When whites fled Chicago in the 1970s

[iamwhatiseem]

All of this is the fault of Chicago's gutless officials who care more about not appearing racist than saving black lives.
SEVERAL years ago they installed test technology in a couple problematic neighborhoods...devices that can detect the unique sounds of gunfire and accurately triangulate where it came from and lead officers to the exact spot just like you use Google maps. Officers were arriving to the scene before anyone even called the police yet. In these test areas....due to immediate response and arrest - GUN CRIME DROPPED 40%!!!!!!!!!!
Yet Chicago officials won't install the devices in other areas..........WHY?

Why is this funny jillian

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Obviously, in my model, exploitation of non-white lands and labor helped transfer wealth or energy from non-whites to whites. Hence, nations that are more white have more wealth....Ergo...all the English speaking nations that are majority white will have high standards of living. Brazil is half non-white.

This is some funny shit....you a comedian?....you should take this act on the road!

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Portuguese took the most slaves in the Atlantic Slave Trade, this is a indisputable fact.

Why isn't the formerly Portuguese Brazil like the U.S, or Portugal like Britain, from such?

Actually when the 20th century rolled in Portugal was among the poorer of Europe. (Today it's poorer than all of Western Europe) only much of Eastern Europe is poorer due to Communism.

However, Eastern Europe is gaining on Portugal fast economically, and some nations in Eastern Europe surpassed them in income like Slovenia, Czech Rep, and Slovakia)

Its simple. There were many European countries that was trying to control and dominate the globe during that era. France, Portugal, Spain, the Dutch, Great Britain, etc. Great Britain won out and that is why its language has spread to more corners of the globe than all these other countries and why their former colonies are doing better than the others.

Yet, after all of that it seems that Germany, Scandinavia, Ireland, and the Netherlands have become the most productive countries in Europe.

Only 1 of these (The Dutch) were major colonists)

When I was growing up there used to be a saying "What you do to get it is what you have to do to keep it". Many former exploiters have fallen off because they no longer exploit. The United States now dominates global exploitation (which has replaced the domestic origins of its exploitation). Those countries the US trades the most with.....benefit the most economically.

Why didn't Brazil become a second U.S, they have a big population, a lot of land (Maybe less than the U.S) but Brazil had far more Black slaves to exploit than the U.S.

It seems that Brazilians are just inferior to U,S Americans.

If Brazil really had their acts together, they would have obviously colonized all of South America, and would be a huge economic, and intellectual powerhouse.

Because Portugal never became a major world power. The United States is the Offspring of Great Britian and the influence and wealth of Great Britian was inherited and expanded by the US.

Obviously, in my model, exploitation of non-white lands and labor helped transfer wealth or energy from non-whites to whites. Hence, nations that are more white have more wealth....Ergo...all the English speaking nations that are majority white will have high standards of living. Brazil is half non-white.

But, the U.S was built up from scratch, having abandoned the British Empire.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

A little enlightment on Slavery.

America was by no means a "slavery state", never was.
Of all of the countries that took in Arfican slaves, America counted for about 5%. Let me say that again...America only took in about 5% of all of the slaves captured in Africa. The rest went to Brazil and Caribbean Islands.
The truth is most Americans rejected slavery, or at least frowned on it's existence.
Even in the south where slavery was employed, less than 25% of southerners owned slaves!!!
And of course it was outright discouraged and rare in the rest of the nation.
There is no argument that slavery contributed to wealth in the south, those that did use slaves certainly held the lionshare of the entire populations wealth. However, that ended in 1865. After that, blacks in the south had very little economic value one way or the other. They pretty much kept to their own areas, and neither contributed or took much wealth.

 

[Markle]

I am saying, since you want to play silly games, is that blacks do not own controlling interest in any of these companies.

 

[AKIP]

Its simple. There were many European countries that was trying to control and dominate the globe during that era. France, Portugal, Spain, the Dutch, Great Britain, etc. Great Britain won out and that is why its language has spread to more corners of the globe than all these other countries and why their former colonies are doing better than the others.

Yet, after all of that it seems that Germany, Scandinavia, Ireland, and the Netherlands have become the most productive countries in Europe.

Only 1 of these (The Dutch) were major colonists)

When I was growing up there used to be a saying "What you do to get it is what you have to do to keep it". Many former exploiters have fallen off because they no longer exploit. The United States now dominates global exploitation (which has replaced the domestic origins of its exploitation). Those countries the US trades the most with.....benefit the most economically.

Why didn't Brazil become a second U.S, they have a big population, a lot of land (Maybe less than the U.S) but Brazil had far more Black slaves to exploit than the U.S.

It seems that Brazilians are just inferior to U,S Americans.

If Brazil really had their acts together, they would have obviously colonized all of South America, and would be a huge economic, and intellectual powerhouse.

Because Portugal never became a major world power. The United States is the Offspring of Great Britian and the influence and wealth of Great Britian was inherited and expanded by the US.

Obviously, in my model, exploitation of non-white lands and labor helped transfer wealth or energy from non-whites to whites. Hence, nations that are more white have more wealth....Ergo...all the English speaking nations that are majority white will have high standards of living. Brazil is half non-white.

But, the U.S was built up from scratch, having abandoned the British Empire.

Not really from scratch....but yes...to a degree. However, remember that the US did not become "THE" power until WWII destroyed all the other major economies of the world. The US then pretty much took empire over from Great Britain....but since the war the two countries work in concert on most global affairs.

This is why the US zenith economically was never sustainable. It was the artificial result off all the other competition being eliminated for a period of time, giving the US a global monopoly. We still have actually fallen a great deal as an economic power......but its being masked by unprecedented levels of debt.

 

[Markle]

Who wouldn't want to put Chicago in the rear view mirror.

Chicago is a beautiful city. I grew up on the North Side and I visit on business and for pleasure from time to time. It is tragic that parts have been decimated due to the Progressive "ownership" for so many decades.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Who wouldn't want to put Chicago in the rear view mirror.

Chicago is a beautiful city. I grew up on the North Side and I visit on business and for pleasure from time to time. It is tragic that parts have been decimated due to the Progressive "ownership" for so many decades.

everywhere was nice once.

 

[cnelsen]

Obviously it isn't.
It is economics. Should progress and improvement of communities be stopped? Is that your answer?

No it's racism. The same development could have occurred before the whites started moving back there,

If you actually believe the stuff you write, you are in a special category of clueless. So why DIDN'T the development happen when only blacks lived there?

And if development didn't happen when only blacks lived there, how did the development first happen when only blacks lived there? Did the residents put on white face and trick the developers into thinking they'd accidentally purchased real estate in Vermont?

I'm afraid I am not the clueless one here. So let me air it out. Speedway was developed in 1912 and built to provide residential access for workers in the nearby factories. I doubt if many Now the question is did those factories leave as blacks moved into those communities? and, Why after 105 years is redevelopment finally occurring?

In 1926, the Indianapolis City Council, heavily influenced at the time by the Klan, drafted a residential zoning ordinance prohibiting blacks from moving into predominantly white neighborhoods without the consent of the white residents, and vice versa. Despite doubts among legal staff from the mayor’s office as to its constitutional validity, the measure enjoyed broad support from white civic organizations and municipal officials alike. Proponents of the bill cited the recent decision of Tyler v. Harmon, 158 La. 439 (1925). In that case, the Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld the constitutionality of a New Orleans racial zoning ordinance—a model upon which the Indianapolis measure was based—concluding that, because the ordinance prohibited mere occupancy rather than the sale of property, Buchanan did not apply. The court further reasoned that, because it applied equally to whites and blacks and dealt with “social, as distinguished from political, equality,” the ordinance lacked a discriminatory basis. The Tyler decision was sufficient precedent for Indianapolis officials to act. “Passage of this ordinance,” declared the president of the White Citizens Protective League, “will stabilize real estate values . . . and give the honest citizens and voters renewed faith in city officials.”

Case Study

You do understand what zoning is don't you?

Maybe you read the link to understand how I say what I do.

Unfortunately, successful efforts at residential integration and environmental preservation failed to extend much beyond the neighborhood boundaries of Butler-Tarkington. Instead, many of the traditionally African-American neighborhoods of Indy’s urban core succumbed to the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s. City officials sought to clear “blighted” areas rather than revitalize them, transforming the physical environment at great social and cultural expense.

