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.
From my experience it appears white flight occures AFTER the cities are under liberal administration and as the schools have already started on the downhill run. It is the breakdown of the city that causes the white flight to private schools and suburbs, not the other way around.
The Kansas City metro area and KCMO school district are prime examples.
This is incorrect. I don't know what your experience is, but it is not accurate for most cities.
Real estate agents would steer blacks away from white neighborhoods, but once blacks made their way into majority white neighborhoods, property values would drop out of fear that more blacks would come in, and whites would move to the suburbs in order to protect their economic security, taking their money with them.
Don't be making sense! It messes with their minds.
Don't worry, no one in this thread is messing with my mind.
The only reason you think it makes sense is because it jives with your preconceived notions of what is true or not. I could break out citation after citation proving my point and you would still choose to believe what you currently believe, evidence be damned.
Here are the words of Lee Atwater, Conservative political activist and advisor to Reagan and George H.W. Bush:
Quote:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."
The censored word is obviously the most common racial slur towards blacks.
You think Irrelevant diversions, make perfect sense in the discussion.
Good tactic.
You have shown an inability to engage with anything that I'm saying and nothing you say makes any sense, so your comment here is very ironic.
I've responded to every substantive inquiry made to me and you have only displayed a complete ignorance of the issue at hand, mainly posting two sentence comments which add nothing.
I'd love to know how my comment is an irrelevant diversion. People are questioning why blacks tend to vote on the left, the quote from Lee Atwater clearly shows that since the 1960s, the right has pursued a politics of race that would make voting Republican distasteful to many blacks, particularly in the South. If you look up the numbers, you'll find it's quite true.
I grew in Memphis, and I know all about Detroit and Gary. The problem with those cities in not Democratic leadership, it's white flight draining money out of the urban core and the general collapse of industry leading to jobs leaving the area, particularly in Detroit, Cleveland, and Gary.
The fact of the matter is that majority black cities tend to have racially divisive elections and almost always lean Democratic. A lot of the time the mayors elected are subpar. However, the fundamental issues with the school systems are essentially funding issues which stem from the property tax-school funding dilemma. White people move to the suburbs, take all their money with them, lower-class blacks are left in a crumbling school system which then makes it more difficult for them to move up in the world.
I could go on and point out where Conservative and Liberal politics come in here, but I'd first like to reach some consensus on this point, because if you think liberals are to blame for white flight and economic collapse in the cities you named, there's not much point in having a discussion.
I love Memphis. I spent many a weekend there. Truly a great city. I love the area around Beale Street with all the restaurants and street performers. Never figured out why Memphis has such a bad rep.
I see where you are coming from on your post. I disagree, but I see what you are saying.
Don't think it is a funding issue though. I know DC is one of the most heavily funded school systems in the country.
My belief? Desegration in the 60s ruined black schools. Schools busing led to the destruction of the cities and schools systems. Whites didn't want their kids in school with blacks. And blacks didn't want their kids in schools with whites.
I think the interstate highway system and better cars had a lot to do with it also. That allowed people to live in the suburbs and commute into the city for work. It made it easier to live 20 miles out.
Like I said, I see what you are saying. We probably are both correct to some degree. One thing I hope though is that schools systems like Memphis and Detroit improve. That benefits everyone.
This is incorrect. I don't know what your experience is, but it is not accurate for most cities.
Real estate agents would steer blacks away from white neighborhoods, but once blacks made their way into majority white neighborhoods, property values would drop out of fear that more blacks would come in, and whites would move to the suburbs in order to protect their economic security, taking their money with them.
You cannot blame white flight soley on "steering". A practice which has been illegal for what, at least 20-30 years?
Why don't you actually look up the history of some of these cities. The KCMO school district spent in 2008 more than twice as much per student as the suburban schools. The suburban schools, spending significantly less per student, still produced better significantly better scores. The KCMO school district on the otherhand, has either been unaccredited or fighting suspention of their credentials for over a decade and a half.
IIRC in the 1980's a federal judge ordered the KCMO school district to force desegregate even more than it had already. Over a billion dollars wasted to attempt to comply with the judges orders. A complete waste and one that began placing the final nails on the coffin of the KCMO school district. What parent wants their child spending 3+ hours on a school bus every day at the age of 6-7 just to comply with a federal judges ruling?
Fast forward to this month: 1/2 of the schools in the KCMO school district will be closed.
Liberal mismanagement of the cities, of the school boards over the schools, initiate the move of people out of the inner cities. Parents want their children to get the best possible education. When the schools go downhill, parents who can, move.
When cities fail to attract business to their downtown districts and fail to maintain quality schools, people move to where they can get them. Cause and effect are quite different from what you claim.
Look at cities where the state and the cities/school boards have been largely under Conservative control for several decades in a row and you don't see the degree of crumbling of the inner cities, you see schools that haven't lost their accreditation near the city centers.
As the cities go, so go the schools. If the schools don't recover, neither will the cities.
There is great book by PBS newsman Jaun Saurez called "The Old Neighborhood"
It explains a lot of what happened to big cities in the 60s and 70s.
