Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Not a Word About Gentrification as Black Urban Population Declines
The corporate news media greeted new census data detailing the drastic and general decline of Black populations in center cities as if the phenomenon were, somehow, a vindication of the American dream – a cause for celebration. The dramatic increase in the movement of African Americans back to the South, which actually began decades ago, is held up as proof positive that America’s racial conflicts will soon be a thing of the past. Newsrooms seemed filled with jubilation, that the nation’s cities will soon be liberated from two generations of concentrated Black presence. Underlying the upbeat news coverage is the assumption that a diffusion of Blacks is, by definition, a good thing for the nation as a whole, and for Black people, themselves.
It is also assumed, against all relevant evidence, that this mass movement of Black people from New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Detroit, Oakland, and so many other cities is totally voluntary – that economic push-out has played no major role in emptying the cities of Blacks, and sending hundreds of thousands down to Dixie. It is an absurd assumption, by journalists whose elation at the Black exodus compels them to ignore gentrification as one of the main factors.
People who are priced out of the cities by gentrification cannot be considered voluntary migrants. Gentrification has become an overarching fact of Black urban existence, making life less tenable every day. – especially in New York. It is no wonder that 17 percent of Blacks that relocated to the South in the past decade were New Yorkers, far more than from any other state. When gentrification places the monthly rent hopelessly out of reach, there is no choice but to leave – and why not South, where it’s cheaper, and there are so many people who look like you, some of whom are related.
Those who would characterize the Black southward movement as overwhelmingly voluntary and non-economic, speculate that folks are going South to be near family. But “family” has always been there. Why the big rush to join them now? There is literally no statistical basis in the U.S. Census data to conclude that the urge to strengthen family ties is an important factor in reverse Black migration. But white corporate media – and the types of Black folks that work for it – have no problem substituting their own favorite scenarios for real data and facts.
Black movement from inner cities to the suburbs is also intertwined with gentrification. It is not only the poor who are pushed out, but also better off families and singles for whom city life is no longer viable. But all suburbs are not alike. Study after study shows that Blacks more often wind up just outside the borders of the central city in older suburbs, many of which have the characteristics of inner city ghettos, without the conveniences and urban amenities. Such suburbs hug the edges of Washington, Chicago, and Detroit. Other suburbs may appear to be racially “integrated” today – but that is only a snapshot in time. These places will be much Blacker or browner tomorrow because of white flight – the root source of segregation in America.
Whites are also in flight from the truth: that the deeply racial dynamic of gentrification is forcing Black folks to cheaper suburbs and the lower-cost South – including many Blacks that claim the move is strictly voluntary.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
45 Comments so far
Show AllDo you even know what 'gentrification' means? Here, I'll give you M-W's definition: the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents. By this definition, taking the urban core, which in many cities, is dilapidated and run-down, affordable by only the poorest of residents, and rebuilding it to the point where those same residents cannot afford to live there, doesn't count as gentrification? You're fuckin' mad if you think that this isn't occurring. The fact that there are other 'choices' to select in deciding to move, doesn't preclude the fact of gentrification occurring.
Glen Ford is very open about his 'agenda'. Black people have continually gotten excluded, harrassed and screwed out of every good thing that any people could want (housing, jobs, businesses, education, etc) and that we need to organize and begin to acquire these things for ourselves, regardless of government policy or the opinion of society. Gentrification is one of these situations that we need to fight against. I think it's hilarious that now, when Peak Oil is on the horizon and everyone's talking Green energy, that the cities, rejected en masse by whites, have become the newest promised land. Meanwhile, blacks and other minority groups, are being financially forced to move out of the renewed and rebuilt urban cores into the left-over, aging, and collapsing suburban and exurban fringes. There's nothing wrong with this though, right?
Some cities, like Seattle, have actually had to pass laws forcing developers to create affordable housing in their urban cores, for the poor population that have lived there. These governments are aware that gentrification is constantly forcing poor minorities to move out of their traditional urban neighborhoods. Suburban communities with dilapidated, aging infrastructure and collapsed tax bases are becoming the new neighborhoods for the poor. Yes, this is happening to the poor but, lets keep it fucking real, shall we? Blacks are disproportionately poor, relative to our representation in Amerika's population. It wouldn't be a stretch to say then that gentrification is disproportionally affecting the Black population of urban dwellers. Your comment is a bunch of 'hooey', likeitornot.
Good post. Thanks.
The phenomenom Glen describes started a half century ago.
During the 1960s "urban renewal" (UR) in many of America's largest cities was the predecessor of gentrification. UR demolished most of the affordable housing in big cities and drove low wage workers (of all ethnic and racial backgrounds)and heavy industry (and much light industry) out of America's big cities.
The displaced industries moved to suburbs or small towns and the tax bases in big cities quickly shifted more tax burden to residents, thereby assuring that only immigrants willing to share a single residential unit among 2 or 3 families (hot bunking in many cases) are now the only low wage workers who will ever be able to consider living in the big cities.
Thanks, also.
Gentrification in Pittsburgh has driven many black residents out of the city to the run-down mill-towns (Braddock, Duquesne, Clairton, Mkeesport) up the Mon river. It was not an improvement. They live in even worse conditions than the old city "hoods" - even more savagely defunded schools when white poeple flee and the RE tax base crashes, almost no public transportaition (most can't afford cars, or bothered learning to drive - public transit used to be very good and cheap), and even worse basic services - like even just grocery stores. They don't even get jobs in the last open US Steel mill and coking plant in that area, helped by racism in the union locals, those jobs only go to white commuters from the burbs.
They only get the cancer from the air pollution.
I don't believe that likeitornot (aka Thomas More) has ever lived anywhere else but the suburban cultural wastelands of Dallas, so I don't thing he would know what "gentrification" is.
It's usually easier to cry about being a "victim" of another person's or group's misdeeds than it is to accept personal responsibility for your own betterment. If you're not educated, go get educated. There's no reason for not getting educated in America.
If you cannot afford to live where you are, then either get another job (or A job) or move to a more affordable place.Don't whine about being a "victim" and don't point the finger of blame at anybody other than the person in the mirror.
People move from the cities to the suburbs and back again for many reasons, but the choice belongs to the individual making the decision. They are not victims unless they choose to be.
Such obvious and crude projection.
This is a lie: "it's usually easier to cry about being a 'victim' of another person's or group's misdeeds than it is to accept personal responsibility for your own betterment." No it isn't. It is much easier being you. It is easier to then point the finger at others and blame them, and whine about how persecuted you are, whining because people say things that make you uncomfortable. Poor baby. Do you have any idea how few people in the world have this "just go get educated" option?
How about you take some personal responsibility and stop whining? How about you educate yourself? How about you look in the mirror?
You live in a cooperative society, you benefit from that, you were given much. You are among the few, the very few who have the luxury of being able to look at life as nothing more than personal choices.
It is time you take some responsibility, and stop placing blame on others.
Hi, Two Americas --
What I said was exactly true. I blame others for the conditions and limitations they've chosen to place on themselves.
Can you explain why so "few people in the world have this 'just go get educated' option"? If you look around, you will see that every American child is given the opportunity to get at least the first 13 years of schooling at no cost to them. (Of course, it does cost the taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000, but that's another topic for another day.) Additionally, higher education is available to anybody who chooses to pursue it, and once again, the taxpayers are footing the bill for the so called "poor." I'll say it again, there is no excuse for not becoming educated in America, other than just quitting.
You made some faulty assumptions in your post. Let me correct some of them.
You said I was among the very few who have the luxury of being able to look at life as nothing more than personal choices. That "luxury" is actually available to everybody, except the quitters. Life is all about personal choices.