As government subsidies shifted away from urban redevelopment, suburban sprawl added to the costly extension of public services to outlying, metropolitan areas. Perhaps the most well-known urban residential casualty was the neighborhood surrounding Indiana Avenue. By the early 1970s, the once-vibrant African-American community had given way to the construction of I-65 and the IUPUI campus. Today, only a few historic buildings—including the Madame Walker Theatre—remain as testaments to the neighborhood’s legacy.

What was your question boy?

The diversion of public funding and private investment in downtown Indianapolis led to further decline in the urban environment. Housing abandonment, demolition by neglect, mortgage foreclosure, and declining property values plagued several neighborhoods during the last decades of the 20th century. To make matter worse, many of the businesses that had served local needs—including supermarkets and small, black-owned establishments—closed their doors, leaving residents with limited access to healthy food or basic goods and services at affordable prices.

The Fall Creek neighborhood—bounded by Meridian Street to the west, Fall Creek Parkway to the north, College Avenue to the east, and 22nd Street to the south—illustrates the rapid decline of the physical environment during these years. By the early 1980s, following years of disinvestment, the neighborhood—formerly referred to as “Dodge City” because of its high crime rate—consisted largely of vacant lots and abandoned homes. Although many low-income, minority families continued to reside there, the city directed few resources to help repair the area’s increasing blight.

Again what was your question boy?

The disinvestment of Indy's downtown neighborhoods following the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s not only created a landscape of blight and disrepair, but also left an aging, broken, and unsanitary infrastructure. Perhaps most representative of this environmental injustice was the city's outdated combined sewer system, which was literally flooding (in fact, continues to flood) many urban residential areas with raw sewage.

In 1987, the EPA delegated responsibility for CSO permitting to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. However, absent strict federal regulations, there was little incentive to comply with water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. And because most urban communities in Indianapolis (as with many others across the U.S.) lacked the resources or political strength to enforce these standards, they were left to suffer from the environmentally hazardous legacy of these outdated sewer systems. In adding insult to injury, the growth in suburban residential developments led to even heavier sewage overflow in Indy's downstream urban neighborhoods.

In 1999, two environmental justice organizations—Improving Kids’ Environment and the Hoosier Environmental Council—filed an administrative complaint with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights on behalf of minority residents of the Fall Creek and White River neighborhoods (the population of which, at the time, was more than 85% black). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the city—while investing limited resources in new suburban residential developments—had failed to remedy CSOs in the urban neighborhoods, resulting in a disproportionate environmental impact in violation of EPA’s Title VI regulations. In 2001, the EPA accepted the complaint for investigation, ultimately leading to a settlement in which Indianapolis agreed to a long-term CSO control plan aimed at eliminating the discriminatory effects of the city's obsolete sanitation services. The consent decree into which the parties entered in 2006 requires the capture and treatment of 95% and 97% of the sewage overflows in the White River and Fall Creek watersheds respectively.

Again what was your question boy?

Like I said, RACISM is the problem here. But then again, you are a racist so expecting you to admit to racism as being a problem is expecting the impossible.

How friggin helpless are you people? In city after city, neighborhood after neighborhood, as blacks move in, things start deteriorating. Crime starts to go up, trash starts to pile up, weeds start to grow up, porches start to fall down.

It happens in countries, too.

In Africa, after the Europeans left, things deteriorated. Roads fell into disrepair, sewage systems stopped working, water became contaminated, and corruption became endemic. In the Congo, they are back to using only the rivers to travel around the country. The highways the Belgians built have been swallowed back up by the jungle.

Who knows. Maybe the world is better without highways. But it's just weak to whine about not having highways or vibrant downtowns and then blame racism when white people don't come build them for you.

You might not like to hear that, and you can call me names all you want, the simple fact of the matter is it's the truth. Personally, I don't regard city services and real estate values as the primary determinant of human worth, so I shrug and move on. But what's pathetic is you trying to pretend that somehow it's white peoples fault no one in the hood will use a fucking trash can, that somehow I am to blame when you don't repair your broken fence, that the system is to blame when your people just throw household trash into the vacant lot next door.

Free advice: stop listening to black talk radio. It's a poisonous dead end.

,
7795 Washtenaw Drive

Obviously it isn't.
It is economics. Should progress and improvement of communities be stopped? Is that your answer?

No it's racism. The same development could have occurred before the whites started moving back there,

If you actually believe the stuff you write, you are in a special category of clueless. So why DIDN'T the development happen when only blacks lived there?

And if development didn't happen when only blacks lived there, how did the development first happen when only blacks lived there? Did the residents put on white face and trick the developers into thinking they'd accidentally purchased real estate in Vermont?

I'm afraid I am not the clueless one here. So let me air it out. Speedway was developed in 1912 and built to provide residential access for workers in the nearby factories. I doubt if many Now the question is did those factories leave as blacks moved into those communities? and, Why after 105 years is redevelopment finally occurring?

In 1926, the Indianapolis City Council, heavily influenced at the time by the Klan, drafted a residential zoning ordinance prohibiting blacks from moving into predominantly white neighborhoods without the consent of the white residents, and vice versa. Despite doubts among legal staff from the mayor’s office as to its constitutional validity, the measure enjoyed broad support from white civic organizations and municipal officials alike. Proponents of the bill cited the recent decision of Tyler v. Harmon, 158 La. 439 (1925). In that case, the Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld the constitutionality of a New Orleans racial zoning ordinance—a model upon which the Indianapolis measure was based—concluding that, because the ordinance prohibited mere occupancy rather than the sale of property, Buchanan did not apply. The court further reasoned that, because it applied equally to whites and blacks and dealt with “social, as distinguished from political, equality,” the ordinance lacked a discriminatory basis. The Tyler decision was sufficient precedent for Indianapolis officials to act. “Passage of this ordinance,” declared the president of the White Citizens Protective League, “will stabilize real estate values . . . and give the honest citizens and voters renewed faith in city officials.”

Case Study

You do understand what zoning is don't you?

Maybe you read the link to understand how I say what I do.

Unfortunately, successful efforts at residential integration and environmental preservation failed to extend much beyond the neighborhood boundaries of Butler-Tarkington. Instead, many of the traditionally African-American neighborhoods of Indy’s urban core succumbed to the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s. City officials sought to clear “blighted” areas rather than revitalize them, transforming the physical environment at great social and cultural expense.

As government subsidies shifted away from urban redevelopment, suburban sprawl added to the costly extension of public services to outlying, metropolitan areas. Perhaps the most well-known urban residential casualty was the neighborhood surrounding Indiana Avenue. By the early 1970s, the once-vibrant African-American community had given way to the construction of I-65 and the IUPUI campus. Today, only a few historic buildings—including the Madame Walker Theatre—remain as testaments to the neighborhood’s legacy.

What was your question boy?

The diversion of public funding and private investment in downtown Indianapolis led to further decline in the urban environment. Housing abandonment, demolition by neglect, mortgage foreclosure, and declining property values plagued several neighborhoods during the last decades of the 20th century. To make matter worse, many of the businesses that had served local needs—including supermarkets and small, black-owned establishments—closed their doors, leaving residents with limited access to healthy food or basic goods and services at affordable prices.

The Fall Creek neighborhood—bounded by Meridian Street to the west, Fall Creek Parkway to the north, College Avenue to the east, and 22nd Street to the south—illustrates the rapid decline of the physical environment during these years. By the early 1980s, following years of disinvestment, the neighborhood—formerly referred to as “Dodge City” because of its high crime rate—consisted largely of vacant lots and abandoned homes. Although many low-income, minority families continued to reside there, the city directed few resources to help repair the area’s increasing blight.

Again what was your question boy?

The disinvestment of Indy's downtown neighborhoods following the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s not only created a landscape of blight and disrepair, but also left an aging, broken, and unsanitary infrastructure. Perhaps most representative of this environmental injustice was the city's outdated combined sewer system, which was literally flooding (in fact, continues to flood) many urban residential areas with raw sewage.

In 1987, the EPA delegated responsibility for CSO permitting to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. However, absent strict federal regulations, there was little incentive to comply with water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. And because most urban communities in Indianapolis (as with many others across the U.S.) lacked the resources or political strength to enforce these standards, they were left to suffer from the environmentally hazardous legacy of these outdated sewer systems. In adding insult to injury, the growth in suburban residential developments led to even heavier sewage overflow in Indy's downstream urban neighborhoods.

