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.
The media in Minneapolis is always hyping the expanding ethnic diversity of Minnesota. Maybe without meaning to the also denegrade the previous white Scandinavian and German influenced culture of the Twin Cities Metro Area. I see articles all the time in the newspaper and stories on the TV News telling us that Minnesota is now so ethnically diverse and how wonderful this is in comparison to the old days (15 years ago back) when the average Minnesotan was from Scandinavian or German backgrounds.
Was Minnesota actually that bad just a few years ago when it was 95% white? Has the ethnic diversity actually made things so much better?
(As a ethnic minority myself and a long term Minnesota resident, I have no strong opinion my self but wonder if we could discuss it without any racism or political correctness)
In my opinion, ethnic diversity is better. It makes us more well-rounded and gives us a chance to learn. If we choose to, that is. Increased diversity has seemed to make life more complicated for those who do not choose to embrace the change, though.
Minnesota was not "bad" before and the parts of the state that lacks ethnic diversity is still not "bad." But I still contend that diversity is better. This country started out at as a melting pot and I think sometimes people tend to forget that it was diversity upon which the US was founded.
- from an "average Minnesotan" of Scandinavian heritage
The media in Minneapolis is always hyping the expanding ethnic diversity of Minnesota. Maybe without meaning to the also denegrade the previous white Scandinavian and German influenced culture of the Twin Cities Metro Area. I see articles all the time in the newspaper and stories on the TV News telling us that Minnesota is now so ethnically diverse and how wonderful this is in comparison to the old days (15 years ago back) when the average Minnesotan was from Scandinavian or German backgrounds.
Was Minnesota actually that bad just a few years ago when it was 95% white? Has the ethnic diversity actually made things so much better?
(As a ethnic minority myself and a long term Minnesota resident, I have no strong opinion my self but wonder if we could discuss it without any racism or political correctness)
Ethnic tensions and economics tend to go one in one. Minnesota's story is of a state that never had a large minority population until later on and therefore dealt with problems that other states had been dealing with long before and crumbled under. I listened to a clip from MPR and starting in the 1980's blacks from the Rust Belt midwest were migrating to Minneapolis for more jobs and a better quality of life. Some were professionals. Many were workers in the blue collar sector. While many were there fore jobs, some were there for the relatively generous welfare benefits. Crime rates increased because gangs managed to make it in. While the gangs were only a minute part of the population, they caused quite a stir(remember Murderapolis?). Crime rates dropped considerably after welfare laws were changed and the benefits were more limited, but still more blacks were coming in for safer places to live and work. MPLS became sort of like the "Atlanta" of the Upper Midwest. The place to be. Many who came were poor. Few made trouble, but the ones who made trouble stood out much more than anyone else and made everyone else look bad. Other ethnic groups such as the Somalis, Ethiopians, and Hmong flocked to Minneapolis as refugees. Many made it and did well. Others did poorly in adjusting to Minnesota. Some formed gangs. From what I have heard, some Somalis have come fromm Atlanta to get away from the crime there.
My take on ethnic diversity having lived in 12 different states and traveled a lot is what makes a nice place to live is values... if the values of an individual is based on principles then he or she is nice to live around...
In children these principles are usually "sharing", "exploring", "wonderment" and "cuteness"... when these children get together they usually do not fight, argue other than to express opinions, make up "games" and get along...
Notice I did not say they would not be loud.. as a father of 5 and a coach and mentor of many.. they are usually talkative and playful... so some older people do not find them to be enjoyable to be around...
In adults the problem arose in that different cultures have different set of values... notice for example that many cultures having not having running water do not dispose of their waste like other cultures do who have had running water for a long time... when they come into contact one culture..thinks they are superior for being clean while the other culture can view themselves as not being wasteful with resources.... both in their mind is the superior culture.
In fact the problem is the lack of culture is what most older people regret about the changes in society not the color of skin...
When kids have babies out of wedlock and expect someone else.."govt"..to support them and think they have a right to these "extra" resources is where culture comes into play.... This is not a race issue but a cultural issue... addressing the underlying principle is the real issue of diversity..
My take on ethnic diversity having lived in 12 different states and traveled a lot is what makes a nice place to live is values... if the values of an individual is based on principles then he or she is nice to live around...
In children these principles are usually "sharing", "exploring", "wonderment" and "cuteness"... when these children get together they usually do not fight, argue other than to express opinions, make up "games" and get along...
Notice I did not say they would not be loud.. as a father of 5 and a coach and mentor of many.. they are usually talkative and playful... so some older people do not find them to be enjoyable to be around...
In adults the problem arose in that different cultures have different set of values... notice for example that many cultures having not having running water do not dispose of their waste like other cultures do who have had running water for a long time... when they come into contact one culture..thinks they are superior for being clean while the other culture can view themselves as not being wasteful with resources.... both in their mind is the superior culture.
In fact the problem is the lack of culture is what most older people regret about the changes in society not the color of skin...
When kids have babies out of wedlock and expect someone else.."govt"..to support them and think they have a right to these "extra" resources is where culture comes into play.... This is not a race issue but a cultural issue... addressing the underlying principle is the real issue of diversity..
Ethnic tensions and economics tend to go one in one. Minnesota's story is of a state that never had a large minority population until later on and therefore dealt with problems that other states had been dealing with long before and crumbled under.
Is that really true? If anything else, haven't there always been Native Americans? Doesn't MN have several Indian reservations? Reservations are usually a hotbed of crime, poverty, despair, and a host of other social ills associated with a poor underclass of minorities.