Some make good ones -- they honor God, they get educated, they work hard, they wait till they marry to have children, they save, they invest, they don't abuse alcohol or drugs or food, they don't sponge off the labor of others -- and benefit from those choices.
Others make bad choices -- they don't acknowledge or submit to God, they refuse the education offered them and don't expend any effort to pursue other education, they avoid work, they have children they cannot afford, they spend everything they have and then borrow more, they abuse substances and live unhealthy lifestyles, they sit around and whine about how the government isn't taking enough from the "lucky" people to support their bad choices -- and they suffer because of those choices.
You see, life is all about the choices we make. Our choices have consequences, both good and bad.
You said I should educate myself. Well, that's a great idea, and I have. I've been a lifelong learner and earned several degrees without taking tax money from others to do so. Instead of sponging off the efforts of those who were more well off than I, I chose to work while going to school. There were even times when I was working three concurrent jobs, 6 and 7 days a week, while going to school.
Along the way, I made some foolish decisions -- maybe more than most people -- when I started our family before I was financially ready, spent more than I should, took on an ignorant amount of debt, and some other dumb things. However, instead of sticking my hand out for other peoples money (even when I was discriminated against in hiring practices because of my sex and color), I researched other alternatives, completely changed my career track, earned my first couple of degrees, and then moved on. That's how it's done.
I've taken responsibility for myself and now earn enough to help others voluntarily. I am only placing blame on those who refuse to accept it themselves.
If things aren't right in your life, fix them yourself rather than waiting for somebody else (e.g., Uncle Sam) to bail you out. That's the right way to do it.
I am not debating you. There is nothing in what you post worth debating. I am posting for the benefit of the general readership here, and using your posts as examples of working class betrayal and emotional identification with the rulers in order to make some points. I don't expect to be able to have a discussion with you nor do I care whether or not I do.
Your life story is not necessarily of interest to any on us, nor is it relevant to this discussion. Glad you are pleased with yourself. I don't have this issue of "things being right in my life" that you seem to have. I don't see life as being all about me. Don't project your petty personal drama on others, especially millions of others you don't even know for the purpose of attacking them.
@Two Americas -- I must have misunderstood your first post as the beginning of a written debate. Of course, your comment about using my post as an example of working class betrayal invites additional debate. What exactly do you mean by that? I honestly don't see where I betrayed anybody in the "working class" (however you define that).
For the record, I'll stand on what I've said all along -- While there are a few exceptions to the rule, the vast majority of people are either wealthy or poor because of the choices they've made. You cannot get rich while refusing to work and expecting the government to nanny you with funds taken from those who work. That experiment has failed over and over again. Sooner or later, the government runs out of other peoples money.
Did you read the article? Such a bizarre post.
I am trying to imagine what your complaint about the article might be, but I am not coming up with anything. Perhaps you could explain what you are talking about.
"...blacks are being displaced by lower skilled and ill educated residents..." What on earth does that mean?
"...to get away from intrusive governments and detrimental political policies." What does that mean?
"Many are going South to get away from declining economies." The author covered that.
"Many are simply moving to the suburbs." The author covered that, and explained the problems involved with that.
What is it that you imagine the author's "real agenda" to be, and why do you wish it would "fade away?" Do you have the guts to answer that question, or will you continue to be cowardly, to dishonestly and deceptively use hints and suggestions?
The words "jobs" and "fools" don't require apostrophes.
Many did move to the suburbs - but if Penn Hills - Pittsburgh "official black suburb" is representative, the values of the homes crash as the white people flee, (well before the "bubble" that didn't exist her anyway) schools go to crap becasue of the crash in tax revenue, businesses move out...
Yes.
You do not know what you are talking about.
There are poor people living in the East End of Vancouver. That an area that for a long time had low rents and cheap housing. The reason these people migrated to that area was because of the cheap rent.
That area is now being "Gentrified" and these people are being displaced. They are not being replaced by more poor people. They are not being displaced because of a poor economy as they have always existed in a "poor economy". They are not moving to the suburbs unless the suburb they are moving too also has cheap available housing.
