jam40jeff

I didn't say it was worse. I said it has a larger effect on others due to the social stratification. That doesn't make the individual actions worse, but it does mean the effects are worse.

You mean both white and black people can be racist! Shocking revelation! The problem is that (especially well off) white people have a lot more to gain from racism keeping the status quo than black people. It doesn't make either side's racism OK, though (and I don't think anybody is arguing that).

So white thugs are only imitating black people? Isn't AAVE primarily based on the southern white dialect? Maybe black thugs were just imitating southern white people. I know this is all ridiculous, but no more so than your post.

Factory jobs which subsequently went away. What did we expect to happen when decent-paying factory jobs that required no education were dangled like a carrot in front of hundreds of thousands of Southern black people which weren't allowed to have an education, then those jobs all went away in a short time span?

genuine anger At her? For doing what, precisely? Not at her. At life. At their predicament. If you haven't noticed, there's a pretty big black on black crime problem.

genuine anger Exactly. A friend of mine from some years ago in college was from Kenya. He lived in East Cleveland and I remember him being shocked when he would tell people with emotion "you can't believe the anger, you don't make eye contact with people". To me it's unbelievable that people (like shs96, not to pick on you b/c I don't think you're a bad person, I just think you don't have a very good understanding of the complexity of racial problems) think that hundreds of years of racism, a cycle of poverty, and the disillusionment of an entire culture can just be wiped out in no time. It's easy to come up with solutions for others when you don't have to live their problems every day of your life.

I understand that. But hopefully we have enough people on here that fall somewhere in between that we can have a nice conversation. Usually UrbanOhio is good for that.

You are for the most part correct, but I feel the racial divide digs deeper than the ethnic and heritage melting pot. We do love our Little Italy's and Sokolowski's. But we don't love them because only Italian people live in Little Italy, or because only Polish people eat at Sokolowski's. We love these places because they offer a diverse array of experiences. I believe the population of Little Italy is more Asian than Italian now, and surely non-Polish people are regularly seen at Sokolowski's. I believe you are correct about an epic struggle we face in America, but I think it is something more than just a difficulty in moving from a salad bowl to a melting pot. The best example I can think of that exemplifies why the problem is so difficult has to do with affirmative action. In the simplest form, it seems like affirmative action would make sense. I would expect someone who took something from me to give it back or pay me for it. However, the problem is the original perpetrators (those involved in the slave trade) have been dead for generations. So white people today do not feel responsible for what was done a long time ago. