Live data from Hacker News

Detroit in Ruins

detroiturbex.com

131–140 of 177 posts

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#131
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in the Metro Detroit suburbs, and downtown Detroit is the spot right now. The ability to get whatever you need, yes even groceries, within walking distance is a reality. Walking to Tigers games, enjoying the nightlife, eating at amazing restaurants, and enjoying the city are a regular part of life. I live in downtown Detroit. I do not want to live in the suburbs.

"The ability to get whatever you need, yes even groceries, within walking distance is a reality." No offence, but having lived in about 4 major US cities (Detroit not included), that seems to be setting the bar awfully low. Being able to buy groceries is just a basic necessity, and restaurants/nightlife is something every city has.

He/she is coming from the Detroit suburbs though. Everything there is spread out and you really need a car to get anywhere. I used to drive ~20 minutes to get to the movie theater that I frequented. Granted, I lived within walking distance of a grocery store even in the suburbs, but that just happened to be the case.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#132
I always wonder how entire cities ended up as ruins that were then lost and subsequently found by archeologists. It seems like what is going on in Detroit and other cities and towns is similar to what must have happened in many city's cases over the millennia.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#133
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The ability to get whatever you need, yes even groceries, within walking distance is a reality." No offence, but having lived in about 4 major US cities (Detroit not included), that seems to be setting the bar awfully low. Being able to buy groceries is just a basic necessity, and restaurants/nightlife is something every city has.

He/she is coming from the Detroit suburbs though. Everything there is spread out and you really need a car to get anywhere. I used to drive ~20 minutes to get to the movie theater that I frequented. Granted, I lived within walking distance of a grocery store even in the suburbs, but that just happened to be the case.

Yeah, but surely even people from the suburbs realize that that sort of thing is expected in nearly every city... after all, the city isn't the suburbs.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#134
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "sudden and deliberate demographic shift", also known as white flight, may indeed have happened because whites were and are irrationally racist. This is certainly the conventional wisdom. And by the end, there was surely no dearth of white racists, especially among the Polish community after the confrontation with Coleman Young. But is it legitimate for people to state that there may be other factors as well, in…

No, it's not illegitimate to state that. Racism was a small factor. There was virulent racism in Chicago as well. The big reason is economics. The viewpoint that will (rightly) get you shunned is the one that says "black people" were a factor (or, worse, "an international Jewish conspiracy to take over American culture").

(continued from above)

i) The overall homicide rate in Detroit rose from around ~7 per 100k in 1918 to a peak of 60 per 100k in 1991. That's nearly a 10X increase. That rise in crime was predominantly black on black and black on white. Naturally, the middle class whites who could afford it, fled the city. The book "Devil's Night" by Chafets gives some first hand documentation of the people who left, but I haven't read it. I have read "Carnasie" by Jonathan Rieder, who chronicles the exact same process in Brooklyn. Rieder's actually a liberal, but he's quite frank in his descriptions. Here a few excerpts:

Page 68: I met few residents who were strangers to street crime. If they had not been victimized, usually only one link in the chain of intimacy separated them from the victims...Most had a favorite story of horror. A trucker remembered defecating in his pants a few years earlier when five black youths cornered him in an elevator and placed a knifeblade against his throat. "They got two hundred dollars and a gold watch. They told me, 'Listen you white motherfucker, you ain't calling the law.' I ran and got in my car and set off the alarm. A group of blacks got around the car. If anybody made a move, I'd have run them over. The police came and we caught one of them. The judge gave them fucking to-year probation." The experience left an indelible imprint. He still relived the humiliation of soiling himself.

Page 69: One police officer explained that he earned his living by getting mugged. On his roving beat he had been mugged hundreds of times in five years. "I only been mugged by a white buy one time. All right, one instance, I went to the Brooklyn Navy Yard. They got a huge mugging rate there. I was dressed like an old man, a scar on my face, a little blood dripping like I was just anaccident, a cast on my arm, wearing old clothes." He had been out on the street for barely five or ten minutes when a band of black youths approached him. "First words I heard were, 'Get the old white man.' Somebody got around me, I got kicked, I got punched, one guy says, 'Grab him, let's take his wallet,' I got stabbed in the hand. It was a savage thing. I also found that it was because I was white. 'Look at the old white guy', 'Let's get the old white guy,' 'Get the fucking white scumbag.' What the hell does 'white' mean?"