They are moving because the area is being gentrified and the old rooming hotels and the like are being gutted to make condos and lofts for those that are much better off financially. This drives the costs of housing UP even as their meager paychecks or welfare payments remain flat.
You tend to react to articles without reading them so I doubt this will make any impression on you.
"Many are going South to get away from....intrusive governments"
Of course, by "intrusive governments" you don't mean the War On Drugs Police State black people have been enduring for decades. Where in this country are black people not going to get harassed by the police you right wingers unequivocally support?
I'm still waiting for Obama to address size of the black prison population.
Noam Chomsky has the stats to show America has criminalized a race.
...and remember....slavery is legal in the USA, one only has to be 'duly convicted' of a crime.......
Dizi -- Slavery is also "legal" as taxpaying earners are enslaved through the diversion of their wealth to non-producers and other people who refuse to take care of their own needs."If a man will not work, neither shall he eat."
My only disagreement is that I would not call it gentrification. I believe it pure and simple old fashion racial segregation, or to rephrase the term in modern language it's racial cleansing.
Good old American Racism
I live in a mostly black area of the Deep South that is a mixture of lower-class, middle-class and a few upper-middle-class blacks; a somewhat smaller population of lower-class Hispanics and a very few whites and other ethnicities. A block from my abode is a very racist all-black fundamentalist "prosperity Christianity" church that is so exclusive that it won't even help indigent black people who are not already members of or close friends of members of the church. All the other churches in a 3 mile radius are of mixed race membership.
Having lived in this neighborhood throughout the decline of early 21st century Amurka, I have observed many things about the black culture here. One is that that more affluent blacks practice physical and psychological gentrification and exclusion on others of their own ethnicity as harshly as rich whites do to poor whites elsewhere. Lower-middle-class blacks here typically snub and insult poorer blacks in their own families regardless of circumstances and do it openly and in public more than the whites of this region. And the ones excluded and insulted buy into it, lose self-esteem and feel miserable and guilty about it, even though external forces of neo-liberalism have far more to do with their predicament than their own efforts to find more gainful employment.
This is the tragedy of contemporary Amurka: That the vast majority of its citizens, regardless of ethnicity, have bought into the laissez-faire capitalist hierarchy of snobbism, elitism and class exclusivity in every sense--even in many of their capitalist-warped religions. They are so divided and conquered down to their pores they can't even see the process dividing and reducing them anymore.
Black families and white families, regardless of the disposition of class membership within them, urgently need to pull to together to survive the ongoing economy and social structural decline--like more economically successful Hispanics and Asians tend to do.
Your point is a valid one. It's sad that many of us, regardless of race, seem to look down on those who are disadvantaged from the start, as if it's their fault. Maybe it's a fear of being dragged down to that level. And under our present economic system, we all are headed in that direction.
Most Democratic Party politicians and all Republican Party politicians have refined the art of blaming the victims and rewarding those (in nearly all cases, corporations) who harmed the victims.
Most Americans consider politicians to be leaders. They therefore emulate their "leaders' '" devious behavior.
I live in a historically black neighborhood in San Francisco-once called the Western Addition. The part I live in is now called the "Lower Haight" in real-estate speak. Quite a few of the black folks who lived here-and continue to live here -are and were home-owners.I bought my house eleven years ago from its original owner, a black man and retired Longshoreman, who bought it for $17,000 in 1957, and sold it to me for a sum I'd rather not admit to-but it was 'cheap' by 1999 San Francisco standards.This sale enabled him to buy a bigger and cheaper house in Sacramento, and pad out his not ungenerous retirement at the same time. He was not driven to sell it to me because he had to, or because of higher taxes. In fact, he was paying taxes at the 1957 rate, adjusted for inflation-an odd quirk of San Francisco real estate law. So, one white family replaces one black family, and both families benefit. Other black homeowners (some own several properties which they bought cheap in the old day) are doing the same thing, and the neighborhood is gradually becoming less black. One reason, is that generally speaking, whites are more likely to have the money-or the access to financing than blacks, when these homes are put on the market.Is this 'Gentrification'? It's a stretch to call it that in the sense intended by the writer of the article, and of some of the posters.I'm only putting this out there, because the subject of gentrification is a large and complicated one, and varies from city to city, and neighborhood, to neighborhood.
BTW, the article isn't talking about homeowners or people who actually have assets in these urban neighborhoods. Most of the people being forced out of the urban core by gentrification are those who are renters and can't afford or don't have the option to purchase their domicile. Why is this so hard to understand? Gentrification is where poorer people are forced out of a given area, after the renewal or redevelopment of that area, usually by higher costs for housing, food, etc. The situation you're referencing and gentrification has as much to do with each other as a blue whale and panty hose.
Now, if you want to discuss the systemic denial of blacks of adequate financing and credit, that's another issue. However, gentrification specifically speaks to those who, by definition, have no other options but to move, with the increase of costs for their basic needs.
Renters are not the only ones being pushed out.
Unless you live in California and have owned your home for more than 30 years (thereby having prop. 13 protection), skyrocketing big city property taxes for the past two decades have pushed many homeowners out.
It wasn't so bad when you could at least sell out at a decent price. Since 2008, however, property taxes have stayed high while property values are down 35 - 50%.
San Francisco is a city of renters-two thirds of the population live in rentals.One odd local quirk (there are plenty of those)-is that some historically black neighborhoods have very high rates of home ownership. Hunter's Point-the last majority black area-has a higher rate of home ownership than just about any part of the city. Since the completion of the light rail link to the rest of the city, Hunter's Point is now beginning to attract white and Asian yuppies-who will pay the local black home owners the going rate. Your definition of gentrification is only one of many. Some of the people in Hunter's Point will be 'forced out'-but with a golden handshake. But maybe I'm ill-informed: is there something called "Classic Gentrification"-like Classic Coke?
Ridiculoud Obsession
Your definition of gentrification is one of several. To some people, I'm part of the problem-to others, I'm just a white boozhie buying out a black boozhie.Some of the black landlords in my neighborhood have successfully replaced black 'protected' tenants with white tenants who can pay the market rent in SF.When a 'protected' tenant dies or moves, the apartment can then be rented for the going rate.In SF, that means between $1,600-$2,500 for a one bedroom apartment in my 'hood. The situation that GW North refers to in Vancouver, is now ancient history here.
Has anyone seen Walter Russell Mead's take on this subject? Talk about stark political contrast to Glenn Ford...pretty hard to stomach, but any opinions?
----------------------------------
"...Blacks across the North are fleeing the urban paradises of liberal legislation and high public union membership for the benighted suburbs....When whites leave failing blue cities and states, the pundits call this racism: all those white Californians fleeing Nancy Pelosi’s utopia for less ambitious jurisdictions where ordinary people can do things like get jobs and buy homes are clearly pathetic trailer trash hicks too dumb, too selfish and above all too racist to understand the gloriously multicultural blue beauty of California today.
So what are we going to call the young, educated Blacks making similar choices? Dumb cracker racists?....
...The failure of blue social policy to create an environment which works for Blacks is the most devastating possible indictment of the 20th century liberal enterprise in the United States. Helping Blacks achieve the kind of equality and opportunity long denied them was more than one of many justifications for blue social policy: it was the defining moral task that has challenged and shaped American liberalism for the last fifty years.
The Census tells us that in the eyes of those who know best, these well intentioned efforts failed. Instead of heaven, we have hell across America’s inner cities. Blue economic policy has cut the creation of new private sector jobs to a trickle in our great cities, while the high costs of public union urban services (and policies that favor government employees over the citizenry at large) impose crippling taxes and contribute to the ruinously high costs that blight opportunity. ..."