In 1999, two environmental justice organizations—Improving Kids’ Environment and the Hoosier Environmental Council—filed an administrative complaint with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights on behalf of minority residents of the Fall Creek and White River neighborhoods (the population of which, at the time, was more than 85% black). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the city—while investing limited resources in new suburban residential developments—had failed to remedy CSOs in the urban neighborhoods, resulting in a disproportionate environmental impact in violation of EPA’s Title VI regulations. In 2001, the EPA accepted the complaint for investigation, ultimately leading to a settlement in which Indianapolis agreed to a long-term CSO control plan aimed at eliminating the discriminatory effects of the city's obsolete sanitation services. The consent decree into which the parties entered in 2006 requires the capture and treatment of 95% and 97% of the sewage overflows in the White River and Fall Creek watersheds respectively.

Again what was your question boy?

Like I said, RACISM is the problem here. But then again, you are a racist so expecting you to admit to racism as being a problem is expecting the impossible.

How friggin helpless are you people? In city after city, neighborhood after neighborhood, as blacks move in, things start deteriorating. Crime starts to go up, trash starts to pile up, weeds start to grow up, porches start to fall down.

It happens in countries, too.

In Africa, after the Europeans left, things deteriorated. Roads fell into disrepair, sewage systems stopped working, water became contaminated, and corruption became endemic. In the Congo, they are back to using only the rivers to travel around the country. The highways the Belgians built have been swallowed back up by the jungle.

Who knows. Maybe the world is better without highways. But it's just weak to whine about not having highways or vibrant downtowns and then blame racism when white people don't come build them for you.

You might not like to hear that, and you can call me names all you want, the simple fact of the matter is it's the truth. Personally, I don't regard city services and real estate values as the primary determinant of human worth, so I shrug and move on. But what's pathetic is you trying to pretend that somehow it's white peoples fault no one in the hood will use a fucking trash can, that somehow I am to blame when you don't repair your broken fence, that the system is to blame when your people just throw household trash into the vacant lot next door.

Free advice: stop listening to black talk radio. It's a poisonous dead end.

Well.....was it not whites who had to flee their "all white" world for a better life in the "New World"? When whites just lived around whites......you all produced the same thing that you produce when you live around minorities. Europeans have been lifting themselves up by putting others down (oppression) for centuries. What that looked like when all whites were huddled together in Europe was that the masses were poor and oppressed while the aristocracy and the church had all the wealth. Things were so bad that severe methods of torture were created to strike fear in the masses in order to keep them in check. Study your history. That is why whites fled to the new world, many as indentured servants....for a better life.

When whites started going to parts of the planet where non whites lived, they simply took that same system of lifting some up by putting others down and made it racial.....ergo...whites would be lifted up by putting down non whites via taking their land, labor and resources by force and using that to the benefit/profit of Europeans.

No you all have forgotten that You see blacks as the problem......but actually we were part of the solution that lifted you out of poverty. You had your all white world.....and when you had it what did you make of it? It was a shit hole for the masses of whites who did not own any land. You were oppressed and repressed. Minorities became the beast of burden that saved you from your traditional roles as such, under your all white system. In your system, there always had to be iggas....and in an all white construct they become white.....its a product of your system.

Our system is the one the whole world has copied.

There is no place in the world free of oppression. However, judging by the non-white hordes streaming into white dominated lands from everywhere else, white societies are the least oppressive and provide the most freedom and opportunity (and welfare). The Africans packing themselves onto fishing boats to cross the Mediterranean are unlikely fleeing freedom and hoping to escape into oppression.

The reasons so many Europeans emigrated out of Europe wasn't because the headhunters and cannibals back in Europe were so oppressive. It was because, first of all, most of y'all hadn't built any ships nor invented a means of navigation.

Secondly, even though Africa is three times the size of Europe, Europe had twice the population (until recently when the white man's medicine, sanitation, civic institutions, schools, and so on has allowed the African population to explode. I read an article this morning about an African man who has one hundred children and wants more.)

(Also note below the extreme difference between Europe and North America in 1800. North America is twice the size of Europe but it only had one tenth the population in 1800--and by 1800, most of the 16 million here would have been European, one or two million Africans, and the rest Native American (this continent really was vast and relatively empty when the Europeans first arrived.

population in millions
[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD="align: right"]

​

[/TD][TD="align: center"]

1800 ​

[/TD][TD="align: center"]

1850 ​

[/TD][TD="align: center"]

1900 ​

[/TD][TD="align: center"]

1950 ​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

Europe (4 million mi²)​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

150​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

206​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

291​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

366​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

Russia (7 million mi²)​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

37​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

60​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

111​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

193​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

Africa (12 million mi²)​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

90​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

95​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

120​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

198​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

Asia (17 million mi²)​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

602​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

749​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

937​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

1302​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

North America (9.5 million mi²)​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

16​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

39​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

106​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

217​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

South America (7 million mi²)​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

9​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

20​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

38​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

111​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

Oceania​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

2​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

2​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

6​

[/TD][TD="align: right"]

13​

[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

 

[cnelsen]

Obviously it isn't.
It is economics. Should progress and improvement of communities be stopped? Is that your answer?

No it's racism. The same development could have occurred before the whites started moving back there,

Only if the blacks had the will and financial ability to make it happen. But that didn't happen in over 3 decades. The neighborhood just kept getting worse. It wasn't until people who actively want real jobs and put in the effort to get those jobs and create a demand for better housing and commercial retail did it happen.
You can't just want something and wait for someone to make it happen for you. There has to be demand available by people who have the earning ability to pay for it to make it happen

Spare me the ignorance and the dumb ass tired old whitebread lectures that deny racism. In short, shut the hell up.

I won't deny racism. I am a racist. I have a greater interest in the well-being of my people than I do in the well-being of the Chinese of the Congolese. Who cares? So what? In my view, if you aren't a racist, you are a kind of monster.

Race is nothing more than a very large, very extended, slightly inbred family. In the same way my biological brother and I have more ancestors in common, and more recently, with each other than with any other human on the planet, me and any other white guy on the planet have more ancestors in common and more recently with each other than either of us do with any black guy or Asian guy in the world. We are more closely related. Like brothers.

So try this thought experiment: you walk around a corner and see a man beating a woman. Quick! what's your first instinct? To help the woman, right? Now, you walk around a corner and see two Chinese men beating two women--one white, one black. Quick! What's your first instinct? To help the black woman, right? If you were white, you would hesitate on that question, because rayciss. Now, you walk around the corner and see two black men beating two black women and one of them is your mother. Quick! What do you do? You help your mother first, right? No one would think anything of it. They wouldn't accuse you of hating the other woman, they wouldn't accuse your mother of benefiting from mother privilege. In fact, people would think you were something like a monster if you DIDN'T help your mother first.

And, in fact, no one thinks anything about the Chinese guy helping the Chinese woman before he helps a Finnish woman. No one questions the black guy helping the black woman before he helps the Mexican woman. The whole world understands that is the absolutely normal, non-hateful reaction to have. ONLY white men are (((condemned))) if they help the white woman first.

That's why woke whites say "anti-racism is anti-white".

Don't despair. Stupid people can go on to live full and product lives. Hang in there.

I'm guessing you are the product of a HBC

 

[cnelsen]

If you actually believe the stuff you write, you are in a special category of clueless. So why DIDN'T the development happen when only blacks lived there?

And if development didn't happen when only blacks lived there, how did the development first happen when only blacks lived there? Did the residents put on white face and trick the developers into thinking they'd accidentally purchased real estate in Vermont?

I'm afraid I am not the clueless one here. So let me air it out. Speedway was developed in 1912 and built to provide residential access for workers in the nearby factories. I doubt if many Now the question is did those factories leave as blacks moved into those communities? and, Why after 105 years is redevelopment finally occurring?

