Skip to comments.Not in My Backyard Racial Indifference at the Chicago Tribune (Obama land)
Posted on 07/02/2005 8:55:31 AM PDT by bayourod
The Chicago Tribune is concerned about racial justice - about racial justice in Mississippi 40 years ago. What about racial justice in the present and the Tribune's own metropolitan backyard?Well that's another story.
On June 21, 2005, the Chicago Urban League, the oldest and largest civil rights organization in Chicago, released a comprehensive report on the state of "race relations" in and around that city. The study, titled "Still Separate, Unequal: Race, Place, Policy, and the State of Black Chicago," included some disturbing findings:
* 74 percent of Chicago's black residents live in 22 neighborhoods that are 90 percent or more African-American - this in a city that is home to 77 neighborhoods.
* More than half (52 percent) of all suburban Chicago are blacks reside in just 18 south suburban Cook County towns - this in a six country metropolitan area that is home to 265 local municipalities.
* Within Chicago, where two-thirds of the metropolitan area's total black population (including three fourths of that population's children)lives, the average black student attends a school that is 86 percent black.
* Two hundred and seventy four schools (or 47 percent) of the city's 579 public elementary and high schools are 90 percent or more African American. One hundred and seventy three (30 percent of all public schools in the city) are100 percent black.
* Black median household income is just 58 percent of white median household income in the metropolitan area, according to the 2000 Census.
(Excerpt) Read more at zmag.org ...
Long article but worth bookmarking under the Obama folder.
I was in Chicago last year, stayed in the Loop area, and I wondered if Chicago had any black people...they sure weren't working or living or staying where I was.
That report certainly explains why blacks in Chicago keep on voting for Democrats, doesn't it?
Call me stupid, but I don't understand the significance of this. The implication is that the self-selected segregation is a bad thing, when we all know that human nature is such that people tend to live in neighborhoods that are populated with people like themselves. Yeah? So what? A high concentration of black people in a few neighborhoods isn't new and it's no different that the high concentration of Chinese in China Town or the high concentration of Irish, Poles, Jews, Hmong, Muslims, or any other racial or ethnic group in any other city. Now if the government FORCED people to live there or anywhere they didn't WANT to live, then that would be an issue.
You and I know this, but the implication will always be that "the man" has a boot on the back.
You hit the nail on the head. Nobody wants forced residential integration.
A large percentage of Chicago blacks barely even speak english. For the most part, they have purposely insulated themselves as a community from any possibility of moving into the 21st century. They have no desire whatsoever to educate themselves or assimilate into the society around them. They are not representative at all of black people in general. These statistics say much more about them than Chicago. Obama, in the meantime, is a white man posing as a black man. He is not truly representative of anyone. The majority of blacks in the world have every desire to raise their stock, few of them reside in Chicago.
I son't call you "stupid," I call you brilliant because I was thinking the exact same thing when I was reading the artilce.
Does he live in a black section of Chicago and send his kids to 90% black schools?
He should be held accountable for turning his back on the squalor, misery and suffering of his own people who put their hopes and dreams into electing him.
Look at his committee assignments. He didn't even try to position himself to help his neighbors.
Thomas Sowell is a frequent critic of using statistics to prove racism. I recently finished his book, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals", a collection of essays, one of which addressed this issue. Among other things, he pointed out that much of "racism" is actually discrimination against certain negative behaviors, such as lack of respect for education, lack of family values, quick tempers, pugnacious pride, lack of work ethic and so forth.
Redneck culture, he points out, is something brought over here from the borderlands between Scotland and England by immigrants who largely settled in the South. The whites who brought over the culture have mostly left that culture behind but many southern blacks picked up the culture in the south and brought it north with the industrial revolution. Freed blacks, many of which were quite well accepted in the north prior to the Civil War and Industrial Revolution, detested the Redneck blacks coming north and moved away from their neighborhoods as quickly as possible.
I am only touching on Sowell's theories in his long essay but it is essentially that blacks' behavior and cultural values account for much of what many want to ascribe to racism, overt or covert. Further, the culture that blacks want to claim as their "black heritage" is nothing more than rebel Scot/English culture centuries old. He is, in essence, arguing that blacks ought to drop the negative aspects of its culture, which isn't really black culture anyway, and acculturate themselves to the path to success which America offers.
Those who are not familiar with Sowell should read his works and also know that he is black himself.
MLK said that?
"bigoted, smiling face of northern and urban liberalism." Reminds me of Hillary.
Mississippy (and South) bashing is getting old. The facts speak for themselves, Chicago.
MLK said that?
"bigoted, smiling face of northern and urban liberalism." Reminds me of Hillary. Is she from Chicago?
The guy's black father ditched him and his white mother in his early childhood. He basically tricked the black community into thinking he and them have anything in common. You would think that those who love him so much would be interested in emulating something about him. If he were a Republican, all you would be hearing is "oreo" and "Uncle Tom". This is what Keyes received.
I think the implication, at least in part, is that Chicago is controlled by democrats. Their policies are implemented at will, at yet, somehow, black segregation, self-selected or not, continues. Separate is inherently unequal, at least we are so told by liberals. Where is the outrage? Why hasn't Chicago cured this blight? Before Obama Osama considers taking on more of the country, perhaps he should consider correcting this problem at home.
The main difference between Chicago and MS that I saw was that there was less black militancy and white fear in MS, despite MS's proportionally larger black population and its tarnished past. Blacks and whites seemed to get along better in MS because they were more comfortable living together.
I like to think that Southern manners and an aversion to extreme liberal poltics among (black and white) Southerners probably also has something to do with this.
My kinfolk on my father's side all lived in the poorest of Appalachian areas of Alabama. They didn't discriminate against blacks because they didn't have anything to discriminate with. There was no "other side of the tracks" because there weren't even any tracks.
The "rich" ones were the ones who had jobs at the mills and got to live in houses owned by the mill and buy packaged food at the mill's store.
Kinda hard to discriminate when you're just trying to get by.
That sounds like a political scandal. In most places the inner cities and industrial areas are where the high value property is located and where poor folk live. It takes a whole bunch of suburban subdivisions to equal the real estate value of one sky scraper or one oil refinery. Maybe school districts were gerrymandered.
I've lived in Chicago and MS also, and there's no doubt that Chicago is more segregated.