-----------------------
My take: Walter Russell Mead is really talking about is how republicans can "win" the Black vote by arguing the Blue States have failed you.
Black And Blue 2: Blacks Flee Blue States in Droves
Walter Russell Mead
blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/03/27/black-and-blue-2-blacks-flee-blue-states-in-droves/
Blacks moved North in droves in the twenties-fifties for economic reasons-the promise of decent jobs paying decent wages. The Civil Rights leglislation of the sixties built a legal foundation for relative black prosperity. Then, begining in the late sixties,American manufacturing began to ease into decline, and that decline accelerated and became dire over time, until we have the situation we have today. Detroit is the poster child for this. Blacks are moving back to the South, because that is where the jobs are, and living costs are lower.It isn't that simple, of course, but Mr. Mead's arguments are equally simplistic. It's not a matter of blue states vs. red states-it's more a question of fundamental changes in the economy. That's what's driving reverse migration. Still, having grown up in the era of Jim Crow, I can't say that the attempts to ameliorate the worst effects of historic racism have been a great success.
And, at any rate, thert is no such thing as "blue states" and "red states". The states associated with conservatism are just those where a majority of their population live in suburban, "sun-belt", small-town or rural environments.
And to digress a bit I am always fascinated at how the US is alone in the world in reversing the colors associated with right/left ideology. I personally believe it is deliberate. Stealing the color associated with anger and militancy, from (and was even an epithet for) the left was a brilliant strategic move on part of the right. We need to take the color back. My Union is asking us to wear red on the day of action this Monday, April 4.
blackagendareport is one of my favorite sites. That said, I think Ford does a broad wash on color here and not enough on CLASS as he usually does, and as does the site in general.He's mixing up corporate media and liberal pundits with all white people here.
A week hasn't passed in my life in the Mission district where I don't hear my white working class or ex middle class friends bitch and swear revenge against real estate people. White flight and govt subsidization of it since FDRs housing programs to the present is well documented. But too frequently the white working class ( which makes up half the poor still btw) is lumped in with the rich scum. Granted I think half the white working class here would easily go fascist. ...BUT ...there is no lack of many white people in every city fighting for housing rights, anti eviction, trying to build community via anarchist info shops, eviction defense networks, urban gardens for the poor, etc etc.
NO 'we' did not do ENOUGH since the early 80's.BUT we are here and still fighting. Anyway, please go to the site and donate money. Outside of one wacko, (and I don't mean Mr. Ford) there is really informative great articles.
M. Kimberly is great!!
Why is it that Europe always retained their urban centers as viable, vibrant
centers for the affluent along with public transit to support it whereas the US
had "Urban Renewal" and the destruction of urban centers with highways
and no public transit to newer urban centers?
I did not realize until listening to a fascinating show on WNYC public radio
(a plus actually for NPR programming) that racism played a major factor.
Atlanta is always cited as the premier example of highway and auto addiction gone wild with the worst traffic in the US.
Why is there no public transit from suburbs to inner city in Atlanta?
Racism pure and simple - lily-white outlying towns and counties refused to
allow any train line, light rail or other viable public transit to go to their communities for fear it would bring the black tide from inner city Atlanta.
"White Flight" did not only mean moving out to the suburbs but also slashing
any connection to urban cores for fear that blacks and "criminal elements"
might too easily get out to the White enclaves.
"Urban Renewal" most often meant building Interstate Highways to
swiftly ferry white auto passengers past "blighted" black areas while totally destroying those areas viability as mixed communities.
A classic case is I-280 in New Jersey through Newark, paralleling the existing train line right of way which split East Orange and other black communities in two
with an impassable Interstate highway in the middle while taking 10% of their
taxable land base for non-taxable 90% federally funded highway.
Despite some excellent legacy architecture which had existed in East Orange
it swiftly became a blighted community as the formerly affluent fled and
those remaining were stuck with a town literally sliced in two by the Interstate.
