc. I mean, how can people so inherently equal be so socioeconomically unequal unless they were treated unequally by society? Now, based upon your theory that we are no different, then explain why we are so different socioeconomically without referring that blacks are somehow inferior.
Quote:
You do realize that what you are trying to say here is that all blacks are simply better people than any whites because blacks are not racist and whites are. This very statement is racist. Even just the last clause (whites are racist, blacks are not) is both an absurd generalization and a racists statement.
No. What I am saying is that blacks problem with whites is firmly rooted in being mistreated by whites in this country. White racism, on the other hand, is predicated upon the belief in black inferiority. That somehow our race makes us more irresponsible, more violent, less intelligent, less hard working, etc. We may all be and have prejudice, but blacks have never done in America to whites what whites in America have done to blacks and what was done to black is the root of blacks feelings about whites in general...which you interpret as racism. They are not morally equivalent.
Quote:
The fact is we are all racist/prejudiced. Every one of use. Those who recognize that and work to overcome it will do better as being seen as non-racist. Most people will try to overcome their inherent racism with varying degrees of success. Some embrace it (both White and Black and every ther race or ethnicity).
Look at the first usage. That does not describe how I see things. I honestly do not, consciously, believe that race determines and influences outcomes innate. No....I do not believe that blacks naturally run faster and jump higher than whites because of genetics. I do not believe that white IQ scores are higher because of genetics, etc. Believing such things comports to the definition of racism. Now, do I prejudge people....of course. Do I prejudge sometimes based upon race? Of course. I may associate certain behavior and characteristics with whites, but I do not think that it is genetic. Its not being "white" that creates the behavior.
Quote:
Not necessarily. The projects they recently tore down never were nice. They were built to be slums. There is no scenario where those woudl be a nice place to live. Inkster could have been built as a slum and they just said "Here you go Black people here is a place of really crummy homes, neighborhoods, retail districts for you to live in." Or maybe places like Inkster were originally as nice as Livonia was. I do not know. I am not asking about reasons or arguments people want to make, Just looking for facts. Were the suburbs built to be Black Suburbs nice at first and then got crummy, or were they built crummy and stayed crummy. No need to analyze the reasons until we know the facts.
It was nice relative to shotgun shanty houses in the South where many blacks were migrating from.
Quote:
Other than Inkster, I am not sure which suburbs were built specifically for Black people, I remember reading there were two others, just not sure what they are. Inkster I remember because I was informed that Henry Ford let his inner nazi out a little bit when naming the City and thought it was funny to name a City designed for black people "Inkster"
You have to keep in mind that suburbs built for black people were not built by black people. They were built, in the case of Inkster, as housing for blacks working at the Dearborn Ford factory....because whites did not want blacks living among them in Dearborn and Ford needed the labor.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 11-03-2017 at 01:11 PM..
Not many people have left my Farmington Hills neighborhood. It is a large one. Those who have, left the city due to work in another country (they're ex-pats) or seniors who can no longer stay in their homes. We have an increasing number of young families moving in. I have heard some talk from families who are worried about declining national scores in the schools. Knowing these people, I am doubtful that there is a racist component to their concern. The AA parents here are understandably concerned about the school quality, and declining scores, too. School staff and parents are working hard to remedy the situation, and there have been many improvements within the district in terms of innovation and renovation. Time will tell if this results in higher test scores.
That is the Phony Baloney to me. If your child is a strait A student....why do you need to move because the distract as a whole has declining test scores? Granted, property values may fall if new potential residents, of good income, become less interested in the district because of the lower test scores, but what creates the self fulfilling prophecy is MOVING and everyone trying to get out because of those fears, dropping property values and enabling less well to do people to move in and their kids might not score as well on test, with further lowers test scores and makes the community less desirable resulting in decrease property values. Its all a self fulfilling prophecy.
So you're calling me a phony baloney liar? Resorting to name-calling? My neighbors are all phony liars, too? You have absolutely no idea who you are communicating with!