In 1926, the Indianapolis City Council, heavily influenced at the time by the Klan, drafted a residential zoning ordinance prohibiting blacks from moving into predominantly white neighborhoods without the consent of the white residents, and vice versa. Despite doubts among legal staff from the mayor’s office as to its constitutional validity, the measure enjoyed broad support from white civic organizations and municipal officials alike. Proponents of the bill cited the recent decision of Tyler v. Harmon, 158 La. 439 (1925). In that case, the Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld the constitutionality of a New Orleans racial zoning ordinance—a model upon which the Indianapolis measure was based—concluding that, because the ordinance prohibited mere occupancy rather than the sale of property, Buchanan did not apply. The court further reasoned that, because it applied equally to whites and blacks and dealt with “social, as distinguished from political, equality,” the ordinance lacked a discriminatory basis. The Tyler decision was sufficient precedent for Indianapolis officials to act. “Passage of this ordinance,” declared the president of the White Citizens Protective League, “will stabilize real estate values . . . and give the honest citizens and voters renewed faith in city officials.”

Case Study

You do understand what zoning is don't you?

Maybe you read the link to understand how I say what I do.

Unfortunately, successful efforts at residential integration and environmental preservation failed to extend much beyond the neighborhood boundaries of Butler-Tarkington. Instead, many of the traditionally African-American neighborhoods of Indy’s urban core succumbed to the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s. City officials sought to clear “blighted” areas rather than revitalize them, transforming the physical environment at great social and cultural expense.

As government subsidies shifted away from urban redevelopment, suburban sprawl added to the costly extension of public services to outlying, metropolitan areas. Perhaps the most well-known urban residential casualty was the neighborhood surrounding Indiana Avenue. By the early 1970s, the once-vibrant African-American community had given way to the construction of I-65 and the IUPUI campus. Today, only a few historic buildings—including the Madame Walker Theatre—remain as testaments to the neighborhood’s legacy.

What was your question boy?

The diversion of public funding and private investment in downtown Indianapolis led to further decline in the urban environment. Housing abandonment, demolition by neglect, mortgage foreclosure, and declining property values plagued several neighborhoods during the last decades of the 20th century. To make matter worse, many of the businesses that had served local needs—including supermarkets and small, black-owned establishments—closed their doors, leaving residents with limited access to healthy food or basic goods and services at affordable prices.

The Fall Creek neighborhood—bounded by Meridian Street to the west, Fall Creek Parkway to the north, College Avenue to the east, and 22nd Street to the south—illustrates the rapid decline of the physical environment during these years. By the early 1980s, following years of disinvestment, the neighborhood—formerly referred to as “Dodge City” because of its high crime rate—consisted largely of vacant lots and abandoned homes. Although many low-income, minority families continued to reside there, the city directed few resources to help repair the area’s increasing blight.

Again what was your question boy?

The disinvestment of Indy's downtown neighborhoods following the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s not only created a landscape of blight and disrepair, but also left an aging, broken, and unsanitary infrastructure. Perhaps most representative of this environmental injustice was the city's outdated combined sewer system, which was literally flooding (in fact, continues to flood) many urban residential areas with raw sewage.

In 1987, the EPA delegated responsibility for CSO permitting to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. However, absent strict federal regulations, there was little incentive to comply with water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. And because most urban communities in Indianapolis (as with many others across the U.S.) lacked the resources or political strength to enforce these standards, they were left to suffer from the environmentally hazardous legacy of these outdated sewer systems. In adding insult to injury, the growth in suburban residential developments led to even heavier sewage overflow in Indy's downstream urban neighborhoods.

In 1999, two environmental justice organizations—Improving Kids’ Environment and the Hoosier Environmental Council—filed an administrative complaint with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights on behalf of minority residents of the Fall Creek and White River neighborhoods (the population of which, at the time, was more than 85% black). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the city—while investing limited resources in new suburban residential developments—had failed to remedy CSOs in the urban neighborhoods, resulting in a disproportionate environmental impact in violation of EPA’s Title VI regulations. In 2001, the EPA accepted the complaint for investigation, ultimately leading to a settlement in which Indianapolis agreed to a long-term CSO control plan aimed at eliminating the discriminatory effects of the city's obsolete sanitation services. The consent decree into which the parties entered in 2006 requires the capture and treatment of 95% and 97% of the sewage overflows in the White River and Fall Creek watersheds respectively.

Again what was your question boy?

Like I said, RACISM is the problem here. But then again, you are a racist so expecting you to admit to racism as being a problem is expecting the impossible.

How friggin helpless are you people? In city after city, neighborhood after neighborhood, as blacks move in, things start deteriorating. Crime starts to go up, trash starts to pile up, weeds start to grow up, porches start to fall down.

It happens in countries, too.

In Africa, after the Europeans left, things deteriorated. Roads fell into disrepair, sewage systems stopped working, water became contaminated, and corruption became endemic. In the Congo, they are back to using only the rivers to travel around the country. The highways the Belgians built have been swallowed back up by the jungle.

Who knows. Maybe the world is better without highways. But it's just weak to whine about not having highways or vibrant downtowns and then blame racism when white people don't come build them for you.

You might not like to hear that, and you can call me names all you want, the simple fact of the matter is it's the truth. Personally, I don't regard city services and real estate values as the primary determinant of human worth, so I shrug and move on. But what's pathetic is you trying to pretend that somehow it's white peoples fault no one in the hood will use a fucking trash can, that somehow I am to blame when you don't repair your broken fence, that the system is to blame when your people just throw household trash into the vacant lot next door.

Free advice: stop listening to black talk radio. It's a poisonous dead end.

,
7795 Washtenaw Drive

If you actually believe the stuff you write, you are in a special category of clueless. So why DIDN'T the development happen when only blacks lived there?

And if development didn't happen when only blacks lived there, how did the development first happen when only blacks lived there? Did the residents put on white face and trick the developers into thinking they'd accidentally purchased real estate in Vermont?

I'm afraid I am not the clueless one here. So let me air it out. Speedway was developed in 1912 and built to provide residential access for workers in the nearby factories. I doubt if many Now the question is did those factories leave as blacks moved into those communities? and, Why after 105 years is redevelopment finally occurring?

In 1926, the Indianapolis City Council, heavily influenced at the time by the Klan, drafted a residential zoning ordinance prohibiting blacks from moving into predominantly white neighborhoods without the consent of the white residents, and vice versa. Despite doubts among legal staff from the mayor’s office as to its constitutional validity, the measure enjoyed broad support from white civic organizations and municipal officials alike. Proponents of the bill cited the recent decision of Tyler v. Harmon, 158 La. 439 (1925). In that case, the Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld the constitutionality of a New Orleans racial zoning ordinance—a model upon which the Indianapolis measure was based—concluding that, because the ordinance prohibited mere occupancy rather than the sale of property, Buchanan did not apply. The court further reasoned that, because it applied equally to whites and blacks and dealt with “social, as distinguished from political, equality,” the ordinance lacked a discriminatory basis. The Tyler decision was sufficient precedent for Indianapolis officials to act. “Passage of this ordinance,” declared the president of the White Citizens Protective League, “will stabilize real estate values . . . and give the honest citizens and voters renewed faith in city officials.”

Case Study

You do understand what zoning is don't you?

Maybe you read the link to understand how I say what I do.

Unfortunately, successful efforts at residential integration and environmental preservation failed to extend much beyond the neighborhood boundaries of Butler-Tarkington. Instead, many of the traditionally African-American neighborhoods of Indy’s urban core succumbed to the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s. City officials sought to clear “blighted” areas rather than revitalize them, transforming the physical environment at great social and cultural expense.

As government subsidies shifted away from urban redevelopment, suburban sprawl added to the costly extension of public services to outlying, metropolitan areas. Perhaps the most well-known urban residential casualty was the neighborhood surrounding Indiana Avenue. By the early 1970s, the once-vibrant African-American community had given way to the construction of I-65 and the IUPUI campus. Today, only a few historic buildings—including the Madame Walker Theatre—remain as testaments to the neighborhood’s legacy.

What was your question boy?

The diversion of public funding and private investment in downtown Indianapolis led to further decline in the urban environment. Housing abandonment, demolition by neglect, mortgage foreclosure, and declining property values plagued several neighborhoods during the last decades of the 20th century. To make matter worse, many of the businesses that had served local needs—including supermarkets and small, black-owned establishments—closed their doors, leaving residents with limited access to healthy food or basic goods and services at affordable prices.

The Fall Creek neighborhood—bounded by Meridian Street to the west, Fall Creek Parkway to the north, College Avenue to the east, and 22nd Street to the south—illustrates the rapid decline of the physical environment during these years. By the early 1980s, following years of disinvestment, the neighborhood—formerly referred to as “Dodge City” because of its high crime rate—consisted largely of vacant lots and abandoned homes. Although many low-income, minority families continued to reside there, the city directed few resources to help repair the area’s increasing blight.

Again what was your question boy?

The disinvestment of Indy's downtown neighborhoods following the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s not only created a landscape of blight and disrepair, but also left an aging, broken, and unsanitary infrastructure. Perhaps most representative of this environmental injustice was the city's outdated combined sewer system, which was literally flooding (in fact, continues to flood) many urban residential areas with raw sewage.

In 1987, the EPA delegated responsibility for CSO permitting to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. However, absent strict federal regulations, there was little incentive to comply with water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. And because most urban communities in Indianapolis (as with many others across the U.S.) lacked the resources or political strength to enforce these standards, they were left to suffer from the environmentally hazardous legacy of these outdated sewer systems. In adding insult to injury, the growth in suburban residential developments led to even heavier sewage overflow in Indy's downstream urban neighborhoods.

In 1999, two environmental justice organizations—Improving Kids’ Environment and the Hoosier Environmental Council—filed an administrative complaint with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights on behalf of minority residents of the Fall Creek and White River neighborhoods (the population of which, at the time, was more than 85% black). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the city—while investing limited resources in new suburban residential developments—had failed to remedy CSOs in the urban neighborhoods, resulting in a disproportionate environmental impact in violation of EPA’s Title VI regulations. In 2001, the EPA accepted the complaint for investigation, ultimately leading to a settlement in which Indianapolis agreed to a long-term CSO control plan aimed at eliminating the discriminatory effects of the city's obsolete sanitation services. The consent decree into which the parties entered in 2006 requires the capture and treatment of 95% and 97% of the sewage overflows in the White River and Fall Creek watersheds respectively.

Again what was your question boy?

Like I said, RACISM is the problem here. But then again, you are a racist so expecting you to admit to racism as being a problem is expecting the impossible.

How friggin helpless are you people? In city after city, neighborhood after neighborhood, as blacks move in, things start deteriorating. Crime starts to go up, trash starts to pile up, weeds start to grow up, porches start to fall down.

It happens in countries, too.

In Africa, after the Europeans left, things deteriorated. Roads fell into disrepair, sewage systems stopped working, water became contaminated, and corruption became endemic. In the Congo, they are back to using only the rivers to travel around the country. The highways the Belgians built have been swallowed back up by the jungle.

Who knows. Maybe the world is better without highways. But it's just weak to whine about not having highways or vibrant downtowns and then blame racism when white people don't come build them for you.

You might not like to hear that, and you can call me names all you want, the simple fact of the matter is it's the truth. Personally, I don't regard city services and real estate values as the primary determinant of human worth, so I shrug and move on. But what's pathetic is you trying to pretend that somehow it's white peoples fault no one in the hood will use a fucking trash can, that somehow I am to blame when you don't repair your broken fence, that the system is to blame when your people just throw household trash into the vacant lot next door.

Free advice: stop listening to black talk radio. It's a poisonous dead end.

Well.....was it not whites who had to flee their "all white" world for a better life in the "New World"? When whites just lived around whites......you all produced the same thing that you produce when you live around minorities. Europeans have been lifting themselves up by putting others down (oppression) for centuries. What that looked like when all whites were huddled together in Europe was that the masses were poor and oppressed while the aristocracy and the church had all the wealth. Things were so bad that severe methods of torture were created to strike fear in the masses in order to keep them in check. Study your history. That is why whites fled to the new world, many as indentured servants....for a better life.

When whites started going to parts of the planet where non whites lived, they simply took that same system of lifting some up by putting others down and made it racial.....ergo...whites would be lifted up by putting down non whites via taking their land, labor and resources by force and using that to the benefit/profit of Europeans.

No you all have forgotten that You see blacks as the problem......but actually we were part of the solution that lifted you out of poverty. You had your all white world.....and when you had it what did you make of it? It was a shit hole for the masses of whites who did not own any land. You were oppressed and repressed. Minorities became the beast of burden that saved you from your traditional roles as such, under your all white system. In your system, there always had to be iggas....and in an all white construct they become white.....its a product of your system.

What really pushed Whites, and the World out of grueling poverty, was the Industrial Revolution created in Northern Britain.

Some more than others, though.

But, in your anti-White views, White wealth should have declined post-Colonialism, that's not really the case.

So....me showing cause and effect, using the facts of history, is anti-white?

The industrial revolution was financed by the agrarian era. It was the agrarian era that relied on the seesaw economics of lifting up one segment by lowering another via their exploited labor. Its also the industrial revolution that freed the slaves. Slavery did not end in the west because of a change of heart.....it ended because mechanization eliminated the need for slaves to a large degree.

You are so fucking wrong and ignorant it is disgusting. No wonder blacks are so fucked up. This is the drivel they teach in "African Studies" departments, isn't it. Talk about have heads full of useless mush. No wonder you people can't run a city.

 

[cnelsen]

Yet, after all of that it seems that Germany, Scandinavia, Ireland, and the Netherlands have become the most productive countries in Europe.

Only 1 of these (The Dutch) were major colonists)

When I was growing up there used to be a saying "What you do to get it is what you have to do to keep it". Many former exploiters have fallen off because they no longer exploit. The United States now dominates global exploitation (which has replaced the domestic origins of its exploitation). Those countries the US trades the most with.....benefit the most economically.

Why didn't Brazil become a second U.S, they have a big population, a lot of land (Maybe less than the U.S) but Brazil had far more Black slaves to exploit than the U.S.

It seems that Brazilians are just inferior to U,S Americans.

If Brazil really had their acts together, they would have obviously colonized all of South America, and would be a huge economic, and intellectual powerhouse.

Because Portugal never became a major world power. The United States is the Offspring of Great Britian and the influence and wealth of Great Britian was inherited and expanded by the US.

Obviously, in my model, exploitation of non-white lands and labor helped transfer wealth or energy from non-whites to whites. Hence, nations that are more white have more wealth....Ergo...all the English speaking nations that are majority white will have high standards of living. Brazil is half non-white.

But, the U.S was built up from scratch, having abandoned the British Empire.

Not really from scratch....but yes...to a degree. However, remember that the US did not become "THE" power until WWII destroyed all the other major economies of the world. The US then pretty much took empire over from Great Britain....but since the war the two countries work in concert on most global affairs.

This is why the US zenith economically was never sustainable. It was the artificial result off all the other competition being eliminated for a period of time, giving the US a global monopoly. We still have actually fallen a great deal as an economic power......but its being masked by unprecedented levels of debt.

Our decline coincides with the decline of the share of the white population. Has no impact whatsoever, though. None. An Afghani sheepherder or Somali beach hustler is just as capable of running a 4000 acre agribusiness as any American farmer. Seriously. It's in the Constitution.

 

[cnelsen]

they were fleeing because they were horrible racists. When blacks flee in 2017, they are fleeing gun violence.

Austin population drops to No. 2 in city for 1st time in 45 years

If we let people like you revise history.......nothing whites have done historically was due to racism. Blacks, I do not believe, are not leaving the city because of gun violence. Look at the trend nationally. The suburbs have opened up to blacks. They are putting more section 8 in the suburbs. Why? Nationally whites are returning to the city. Young whites want high density wakable neighborhoods near public transportation and close to downtown. Blacks occupy that space since the 70's....so blacks have to be enticed out so that whites can move in. Its no accident that the majority of older cities experienced black population decline the last census.

Blacks would have moved to the suburbs when whites were fleeing to the suburbs.....but realtors and lenders and sellers sought to prevent blacks moving to the suburbs. Now that there is less racism keeping blacks out the suburbs.....blacks are leaving the cities...now whites want to live in the city. Go figure.

The big cities are seeing business move in, safer neighborhoods and property value increase. Liberal losers call this gentrification and try to put a bad name on it. Everyone else calls it progress.

Blacks are moving out because they can't afford to live in the big city anymore. However, the burbs around chicago aren't much better.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Lol....its not PROGRESS because there is no net gain. They are just shifting, geographically, where investment is going. As investment and wealth increase in the city, divestment and poverty increases in the suburbs. Hence....no net gain.....no progress. The poor are simply being displaced to the least desirable areas.....which in the master plan will be inner ring suburbs....with the housing stock that is least attractive and desirable.

The city is full of old homes with great wood work and construction. What has the most market value is such old homes and very new homes. The inner city has the stock of old homes (plus some new high rise units) and the far suburbs have the newer homes. The least desirable homes are inner-ring suburban homes....built in the 50's, 60's and 70's. That is where the new poverty will be in the next 20 years.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the poor live in the cheapest houses? Are you insane? What are they teaching you in that HBC?

 

[cnelsen]

The Ottoman Empire did similar to many Western European Empires.

Ireland did not.

Why oh why is Ireland much richer than Turkey?

There's no such explanation for this.

Especially considering Ireland was colonized for much of it's history, unlike Turkey.

By the deluded Liberal logic, or rather lack of logic.
Ireland should have a third-World economy, rather than Turkey.

Its because Ireland has high levels of trade with Great Britain. When you have close links economically to powers....there is spill over. Canada does well because the US is its largest trading partner and they share the same technology due to proximity and trade.

Then why doesn't Mexico do as well as Canada?

 

[AKIP]

No it's racism. The same development could have occurred before the whites started moving back there,

If you actually believe the stuff you write, you are in a special category of clueless. So why DIDN'T the development happen when only blacks lived there?

And if development didn't happen when only blacks lived there, how did the development first happen when only blacks lived there? Did the residents put on white face and trick the developers into thinking they'd accidentally purchased real estate in Vermont?

I'm afraid I am not the clueless one here. So let me air it out. Speedway was developed in 1912 and built to provide residential access for workers in the nearby factories. I doubt if many Now the question is did those factories leave as blacks moved into those communities? and, Why after 105 years is redevelopment finally occurring?

In 1926, the Indianapolis City Council, heavily influenced at the time by the Klan, drafted a residential zoning ordinance prohibiting blacks from moving into predominantly white neighborhoods without the consent of the white residents, and vice versa. Despite doubts among legal staff from the mayor’s office as to its constitutional validity, the measure enjoyed broad support from white civic organizations and municipal officials alike. Proponents of the bill cited the recent decision of Tyler v. Harmon, 158 La. 439 (1925). In that case, the Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld the constitutionality of a New Orleans racial zoning ordinance—a model upon which the Indianapolis measure was based—concluding that, because the ordinance prohibited mere occupancy rather than the sale of property, Buchanan did not apply. The court further reasoned that, because it applied equally to whites and blacks and dealt with “social, as distinguished from political, equality,” the ordinance lacked a discriminatory basis. The Tyler decision was sufficient precedent for Indianapolis officials to act. “Passage of this ordinance,” declared the president of the White Citizens Protective League, “will stabilize real estate values . . . and give the honest citizens and voters renewed faith in city officials.”

Case Study

You do understand what zoning is don't you?

Maybe you read the link to understand how I say what I do.

Unfortunately, successful efforts at residential integration and environmental preservation failed to extend much beyond the neighborhood boundaries of Butler-Tarkington. Instead, many of the traditionally African-American neighborhoods of Indy’s urban core succumbed to the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s. City officials sought to clear “blighted” areas rather than revitalize them, transforming the physical environment at great social and cultural expense.

As government subsidies shifted away from urban redevelopment, suburban sprawl added to the costly extension of public services to outlying, metropolitan areas. Perhaps the most well-known urban residential casualty was the neighborhood surrounding Indiana Avenue. By the early 1970s, the once-vibrant African-American community had given way to the construction of I-65 and the IUPUI campus. Today, only a few historic buildings—including the Madame Walker Theatre—remain as testaments to the neighborhood’s legacy.

What was your question boy?

The diversion of public funding and private investment in downtown Indianapolis led to further decline in the urban environment. Housing abandonment, demolition by neglect, mortgage foreclosure, and declining property values plagued several neighborhoods during the last decades of the 20th century. To make matter worse, many of the businesses that had served local needs—including supermarkets and small, black-owned establishments—closed their doors, leaving residents with limited access to healthy food or basic goods and services at affordable prices.

The Fall Creek neighborhood—bounded by Meridian Street to the west, Fall Creek Parkway to the north, College Avenue to the east, and 22nd Street to the south—illustrates the rapid decline of the physical environment during these years. By the early 1980s, following years of disinvestment, the neighborhood—formerly referred to as “Dodge City” because of its high crime rate—consisted largely of vacant lots and abandoned homes. Although many low-income, minority families continued to reside there, the city directed few resources to help repair the area’s increasing blight.

Again what was your question boy?

The disinvestment of Indy's downtown neighborhoods following the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s not only created a landscape of blight and disrepair, but also left an aging, broken, and unsanitary infrastructure. Perhaps most representative of this environmental injustice was the city's outdated combined sewer system, which was literally flooding (in fact, continues to flood) many urban residential areas with raw sewage.

In 1987, the EPA delegated responsibility for CSO permitting to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. However, absent strict federal regulations, there was little incentive to comply with water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. And because most urban communities in Indianapolis (as with many others across the U.S.) lacked the resources or political strength to enforce these standards, they were left to suffer from the environmentally hazardous legacy of these outdated sewer systems. In adding insult to injury, the growth in suburban residential developments led to even heavier sewage overflow in Indy's downstream urban neighborhoods.

In 1999, two environmental justice organizations—Improving Kids’ Environment and the Hoosier Environmental Council—filed an administrative complaint with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights on behalf of minority residents of the Fall Creek and White River neighborhoods (the population of which, at the time, was more than 85% black). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the city—while investing limited resources in new suburban residential developments—had failed to remedy CSOs in the urban neighborhoods, resulting in a disproportionate environmental impact in violation of EPA’s Title VI regulations. In 2001, the EPA accepted the complaint for investigation, ultimately leading to a settlement in which Indianapolis agreed to a long-term CSO control plan aimed at eliminating the discriminatory effects of the city's obsolete sanitation services. The consent decree into which the parties entered in 2006 requires the capture and treatment of 95% and 97% of the sewage overflows in the White River and Fall Creek watersheds respectively.

Again what was your question boy?

Like I said, RACISM is the problem here. But then again, you are a racist so expecting you to admit to racism as being a problem is expecting the impossible.

How friggin helpless are you people? In city after city, neighborhood after neighborhood, as blacks move in, things start deteriorating. Crime starts to go up, trash starts to pile up, weeds start to grow up, porches start to fall down.

It happens in countries, too.

In Africa, after the Europeans left, things deteriorated. Roads fell into disrepair, sewage systems stopped working, water became contaminated, and corruption became endemic. In the Congo, they are back to using only the rivers to travel around the country. The highways the Belgians built have been swallowed back up by the jungle.

Who knows. Maybe the world is better without highways. But it's just weak to whine about not having highways or vibrant downtowns and then blame racism when white people don't come build them for you.

You might not like to hear that, and you can call me names all you want, the simple fact of the matter is it's the truth. Personally, I don't regard city services and real estate values as the primary determinant of human worth, so I shrug and move on. But what's pathetic is you trying to pretend that somehow it's white peoples fault no one in the hood will use a fucking trash can, that somehow I am to blame when you don't repair your broken fence, that the system is to blame when your people just throw household trash into the vacant lot next door.

Free advice: stop listening to black talk radio. It's a poisonous dead end.

,
7795 Washtenaw Drive

No it's racism. The same development could have occurred before the whites started moving back there,

If you actually believe the stuff you write, you are in a special category of clueless. So why DIDN'T the development happen when only blacks lived there?

And if development didn't happen when only blacks lived there, how did the development first happen when only blacks lived there? Did the residents put on white face and trick the developers into thinking they'd accidentally purchased real estate in Vermont?

I'm afraid I am not the clueless one here. So let me air it out. Speedway was developed in 1912 and built to provide residential access for workers in the nearby factories. I doubt if many Now the question is did those factories leave as blacks moved into those communities? and, Why after 105 years is redevelopment finally occurring?