What is peculiarly ironic is that now that we face Peak Oil and the collapse of
suburbia that as Urban centers are reclaimed for former affluent whites, the
poor minorities that kept it going are often being forced out to what will
soon become exurban ghettos.
Glenn Ford is totally correct that it is essential for a healthy society and
community that reclaimed Urban centers do not just become monotonously
affluent but provide affordable mixed income housing.
Some cities are making a real effort to mandate affordable housing.
Others are not...
The cities WILL make a comeback in the age of Peak Oil - it is absolutely
critical to insure NOW that they will not repeat the same racist, class-based
patterns of the past.
What is wrong about a neighborhood wanting to slash connections to "criminal elements" black or otherwise. Our neighborhood has homeowners of all races and is surrounded, in part, by an urban area. Lately we have had a rash of burglaries, one of solutions discussed is to restrict street access to keep the crooks out. It's not just "Whites" who want to escape crime.
Actually Atlanta does have some public transit to the suburbs - the MARTA lines and various bus routes - but much of the commuting on them is reverse commuting - poor minorities commuting out to the low-wage Wal Mart jobs in the burbs.
MARTA is limited to Fulton and DeKalb counties, the two counties which comprise the "urban core" of metropolitan Atlanta. It is irrefutable that the surrounding counties in the area have vowed to never join MARTA for exactly the reason that one would first suspect; overt rascism.
The City of Atlanta has in recent decades been thought of as an overwhelmingly poor and black city which peaked at a black share of 67% of the population. White residents of the city were only to be found in rich enclaves such as Buckhead on the city's northside. The "gentrification" that the author speaks of has been going on full tilt as Buckead has "exploded" and many formerly black neighborhoods are no longer so. The city has changed to 50%/50% at this time and wealthy neighborhoods have literally torn down much of the city's formerly blighted areas.
Many of the poor and black residents have moved to the inner ring of suburban counties surrounding the city, such as Clayton County, ironically the setting for Gone With The Wind, but there is no MARTA in Clayton County to this day. This is the type of displacement that Mr. Ford speaks to, even though this example is in the South.
Comment Deleted: Slander, personal attacks or abusive, hateful, offensive, or racist language or material.
This is vicious - and I hope obvious - racist post.
Two Americas: This person just doesn't seem to get that it is poverty that is the cause of criminal behavior, the world over. There's aging and broken infrastructure, little control or access to any resources, no employment (some estimates of black unemployment in urban areas is as high 50% or better), limited ability to acquire capital for entrepreneurial enterprises (high loan costs and substantially higher denial rates for loans) and you wonder why there's massive crime? But, even with all of that, crime has actually dropped over the last 30 years. So, what the hell are you talking about Horace? Here's another question. If urban poor don't own the infrastructure and there's no company willing to invest in infrastructure (due to the fact that they can collect the same rent, utility payments, etc. without the need to repair dilapidated infrastructure) how the hell is that the fault of the people who are NOT the owners?
Who is a worse criminal, Horace? A burglar or a Wall Street banker? The thief eventually gets caught, is forced to labor as a slave behind prison walls (as the 13th amendment legalizes slave labor for prisoners) and loses everything that makes his citizenship even worth anything at all (ability to acquire most employment, vote, etc). Meanwhile, the Wall Street banker that rips off the entire country for billions, gets more billions and a promotion to some government position. If you cannot see how this is completely systematic and totally unjust then you're mentally deficient and intellectually dishonest, Horace.
Hi, Black Anarch --
I must take issue, or at least clarify, your comment about poverty being the cause of criminal behavior, because that just isn't true. It may be used as a weak excuse to justify unlawful behavior here in the United States and some other places, but some of the poorest nations in the world are also some of the least plagued by crime.
I've been among some of the poorest people in the third world and felt much safer than in many places here in the U.S. It seems that in those other countries, the senses of duty, honor, and community override any desire to take what is not theirs.