It's pretty even. He doesn't take sides as far as liberal or conservative.
It's a shame really. I used to work in downtown Detroit. Just walikng around you can tell it was an example of what a great city once was. Hopefully, it will be that way again someday.
You cannot blame white flight soley on "steering". A practice which has been illegal for what, at least 20-30 years?
Why don't you actually look up the history of some of these cities. The KCMO school district spent in 2008 more than twice as much per student as the suburban schools. The suburban schools, spending significantly less per student, still produced better significantly better scores. The KCMO school district on the otherhand, has either been unaccredited or fighting suspention of their credentials for over a decade and a half.
IIRC in the 1980's a federal judge ordered the KCMO school district to force desegregate even more than it had already.
Fast forward to this month: 1/2 of the schools in the KCMO school district will be closed.
Liberal mismanagement of the cities, of the school boards over the schools, initiate the move of people out of the inner cities. Parents want their children to get the best possible education. When the schools go downhill, parents who can, move.
When cities fail to attract business to their downtown districts and fail to maintain quality schools, people move to where they can get them. Cause and effect are quite different from what you claim.
Look at cities where the state and the cities/school boards have been largely under Conservative control for several decades in a row and you don't see the degree of crumbling of the inner cities, you see schools that haven't lost their accreditation near the city centers.
As the schools go, so go the cities.
I didn't blame white flight solely on steering. The point is that it is largely inaccurate to say that white flight occured primarily AFTER blacks moved in due to some liberal mismanagement. Racial relations were far touchier than that.
I don't know much about Kansas City, but the fact that your argument hinges so much on one city says a lot about how applicable it is to the larger issue being discussed here. Especially since the cities I was discussing with the other poster are now predominantly black, while Kansas City is not.
White flight and urban decay is a long process. Once the school system has fallen into a hole, it is difficult to improve things, and inefficiently applying money to the wound doesn't necessarily solve things. The fact of the matter is that it sucks to be a poor and black in an urban area, no matter who runs your school district.
This is all a detour, however, since we're talking about why the Democrats do better with blacks than the Republicans. I'm going to bed, but if this post is still around on the 1st page tomorrow, I'll give a more detailed answer.
I didn't blame white flight solely on steering. The point is that it is largely inaccurate to say that white flight occured primarily AFTER blacks moved in due to some liberal mismanagement. Racial relations were far touchier than that.
I don't know much about Kansas City, but the fact that your argument hinges so much on one city says a lot about how applicable it is to the larger issue being discussed here. Especially since the cities I was discussing with the other poster are now predominantly black, while Kansas City is not.
White flight and urban decay is a long process. Once the school system has fallen into a hole, it is difficult to improve things, and inefficiently applying money to the wound doesn't necessarily solve things. The fact of the matter is that it sucks to be a poor and black in an urban area, no matter who runs your school district.
This is all a detour, however, since we're talking about why the Democrats do better with blacks than the Republicans. I'm going to bed, but if this post is still around on the 1st page tomorrow, I'll give a more detailed answer.
I understand how bad racial tensions were/are. My father moved his business out of what is now the "murder alley" of the city because he got tired of having to walk the sidewalk infront of his storefront with a shotgun to keep his windows from having bricks thrown through them. He was tired of the break-ins. The race riots in KC were particularly violent and involved the Missouri National Guard for containment. However, when liberals run cities and create entitlement societies those who don't have a dime in their neghborhoods have no problem in destroying them.
The KCMO school district is predominately black. Most of it lies within the 5th district, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's (D) district (he was also the former Mayor of KC, member of the Congressional Black Caucus and member of the Progressive Congressional Caucus- yes he is LIBERAL). The KCMO school board is predominately black.
While the KC metro area is not predominately black the area comprising the KCMO school district is. I live in the KCMO school district. My taxes where I do not have a child in school go there every year. I am paying for waste, not for education. I am leaving and taking my tax dollars with me. Not because of "white flight" but because this city and this school district have proven they don't deserve my tax dollars. I'm done throwing my pearls before swine. People vote with their feet.
You will find that the situation in St. Louis is similar to that in KC in that their school district is predominately black but only pertains to a portion of the city, the inner city portion. The St. Louis school district has also been plagued by accreditation problems. The suburban sprawl around St. Louis continues to grow where KC metro has stagnated.
Can you imagine, the two most populous cities in the state and the major school districts of each being unaccredited? It is a scourge on our state.
I'll put this back on track. The reason black democrats do better than black republicans is because they bring the $$ back to their poor districts. Their constutuents have become so addicted to entitlements that they only vote for the candidate who will bring them the most $$. However, that money never does any good. It doesn't lift anyone out . It is a hand-out, not a hand-up.
Black Democrats have no problem robbing Peter (the tax payers) to pay Paul (the welfare/entitlement recipient) and as such they always can depend on the loyalty of Paul.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 04-01-2010 at 12:01 AM..
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.
A practice which has been illegal for what, at least 20-30 years?