Quote:
I listened to a clip from MPR and starting in the 1980's blacks from the Rust Belt midwest were migrating to Minneapolis for more jobs and a better quality of life. Some were professionals. Many were workers in the blue collar sector. While many were there fore jobs, some were there for the relatively generous welfare benefits. Crime rates increased because gangs managed to make it in. While the gangs were only a minute part of the population, they caused quite a stir(remember Murderapolis?). Crime rates dropped considerably after welfare laws were changed and the benefits were more limited, but still more blacks were coming in for safer places to live and work. MPLS became sort of like the "Atlanta" of the Upper Midwest. The place to be. Many who came were poor. Few made trouble, but the ones who made trouble stood out much more than anyone else and made everyone else look bad. Other ethnic groups such as the Somalis, Ethiopians, and Hmong flocked to Minneapolis as refugees. Many made it and did well. Others did poorly in adjusting to Minnesota. Some formed gangs. From what I have heard, some Somalis have come fromm Atlanta to get away from the crime there.
Yes I've heard that blacks from Chicago in particular have been flocking to the Twin Cities for a long time now. The one black person i met who was from Minnesota was originally from Chicago, or at least her family was. At that time (high school) I was surprised just to find out that there were blacks in Minnesota. I told her that, and she said "yeah there's plenty of black people in Minnesota. They're all from Chicago."
Yes I've heard that blacks from Chicago in particular have been flocking to the Twin Cities for a long time now. The one black person i met who was from Minnesota was originally from Chicago, or at least her family was. At that time (high school) I was surprised just to find out that there were blacks in Minnesota. I told her that, and she said "yeah there's plenty of black people in Minnesota. They're all from Chicago."
_
You will meet a lot of people in Minnesota from Chicago, but yes ,a number of blacks do move there from Chicago but I think even more come up from Atlanta.
There were two distinct phases of black migration to Minnesota.
The first was in the 1960's when then mayor of Minneapolis Naftalin (along with the LSS) aggressively courted blacks from the south to move to Minnesota with the promise of jobs and a robust safety net of social services.
The second was in the 1980's and 1990's when other major metro areas (most notably Chicago) enacted tougher welfare reforms, which caused a huge black underclass to move to Minnesota; still to this day, MN has some of the least stringent welfare regulations of any state in the country. It had nothing to do with "jobs" and virtually everything to do with Minnesota handing out free money to almost anyone who asks for it; an enormous cotiere of black Americans who, over generations, have become dependent on such systems for their survival found Minnesota a viable place to live once their funds were cut off elsewhere (this phenomenon has been studied ad-nauseum and Minnesota is pretty much *the* quintessential textbook case)
It is a tremendously difficult question to answer, since our present day sensibilities dictate that "diversity" is supposed to be a good thing, no matter what social costs are attendant to it. When you remove the philosophy from the argument and examine the facts (particularly the crime statistics), its clear as a bell that "diversity" has been an absolute catastrophe for the cities.
We can rue and cry over the socioeconomic precepts that cause crime and why those same dynamics apply to certain minorities at an exacerbated rate, but when examining this question in a purely intellectual, factual and logical vacuum- absent of all philosophy, ideology and "feelings"- the answer is no, Minnesota is most certainly not better off now that it's "more diverse".
Of course, life isn't a purely logical matter. There are legitimate philosophical and idealogical concerns that motivate our societies, so if you ask the question with those things considered, then maybe the answer to some people is yes- Minnesota is better off being "less white". How one answers this question will usually hinge on the how the racial complexion of their own neighborhood has maintained itself over the past couple decades.
There were two distinct phases of black migration to Minnesota.
The first was in the 1960's when then mayor of Minneapolis Naftalin (along with the LSS) aggressively courted blacks from the south to move to Minnesota with the promise of jobs and a robust safety net of social services.
The second was in the 1980's and 1990's when other major metro areas (most notably Chicago) enacted tougher welfare reforms, which caused a huge black underclass to move to Minnesota; still to this day, MN has some of the least stringent welfare regulations of any state in the country. It had nothing to do with "jobs" and virtually everything to do with Minnesota handing out free money to almost anyone who asks for it; an enormous cotiere of black Americans who, over generations, have become dependent on such systems for their survival found Minnesota a viable place to live once their funds were cut off elsewhere (this phenomenon has been studied ad-nauseum and Minnesota is pretty much *the* quintessential textbook case)
It is a tremendously difficult question to answer, since our present day sensibilities dictate that "diversity" is supposed to be a good thing, no matter what social costs are attendant to it. When you remove the philosophy from the argument and examine the facts (particularly the crime statistics), its clear as a bell that "diversity" has been an absolute catastrophe for the cities.
We can rue and cry over the socioeconomic precepts that cause crime and why those same dynamics apply to certain minorities at an exacerbated rate, but when examining this question in a purely intellectual, factual and logical vacuum- absent of all philosophy, ideology and "feelings"- the answer is no, Minnesota is most certainly not better off now that it's "more diverse".
Of course, life isn't a purely logical matter. There are legitimate philosophical and idealogical concerns that motivate our societies, so if you ask the question with those things considered, then maybe the answer to some people is yes- Minnesota is better off being "less white". How one answers this question will usually hinge on the how the racial complexion of their own neighborhood has maintained itself over the past couple decades.
I'm not denying that considerable numbers of blacks have gone to Minnesota simply for the welfare, but I have been doing research of my own and listening. Welfare isn't the only reason. There are jobs to be considered and I found that out after listening to MPR.
Its pretty widely accepted that the "Chicagoization" of Minneapolis in the 80's bears a direct corollary to the extreme tightening of welfare restrictions in- *drumroll* - Chicago.
It's what caused this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AQUEMINI331
...she said "yeah there's plenty of black people in Minnesota. They're all from Chicago."
You will note that in the first article you linked to, the general theme of the discussion wasn't about people moving because of "jobs", save for a lone anecdote. It was people moving to MN for welfare benefits.
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.