Sadly, here in the U.S., a dishonorable sense of entitlement fueled by a consistently negative message from agitators feeds into the mythological belief that crime is caused and excused by so called "poverty."
If you cannot make it in America without resorting to crime, you're just a loser. No excuse is good enough to overcome the fact that you only lose in America if you give up and allow others to dictate your outcome.
I'll just leave this one with a paraphrase of quote attributed to Honore de Balzac. "For every great fortune, there's a hidden crime that was successful."
You have no proof whatsoever that everyone in America who is 'successful' are completely law abiding while the poor are just dumb ass criminals waiting for someone to give them something. You also have no proof that 'poorer' neighborhoods are filled with rampant criminality and 'wealthier' ones are not. However, there's been plenty of studies that prove that inequality breeds crime (by both the rich and the poor).
Hello again, Black Anarch --
That's an interesting quote, but if Balzac is saying that all who have great fortune got it through some sort of criminal behavior, I disagree. Many of the wealthy have, indeed, grown their wealth through illegal means, but it is disingenuous to claim that all, or even most, have.
For the record, I never stated that everybody who is successful is law abiding, so I neither offer nor owe proof of such.
I also did not state that the poor are criminals.
In fact, I didn't assert anything you attribute to me, from what I've already noted above to your comment about poorer neighborhoods being filled with rampant criminality, etc.
The poorest neighborhoods I've ever been in were in Ethiopia, and they were among the safest and there was tremendous economic inequality there.
Far safer than the "poor" neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Montgomery, New York, Phoenix, San Antonio, Hartford, etc. that I've been in.
There is a cultural difference between the "poor" in America and those elsewhere. Here in America, the "poor" (I quote "poor" because America's poor are actually wealthy by the world's standards) have been told they're entitled to the fruit of other people's labor, and that is just wrong-headed.
So, at least we agree that there are both rich and poor criminals, right? And, hopefully, we agree that not all the rich are that way because they're criminals. Instead, people generally become rich or poor because of the decisions they make. There are some exceptions, but the vast majority of people are either rich or poor because they've chosen to be so.
Such confusion.
First of all, you talk about crime as though you were talking about sin. "Crime" is whatever the police decide to charge people with, as a function of what the wealthy people desire, and of course poor people and people of color are much more likely to be charged with crimes - all other things being equal.
So, yes, poverty causes crime. That is to say poor people are more likely to be viewed as criminals and treated as criminals. You are making the argument that both poor and rich are sinners - are doing "bad" things. That is irrelevant to a discussion about crime. The criminal justice system has little if anything to do with right and wrong, with good and evil. The purpose for the system is to protect the wealthy and powerful and to keep the rest of us in line.
Secondly, it is the wealthy who are guilty of thinking that "they're entitled to the fruit of other people's labor," not poor people.
Thirdly, wealth and poverty are social relationships involving dominance and power and are not measured by stuff. The notion that poor people in this country "are actually wealthy by the world's standards" is nonsense.
Lastly, it is true that you did not directly assert anything attributed to you. You use hints and coded language and insinuations to make your points, which are tricks available to those defending power and attacking the poor and powerless.
Hey, Two Americas, at least we agree on one thing (perhaps for different reasons, though), and that is that the criminal justice system is pretty messed up. There is a lot of corruption in the system, which is one reason I find it hard to support the death penalty. While there are times where guilt is absolutely confirmed, there are also times where elected officials (including some police chiefs and attorneys general) have corrupted the facts to help themselves get re-elected (e.g., Tawana Brawley, the Duke lacrosse debacle, etc.).
I have a question -- How are the wealthy guilty of thinking they're entitled to the fruit of other people's labor? Do the wealthy take money from poor people or provide jobs? I must say, I've never worked for a poor person.
Worth a read -- http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0411/opinions-rich-karlgaard-innovation-rules-american-religion.html