Live data from Hacker News

Detroit in Ruins

detroiturbex.com

171–177 of 177 posts

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#171
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On more than one occasion, we would be approached by "youths" (one of them wasn't even that young) who were clearly drug dealers. One of my brothers confirmed this to me. The smell of marijuana smoke was another tell. pro tip for suburban residents: not all black people who smoke marijuana are drug dealers, despite what your brother 'confirms'.

The word 'black' wasn't mentioned in the parent comment, which makes your reply rather jarring...

it was obvious from that comment alone, and then became overwhelmingly obvious that that is why he was uncomfortable based on his other responses in the thread.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#172
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can do that in certain parts of LA. But you can see these ruins almost everywhere in Detroit. It's really one of the most depressing cities I've ever been to.

Just down the street from me is a house that has been abandoned for a few years. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.172165,-118.634398&ll=3... If I wanted to take some photos it'd be nice ruin porn. Of course the properties to the right and left are million dollar homes.

I get your point that there is "ruin porn" in almost any city.

I don't think you get my point though. Detroit is almost entirely "ruin porn", there are no million dollar homes next to any ruins in Detroit, I doubt there are any million dollar homes in Detroit at all.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#173
post #159
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would simply object that the division of blame along black/white lines is arbitrary and serves no useful purpose. I'm sure that people of every different skin tone have had a role in Detroit's decline, I just don't see the point in trying to figure out which skin tones are to more blame for what, any more than I would think it sensible to partition blame according to how much bread people ate, as if to set the brea…

I don't think anyone was claiming that skin tone mattered. Imagine you have a structure supported by two pillars, where one is painted red and the other green and weaknesses in one pillar will make the whole structure fall apart. No one gives a damn that the pillars are different color. However, it is not politically correct to point out that there are structural weaknesses in the green pillar that need fixing simply…

> Mentioning the color just serves to describe which of the two pillars has the weaknesses. Nothing else.

Would that that were true. In your example, one could instead identify the cracks or other structural problems and focus on those, rather than which pillar had more of them.

Otherwise, one gets left with the impression that the color is what made the pillar weak, rather than the cracked foundations. Focusing on the color of the pillar is an unnecessary and harmful distraction.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is closely connected to what Paul Graham wrote about in his essay, "What You Can't Say." If no one has the courage to describe what is in front of our faces, then pointing at it must suffice.

OK so we should come right out and say it then rather than beating around the bush. What you're trying to say is the one thing Detroit, Rhodesia, and South Africa have in common is large numbers of black people, right? If we're going to be racist dicks we might as well get to the point, eh?

We should also point out that countries inhabited largely by caucasians never have these sort of COUGH EASTERN EUROPE COUGH problems.

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#175
post #86

As I see in the comments here, and in general public sentiment, there is an extreme bifurcation. People who believe and people who don't. I grew up in the suburbs and will be moving downtown in a month. A lot of people, my parents, my girlfriend and some of my friends think I am crazy. When you see pictures like this, it is hard not to blame them. But once you get past the empty buildings and wasteland, there is some…

> It provides opportunities unlike anywhere else. For example, there are 6 bars within 500 feet of my front door.

So... it provides an opportunity to drink? New York has that, too, and it's not blighted by urban decay. (Well, not anymore.)

Re: Detroit in Ruins

#177
post #163

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…

> It seems to me stunning that anyone can dispute the statement that "black people played a role in the decay of Detroit". That statement, as it stands, is ambiguous, and that its implications depend a lot on what it's taken to mean. Statement 1: Many of the people involved in the decay of Detroit were black. Statement 2: Many of the people involved in the decay of Detroit were black, and their blackness was an impor…

In the context of America, black is an ethnicity as well as a race. Maybe we should have two different words to distinguish the two, but we don't, and that's the way the word is used. A racial-ethnic group is a group up people who share characteristics of lineage, culture, dialect, mores, norms, etc. Obviously, all talk of ethnic characteristics will be unfortunately general. Not every Italian likes espresso, not every American-urban-black person likes fried chicken, etc.

I think it is a very well supported statement to say that the "american-black-ethnic-group" that moved north into Detroit had levels of crime that the prior residents of Detroit found quite disturbing. And a major proportion of this crime was directed at white people in a racially charged manner. That is not to say that violence is an indelible attribute of all black ethnic groups, at all times, and all places. But high rates of violence was a property of this particular ethnic group, at this time, at this place. The movement of this ethnic group into the city, and the interactions of this ethnic group with other ethnic groups in the city, is important for understanding what happened. The Detroit story is partly a story of an ethnic-sectarian conflict, just as in Kosovo, Israel, post-bellum Atlanta, or innumerable other times and places in history.

What are the practical reasons is it important to recognize and talk about the ethnic nature of the conflict? I can think of a couple:

a) The current conventional wisdom (that I learned in college) was that white flight was due to an irrational and bigoted revulsion of black people. Thus the solution to preventing future white is to re-educate white people to make them not racist. The actual story, I think, is that white flight was a result of ethnic violence. White people feared black people moving into their neighborhood, because they had the quite rational and well-supported belief that this would dramatically increase the probability of black-on-white ethnic violence. The solution, then, is to take the same techniques of law enforcement and re-education that were used with tremendous success to reduce white-on-black ethnic violence and white-on-black racism, and use those techniques to reduce black-on-white racism and black-on-white violence.

b) If you are governing a city or a country that's experiencing a large influx of ethnic migration, and that ethnic group has cultural patterns that are causing problems, you need to work on strengthening your institutions to handle that influx. And if the influx is too much and too sudden, and your rate of building institutions too slow, you might want to think about ways to limit the influx, so you can properly assimilate the migrants, before the migration overwhelms your institutions entirely and you lose the city.

Post reply on HN