I said that people AREN'T moving; everyone ISN'T trying to get out. Housing values are great! As you, yourself mentioned, families, including my AA neighbors, are concerned about the future of the district because of declining test scores. We are all hopeful that the situation will improve, and I am quite confident, given the efforts being put forth so far, that it will.
So you're calling me a phony baloney liar? Resorting to name-calling? My neighbors are all phony liars, too? You have absolutely no idea who you are communicating with!
I said that people AREN'T moving; everyone ISN'T trying to get out. Housing values are great! As you, yourself mentioned, families, including my AA neighbors, are concerned about the future of the district because of declining test scores. We are all hopeful that the situation will improve, and I am quite confident, given the efforts being put forth so far, that it will.
Sorry. I was saying that in general. We all know the most important component for a kid education is the home. Hence, if the home is solid and your kids are 3.5 GPA or higher, they are on the track for success. Therefore, why be worried about declining test scores of the district in the sense of worrying whether one should move out the district? That makes no sense to me but it something that I hear a lot. When people start to move from worries and fears of future decline, it creates a self fulfilling prophecy.
That is the Phony Baloney to me. If your child is a strait A student....why do you need to move because the distract as a whole has declining test scores? Granted, property values may fall if new potential residents, of good income, become less interested in the district because of the lower test scores, but what creates the self fulfilling prophecy is MOVING and everyone trying to get out because of those fears, dropping property values and enabling less well to do people to move in and their kids might not score as well on test, with further lowers test scores and makes the community less desirable resulting in decrease property values. Its all a self fulfilling prophecy.
If test scores drop then the schools are considered not as good. People want their kids to go to the best possible schools. Not the whitest, the best. I now disagree with evaluating schools by test scores or rankings.
Often when test scores drop in an area, the area sees a concurrent increase in crime.that can be caused by lots of things: more kids dropping out of school, or having nothing to to post graduation, parents who are not taking the time to raise good kids, changes in the economy, police or other services budget cuts, the city is just getting old and the demographics are changing because the used homes are less desirable to many people. This may or may not coincide with more black families moving into an area. However regardless of the cause of test scores falling and crime increasing, running form lower test scores and higher crime is not racism. For 99% of families, the most important things are: 1. Protect their family. 2. Give their children the best opportunities in life they can manage.
My relatives who would like to leave West Bloomfield have no concern about black moving in, Their concern is over-development, increased traffic, increased crime, decrease in the recognized quality of schools. I doubt they even know whether more blacks are moving into West Bloomfield or not. however if Blacks are moving in and then see them leave, they say "See, those crackers are leaving because we moved here." When the reality is they do not even know the black family has moved there, they just want to get out for other reasons that have been building up for years.
For many years the trendies have been moving out further and further in ever growing clouds of locusts looking for the next cute rural town to ruin. They are not running form Blacks, they are trying to find a place that is like what their town was like before they moved there in droves and ruined it. They want to go live nt eh quint town, but when they get there, they want Starrbucks, and wall-mart and coldstone and Imagine and pretty soon they look around and say this is not quaint anymore, I want to go live in that quaint town over there- and the horde spreads once more. I could be spun to look like they are running away form something when the reality is they are chasing something and in chasing it, they destroy it, then they want to chase it elsewhere. Black families escaping Detroit often happen to be moving into the next ring out just as the locusts move on to their next target, but correlation is not causation.
I am not saying no one moves due to prejudice, some certainly do, I am saying the movement that is often touted as racists movement, really isn't, or is only a minor part of hordes of people moving.
I am not agreeing with people's reasons for moving (I prefer older homes to newer ones, I disagree with the methods for ranking schools and the importance placed on school rankings. I would much prefer to live in Detroit than in Novi), I am just observing that the movement is not always racism driven, and in my experience it is usually nothing to do with racism.
However having observed how the movement often correlates with movement of more Black people into an area, I can understand how someone could become entrenched in the belief that most whites are making their life decisions based on what Black people do. I simply do not believe that is the case and I see no evidence that it is.
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.