In 1926, the Indianapolis City Council, heavily influenced at the time by the Klan, drafted a residential zoning ordinance prohibiting blacks from moving into predominantly white neighborhoods without the consent of the white residents, and vice versa. Despite doubts among legal staff from the mayor’s office as to its constitutional validity, the measure enjoyed broad support from white civic organizations and municipal officials alike. Proponents of the bill cited the recent decision of Tyler v. Harmon, 158 La. 439 (1925). In that case, the Supreme Court of Louisiana upheld the constitutionality of a New Orleans racial zoning ordinance—a model upon which the Indianapolis measure was based—concluding that, because the ordinance prohibited mere occupancy rather than the sale of property, Buchanan did not apply. The court further reasoned that, because it applied equally to whites and blacks and dealt with “social, as distinguished from political, equality,” the ordinance lacked a discriminatory basis. The Tyler decision was sufficient precedent for Indianapolis officials to act. “Passage of this ordinance,” declared the president of the White Citizens Protective League, “will stabilize real estate values . . . and give the honest citizens and voters renewed faith in city officials.”

Case Study

You do understand what zoning is don't you?

Maybe you read the link to understand how I say what I do.

Unfortunately, successful efforts at residential integration and environmental preservation failed to extend much beyond the neighborhood boundaries of Butler-Tarkington. Instead, many of the traditionally African-American neighborhoods of Indy’s urban core succumbed to the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s. City officials sought to clear “blighted” areas rather than revitalize them, transforming the physical environment at great social and cultural expense.

As government subsidies shifted away from urban redevelopment, suburban sprawl added to the costly extension of public services to outlying, metropolitan areas. Perhaps the most well-known urban residential casualty was the neighborhood surrounding Indiana Avenue. By the early 1970s, the once-vibrant African-American community had given way to the construction of I-65 and the IUPUI campus. Today, only a few historic buildings—including the Madame Walker Theatre—remain as testaments to the neighborhood’s legacy.

What was your question boy?

The diversion of public funding and private investment in downtown Indianapolis led to further decline in the urban environment. Housing abandonment, demolition by neglect, mortgage foreclosure, and declining property values plagued several neighborhoods during the last decades of the 20th century. To make matter worse, many of the businesses that had served local needs—including supermarkets and small, black-owned establishments—closed their doors, leaving residents with limited access to healthy food or basic goods and services at affordable prices.

The Fall Creek neighborhood—bounded by Meridian Street to the west, Fall Creek Parkway to the north, College Avenue to the east, and 22nd Street to the south—illustrates the rapid decline of the physical environment during these years. By the early 1980s, following years of disinvestment, the neighborhood—formerly referred to as “Dodge City” because of its high crime rate—consisted largely of vacant lots and abandoned homes. Although many low-income, minority families continued to reside there, the city directed few resources to help repair the area’s increasing blight.

Again what was your question boy?

The disinvestment of Indy's downtown neighborhoods following the “urban renewal” programs of the 1950s and 1960s not only created a landscape of blight and disrepair, but also left an aging, broken, and unsanitary infrastructure. Perhaps most representative of this environmental injustice was the city's outdated combined sewer system, which was literally flooding (in fact, continues to flood) many urban residential areas with raw sewage.

In 1987, the EPA delegated responsibility for CSO permitting to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. However, absent strict federal regulations, there was little incentive to comply with water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. And because most urban communities in Indianapolis (as with many others across the U.S.) lacked the resources or political strength to enforce these standards, they were left to suffer from the environmentally hazardous legacy of these outdated sewer systems. In adding insult to injury, the growth in suburban residential developments led to even heavier sewage overflow in Indy's downstream urban neighborhoods.

In 1999, two environmental justice organizations—Improving Kids’ Environment and the Hoosier Environmental Council—filed an administrative complaint with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights on behalf of minority residents of the Fall Creek and White River neighborhoods (the population of which, at the time, was more than 85% black). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the city—while investing limited resources in new suburban residential developments—had failed to remedy CSOs in the urban neighborhoods, resulting in a disproportionate environmental impact in violation of EPA’s Title VI regulations. In 2001, the EPA accepted the complaint for investigation, ultimately leading to a settlement in which Indianapolis agreed to a long-term CSO control plan aimed at eliminating the discriminatory effects of the city's obsolete sanitation services. The consent decree into which the parties entered in 2006 requires the capture and treatment of 95% and 97% of the sewage overflows in the White River and Fall Creek watersheds respectively.

Again what was your question boy?

Like I said, RACISM is the problem here. But then again, you are a racist so expecting you to admit to racism as being a problem is expecting the impossible.

How friggin helpless are you people? In city after city, neighborhood after neighborhood, as blacks move in, things start deteriorating. Crime starts to go up, trash starts to pile up, weeds start to grow up, porches start to fall down.

It happens in countries, too.

In Africa, after the Europeans left, things deteriorated. Roads fell into disrepair, sewage systems stopped working, water became contaminated, and corruption became endemic. In the Congo, they are back to using only the rivers to travel around the country. The highways the Belgians built have been swallowed back up by the jungle.

Who knows. Maybe the world is better without highways. But it's just weak to whine about not having highways or vibrant downtowns and then blame racism when white people don't come build them for you.

You might not like to hear that, and you can call me names all you want, the simple fact of the matter is it's the truth. Personally, I don't regard city services and real estate values as the primary determinant of human worth, so I shrug and move on. But what's pathetic is you trying to pretend that somehow it's white peoples fault no one in the hood will use a fucking trash can, that somehow I am to blame when you don't repair your broken fence, that the system is to blame when your people just throw household trash into the vacant lot next door.

Free advice: stop listening to black talk radio. It's a poisonous dead end.

Well.....was it not whites who had to flee their "all white" world for a better life in the "New World"? When whites just lived around whites......you all produced the same thing that you produce when you live around minorities. Europeans have been lifting themselves up by putting others down (oppression) for centuries. What that looked like when all whites were huddled together in Europe was that the masses were poor and oppressed while the aristocracy and the church had all the wealth. Things were so bad that severe methods of torture were created to strike fear in the masses in order to keep them in check. Study your history. That is why whites fled to the new world, many as indentured servants....for a better life.

When whites started going to parts of the planet where non whites lived, they simply took that same system of lifting some up by putting others down and made it racial.....ergo...whites would be lifted up by putting down non whites via taking their land, labor and resources by force and using that to the benefit/profit of Europeans.

No you all have forgotten that You see blacks as the problem......but actually we were part of the solution that lifted you out of poverty. You had your all white world.....and when you had it what did you make of it? It was a shit hole for the masses of whites who did not own any land. You were oppressed and repressed. Minorities became the beast of burden that saved you from your traditional roles as such, under your all white system. In your system, there always had to be iggas....and in an all white construct they become white.....its a product of your system.

Our system is the one the whole world has copied.

There is no place in the world free of oppression. However, judging by the non-white hordes streaming into white dominated lands from everywhere else, white societies are the least oppressive and provide the most freedom and opportunity (and welfare). The Africans packing themselves onto fishing boats to cross the Mediterranean are unlikely fleeing freedom and hoping to escape into oppression.

The reasons so many Europeans emigrated out of Europe wasn't because the headhunters and cannibals back in Europe were so oppressive. It was because, first of all, most of y'all hadn't built any ships nor invented a means of navigation.

Secondly, even though Africa is three times the size of Europe, Europe had twice the population (until recently when the white man's medicine, sanitation, civic institutions, schools, and so on has allowed the African population to explode. I read an article this morning about an African man who has one hundred children and wants more.)

(Also note below the extreme difference between Europe and North America in 1800. North America is twice the size of Europe but it only had one tenth the population in 1800--and by 1800, most of the 16 million here would have been European, one or two million Africans, and the rest Native American (this continent really was vast and relatively empty when the Europeans first arrived.

population in millions
[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD="align: center"]

1800 ​

[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]

1850 ​

[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]

1900 ​

[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]

1950 ​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

Europe (4 million mi²)​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

150​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

206​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

291​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

366​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

Russia (7 million mi²)​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

37​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

60​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

111​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

193​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

Africa (12 million mi²)​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

90​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

95​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

120​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

198​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

Asia (17 million mi²)​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

602​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

749​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

937​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

1302​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

North America (9.5 million mi²)​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

16​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

39​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

106​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

217​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

South America (7 million mi²)​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

9​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

20​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

38​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

111​

[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD="align: right"]

Oceania​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

2​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

2​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

6​

[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]

13​

[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

I don't think the whole world has copied your system as much as you all have forced your system upon the whole world. The first thing your systems needed to fight was each other.....through the cold war pitting communism/Marxism against capitalism. In nearly every country in the world, the US and Russia was trying to prop up and promote governments to reflect the interest of the two competing ideologies. In the process of doing this, it supported dictators and tyrants that helped to undermine the growth of many developing nations.