Page 71: Many Canarsian's, concluding that vast stretches of Brooklyn had become dangerous places, nervously shifted their patterns of movement through the city or retreated into protective asylums...Whites ceded many areas of the city, but crime followed them into Canarsie. Social policy and administrative decisions, such as housing for the poor in middle income neighborhoods, school zoning and busing schemes, and inadaquate screening of public housing, increased the permeability of the community."

Page 73: After a flurry of muggings by black youths around the subway station near the low-income project, the residents were especially unnerved...One evening dozens of people crowded into a synagogue basement to discuss the muggins. The rabbi sermonized, "...Five blacks broke the ribs and shoulder bone of the last person who was attacked. The entire perimeter of the proejct has become hazardous...."

The statistics and the anectdotal evidence are overwhelming. Urban decay happened primarily because of violence committed by a subgroup of lower class black youths against whites. Once the middle class whites and blacks had fled those neighborhoods, the remaining lower class blacks did not have the cultural or economic capital to start businesses and create jobs, so the areas remained depressed.

This pattern of violence and decay happened all across America, from Boston to L.A.. But Detroit got it the worst and has basically never recovered. Why did Detroit get it the worst? A bunch of reasons: 1) Detroit had a higher perecentage of black residents. Detroit was 29% black in 1960, Chicago 22%, Boston only 9%. 2) Detroit went a lot further with its lax policing and urban housing projects, for liberals of the time it was considered a model city 3) style of urban renewal - as I understand it, Chicago restricted most of its housing projects to certain areas which resulted in only those areas getting blighted 4) chance of leadership - sometimes its just bad luck that one city gets a particularly destructive mayor 5) decline of the automative sector. I think this factor matters, but it's been overrated. The decline of Detroit itself went into high gear from 1965 to 1975. The automobile industry didn't really start to decline until the late 70's and 80's. Overall, Detroit metro gained population from 1960 through 2000. The real economic hardship to the region didn't hit until the 2008 crisis. That said, Detroit doesn't really have a strategic location, it was something of a one industry city, and it did not have any great universities, so the decline on that industry has meant the city has basically completely died, rather than limp along like Phildalphia 6) tipping point effects - all the small differences above can combine to pass a tipping point in which the city becomes completely unlivable.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#135
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "sudden and deliberate demographic shift", also known as white flight, may indeed have happened because whites were and are irrationally racist. This is certainly the conventional wisdom. And by the end, there was surely no dearth of white racists, especially among the Polish community after the confrontation with Coleman Young. But is it legitimate for people to state that there may be other factors as well, in…

No, it's not illegitimate to state that. Racism was a small factor. There was virulent racism in Chicago as well. The big reason is economics. The viewpoint that will (rightly) get you shunned is the one that says "black people" were a factor (or, worse, "an international Jewish conspiracy to take over American culture").

"The viewpoint that will (rightly) get you shunned is the one that says "black people" were a factor"

Do you shun that viewpoint because it is false and slanderous? Or do you believe that it is true, but that it must not be talked about, because the wrong people might exploit the history for undesirable ends?

It seems to me stunning that anyone can dispute the statement that "black people played a role in the decay of Detroit". It's every bit as true as saying, "White people played a role in the 1906 Atlanta riots" or "Mongols played a role in the sacking of Baghdad in 1258" or "Irish played a major role in the degeneracy of New York's five points in the 1850's". Obviously, this is not to say that all central-asians are responsible for sacking Baghdad or that all blacks are responsible for the destruction of Detroit. But it is true that both of the events had an ethnic component to them, and if you want to understand what happened, you need to understand how different groups of people played a part.

I've spent quite a bit of time over the years trying to piece together what happened to leave so many American areas in ruins. Detroit is the worst, but large swaths of cities like Saint Louis, Baltimore, New Haven, NY, Cleveland, Buffalo, Philadelphia, etc, show the same patterns of blight, abandonment, decay, crime, drug abuse, and gang violence.

The quickest summary I can produce is:

a) The U.S. has always had a crime problem. A good deal of this crime problem has stemmed from the fact that the police and justice system have always been much less effective at bringing criminals to justice than have the European systems. This was the case in the early 1900's and it's still the case today. Read this book if you want more details: http://books.google.com/books?id=NGBLAAAAMAAJ&dq=raymond...

b) In the U.S. in the early 1900's, the south had the most ineffective policing system. Judges were horribly corrupt and murderers could often buy a non-guilty plea for as low as $50. And in the south, the black communities had the least justice. Police and the courts did not care when black people killed black people. Not suprisingly, crime was a huge problem among the black population. If you look at murder rates by city in the 1910's, its always the cities with large black populations that had the highest rates, and if you look at crime by race, you see the same effect.

c) During the 1910's through the 1960's, black people migrated north in large numbers. The migration was due to push factors (escaping Jim Crow, loss of jobs due to mechanization in the cotton fields) and pull factors (the two world wars creating lots of manufacturing jobs).

d) American law enforcement was always lax, but in the 1950's and 1960's it became even more so. A series of court rulings made it more difficult to arrest and convict. Liberal leaning mayors and progressive activists helped curb the age-old practice of police dealing "street justice". During that time period, the average expected punishment for a given act of burglary declined by 75%.

e) The civil rights movement quickly branched out into the "black power" movement. Parts of the black power movement blamed whites in general for all the ills of the world, and gave justifications for violence. Young men always have supressed desire to riot and rampage, to exert their own sense of power and dominance. Many black young men latched on to the ideas of the black power movement as a rationalization for violence against all whites (even those who had zero responsibility for slavery or discrimination).

f) As part of urban renewal push, city planners razed entire blocks and neighborhoods. The government erected housing projects, populated largely by blacks, in replacement. Most of the housing projects had little or no police or security precense. Complex bureaucratic rules made it impossible to evict misbehaving neighbors. Without any government law and order, gang rule took over and anarchy ensued.

g) So altogether, you have a population that historically has had quite high crime rates moving in to Detroit. The policing at the time is becoming much more lax. The housing projects knock down existing blocks and place these new, high crime residents right in the middle of more middle class residents. These high crime residents often bear a special grudge towards white people. As a result, these middle class residents are exposed to a level of violence and social degeneracy that is schocking. Muggings and assults become a frequent occurrence. Naturally, they flee.

h) The biggest tipping point was the 1967 riots, during which (almost entirely black) mobs torched buildings, looted stores, and killed residents. They killed people like Sheren George "a married mother of two. Shot while in the car driven by her husband (Ross), as they tried flee from a mob of black youths beating a white man." and Krikor Messerlian, "A 68 year-old Armenian immigrant, beaten to death by a group of black youths, one wielding a baseball bat." The police stood back most of the first day of the riots, but by the third day the military was called in and started using live rounds. They killed a bunch of rioters and some innocent people. After the riots, the rate of exodus from Detroit rose from 20,000 a year to 80,000 a year.

(comment got too long for HN to handle, breaking into a second comment)

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#136
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they were driven out. There was a sharp increase in crime caused by the friction of disparate groups suddenly coming in close contact with each other (Devil's Night and so forth). Yugoslavia broke up due to such friction, and those ethnic groups have been in contact with each other for centuries. The Malays and Chinese of Malaysia have had plenty of scuffles, too, and they've been around each other for a long ti…

> As for E. Michael Jones, he didn't start going into his theory of the Jews until after he wrote his other work. Yeah, and I'm more than a little creeped-out calling anything this guy produces a "theory" or even "work". Since you keep bringing up this guy's theories as such a transformative event for you and all, just for edification, here's what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about his "theory of the Je…

As I wrote in the previous post, Jones wrote that book before he started writing about Jews. Since you refuse to draw the implied inference, then I will do it for you: I disagree with E. Michael Jones about the Jews; I think that E. Michael Jones is wrong about the Jews. Think before you post. If I agreed with Jones about the Jews, then why would I bother pointing out what time he wrote which opinion?

Since that's settled (I hope), you should try to refute the claims of Jones with which I agree rather than those with which I disagree. But you don't even try. You go for point & sputter. Why don't you pull a Godwin while you're at it?

Furthermore, the fact that I agree with some of a persons opinions does not imply agreement with all of that persons opinions. Pick any of your heroes; almost certainly they will hold at least one opinion which you find repellant. I won't hold that against you. One would think that that would go without saying around here. More the fool I.

As for Diversity + Proximity = War, that is rough description. In order for different groups to be in conflict with each other, they must be within striking distance of each other.

Take a closer look at those supposed counter-examples which you site. In Los Angeles and other cities of southern California, Hispanics have been in conflict with Blacks for a while. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/2007/03/march...

New York City has had friction between not only races, but ethnic groups for a long time. Have you heard of the movie Gangs of New York? It was based on a non-fiction book written in 1928.

I'll keep this post as short as I can and invite you to fire up your favorite search engine and enter "racial tension X" without quotes, substituting one of the cities in your list for X. It does not make for pleasant reading.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not illegitimate to state that. Racism was a small factor. There was virulent racism in Chicago as well. The big reason is economics. The viewpoint that will (rightly) get you shunned is the one that says "black people" were a factor (or, worse, "an international Jewish conspiracy to take over American culture").

"The viewpoint that will (rightly) get you shunned is the one that says "black people" were a factor" Do you shun that viewpoint because it is false and slanderous? Or do you believe that it is true, but that it must not be talked about, because the wrong people might exploit the history for undesirable ends? It seems to me stunning that anyone can dispute the statement that "black people played a role in the decay o…

Looks like stormfront has finally discovered HN.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> On more than one occasion, we would be approached by "youths" (one of them wasn't even that young) What does this even mean? I am seriously confused. "The smell of marijuana was another tell." Wow, the few times I tried weed in college everyone must have thought I was a drug dealer, too.

My brother has more experience in the business and has been in the area far more than me. He called them drug dealers. I trust his judgement on the matter. The smell of marijuana was, like I said, an added tell. EDIT: grammar

You don't have to be a dealer to smell of pot.

It's also pretty hilarious to hear you being scared of kids because they "smell of marijuana".

Of course, they probably did smoke pot. But this would earn them a big "so what?" from me, rather than a panicky exit.

And if they were giving you "the evil eye", that would make me wonder if you did anything to deserve it. Were you sporting bald heads, combat boots, suspenders, and German memorabilia, by any chance?

Or perhaps they'd overheard you talking to your brother about how all the black people had ruined Detroit.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#139
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The viewpoint that will (rightly) get you shunned is the one that says "black people" were a factor" Do you shun that viewpoint because it is false and slanderous? Or do you believe that it is true, but that it must not be talked about, because the wrong people might exploit the history for undesirable ends? It seems to me stunning that anyone can dispute the statement that "black people played a role in the decay o…

Looks like stormfront has finally discovered HN.

In the future, everyone will be Hitler for fifteen minutes.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#140
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The viewpoint that will (rightly) get you shunned is the one that says "black people" were a factor" Do you shun that viewpoint because it is false and slanderous? Or do you believe that it is true, but that it must not be talked about, because the wrong people might exploit the history for undesirable ends? It seems to me stunning that anyone can dispute the statement that "black people played a role in the decay o…

Looks like stormfront has finally discovered HN.

I'm no stormfronter. I grew up progressive, went to progressive schools, I've volunteered in inner city neighborhoods mentoring kids and fixing up houses. I live in a neighborhood that's mostly middle class black, I play pick up football with kids from the projects, and I even have the cliched black roommate.

I studied the issue of urban decay because I spent a lot of time living near and walking through these neighborhoods. I read dozens of books and articles to try and figure out what happened. The interpretation above is the best I can do.

If you find stormfront repugnant (as I do), then don't put yourself in a position where the stormfronters are on the side of truth and you are on the side of falsehood. Otherwise you will be giving good people, who would otherwise be reasonable progressives, incentive to ally themselves with the stormfronter crowd. Recognizing the role of blacks in the destruction of Detroit's white neighbhorhoods should be viewed the same way as viewing the role of whites in the 1906 destruction of Atlanta's black neighborhoods. You can recognize and speak the truth about 1906 Atlanta without being racist against whites, and you can speak the truth about Detroit without being racist against blacks.

Post reply on HN