Today, since communism has basically been defeated, this means that capitalism and democracy is forced upon nations....lest they face invasion. Currently the West is fighting a war against Islam because the growth of Islam is a threat to the Western Capitalistic democracy. Of course, the West does not say that it is Islam that they are seeking to bring down, but that is what is going on. Islam is antithetical to many of Western ways. In truth, so in Christianity, however, the West only follows the teachings to the degree that it does not interfere with Capitalism and democracy.

Who counted the people in Africa in 1850? Obviously those are estimates and one has to ask how accurate those estimates were then. How many people were lost to the slave trade and the wars that resulted from tribes fighting and raiding to take prisoners to sell to Europeans?

 

[AKIP]

The Ottoman Empire did similar to many Western European Empires.

Ireland did not.

Why oh why is Ireland much richer than Turkey?

There's no such explanation for this.

Especially considering Ireland was colonized for much of it's history, unlike Turkey.

By the deluded Liberal logic, or rather lack of logic.
Ireland should have a third-World economy, rather than Turkey.

Its because Ireland has high levels of trade with Great Britain. When you have close links economically to powers....there is spill over. Canada does well because the US is its largest trading partner and they share the same technology due to proximity and trade.

Then why doesn't Mexico do as well as Canada?

Probably because Canada never warred with the US and the propensity of whites to favor other whites in trade and commerce.

 

[IM2]

When I was growing up there used to be a saying "What you do to get it is what you have to do to keep it". Many former exploiters have fallen off because they no longer exploit. The United States now dominates global exploitation (which has replaced the domestic origins of its exploitation). Those countries the US trades the most with.....benefit the most economically.

Why didn't Brazil become a second U.S, they have a big population, a lot of land (Maybe less than the U.S) but Brazil had far more Black slaves to exploit than the U.S.

It seems that Brazilians are just inferior to U,S Americans.

If Brazil really had their acts together, they would have obviously colonized all of South America, and would be a huge economic, and intellectual powerhouse.

Because Portugal never became a major world power. The United States is the Offspring of Great Britian and the influence and wealth of Great Britian was inherited and expanded by the US.

Obviously, in my model, exploitation of non-white lands and labor helped transfer wealth or energy from non-whites to whites. Hence, nations that are more white have more wealth....Ergo...all the English speaking nations that are majority white will have high standards of living. Brazil is half non-white.

But, the U.S was built up from scratch, having abandoned the British Empire.

Not really from scratch....but yes...to a degree. However, remember that the US did not become "THE" power until WWII destroyed all the other major economies of the world. The US then pretty much took empire over from Great Britain....but since the war the two countries work in concert on most global affairs.

This is why the US zenith economically was never sustainable. It was the artificial result off all the other competition being eliminated for a period of time, giving the US a global monopoly. We still have actually fallen a great deal as an economic power......but its being masked by unprecedented levels of debt.

Our decline coincides with the decline of the share of the white population. Has no impact whatsoever, though. None. An Afghani sheepherder or Somali beach hustler is just as capable of running a 4000 acre agribusiness as any American farmer. Seriously. It's in the Constitution.

You're wrong. This nation stated with a moral decline, We only were an economic power for a short time because Europe was devastated by 2 world wars in a 25-30 time frame. The decline of Africa began with colonization by whites . Continuing foreign policy by white nations are still fucking Africa up. Notice China, it has never been colonized by whites and it is a growing economy that we owe money to now.

 

[GHook93]

they were fleeing because they were horrible racists. When blacks flee in 2017, they are fleeing gun violence.

Austin population drops to No. 2 in city for 1st time in 45 years

If we let people like you revise history.......nothing whites have done historically was due to racism. Blacks, I do not believe, are not leaving the city because of gun violence. Look at the trend nationally. The suburbs have opened up to blacks. They are putting more section 8 in the suburbs. Why? Nationally whites are returning to the city. Young whites want high density wakable neighborhoods near public transportation and close to downtown. Blacks occupy that space since the 70's....so blacks have to be enticed out so that whites can move in. Its no accident that the majority of older cities experienced black population decline the last census.

Blacks would have moved to the suburbs when whites were fleeing to the suburbs.....but realtors and lenders and sellers sought to prevent blacks moving to the suburbs. Now that there is less racism keeping blacks out the suburbs.....blacks are leaving the cities...now whites want to live in the city. Go figure.

The big cities are seeing business move in, safer neighborhoods and property value increase. Liberal losers call this gentrification and try to put a bad name on it. Everyone else calls it progress.

Blacks are moving out because they can't afford to live in the big city anymore. However, the burbs around chicago aren't much better.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Lol....its not PROGRESS because there is no net gain. They are just shifting, geographically, where investment is going. As investment and wealth increase in the city, divestment and poverty increases in the suburbs. Hence....no net gain.....no progress. The poor are simply being displaced to the least desirable areas.....which in the master plan will be inner ring suburbs....with the housing stock that is least attractive and desirable.

The city is full of old homes with great wood work and construction. What has the most market value is such old homes and very new homes. The inner city has the stock of old homes (plus some new high rise units) and the far suburbs have the newer homes. The least desirable homes are inner-ring suburban homes....built in the 50's, 60's and 70's. That is where the new poverty will be in the next 20 years.

You don't get it. The wealth used to be concentrated in the loop and Gold Coast and then to the Burbs. Then it spread North and many families were like awesome I am moving to Lakeview, Bucktown, Lincoln Park, Roscoe Village, River North etc. Businesses opened and things got better. It then spread, to place like Hyde Place, Bronzeville, Streetersville Humbolt Park, near west side etc. But that did take anything away from the loop, Lakeview etc. Not to mention the Burbs have not stumbled either: Naperville, Wheaton, Park Ridge, Palatine, Lake Forest, Glenview, Northbrook, St Charles etc aren't hurting. In fact most of these areas would be out of the range of most black families fleeing the high cost of the city.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Probably because Canada never warred with the US and the propensity of whites to favor other whites in trade and commerce.

Now your just trolling.
Who the hell else is Canada going to trade with? Botswana??

 

[IM2]

No it's racism. The same development could have occurred before the whites started moving back there,

Only if the blacks had the will and financial ability to make it happen. But that didn't happen in over 3 decades. The neighborhood just kept getting worse. It wasn't until people who actively want real jobs and put in the effort to get those jobs and create a demand for better housing and commercial retail did it happen.
You can't just want something and wait for someone to make it happen for you. There has to be demand available by people who have the earning ability to pay for it to make it happen

Spare me the ignorance and the dumb ass tired old whitebread lectures that deny racism. In short, shut the hell up.

I won't deny racism. I am a racist. I have a greater interest in the well-being of my people than I do in the well-being of the Chinese of the Congolese. Who cares? So what? In my view, if you aren't a racist, you are a kind of monster.

Race is nothing more than a very large, very extended, slightly inbred family. In the same way my biological brother and I have more ancestors in common, and more recently, with each other than with any other human on the planet, me and any other white guy on the planet have more ancestors in common and more recently with each other than either of us do with any black guy or Asian guy in the world. We are more closely related. Like brothers.

So try this thought experiment: you walk around a corner and see a man beating a woman. Quick! what's your first instinct? To help the woman, right? Now, you walk around a corner and see two Chinese men beating two women--one white, one black. Quick! What's your first instinct? To help the black woman, right? If you were white, you would hesitate on that question, because rayciss. Now, you walk around the corner and see two black men beating two black women and one of them is your mother. Quick! What do you do? You help your mother first, right? No one would think anything of it. They wouldn't accuse you of hating the other woman, they wouldn't accuse your mother of benefiting from mother privilege. In fact, people would think you were something like a monster if you DIDN'T help your mother first.

And, in fact, no one thinks anything about the Chinese guy helping the Chinese woman before he helps a Finnish woman. No one questions the black guy helping the black woman before he helps the Mexican woman. The whole world understands that is the absolutely normal, non-hateful reaction to have. ONLY white men are (((condemned))) if they help the white woman first.

That's why woke whites say "anti-racism is anti-white".

Don't despair. Stupid people can go on to live full and product lives. Hang in there.

I'm guessing you are the product of a HBC

So was MLK, Got a problem with that white boy?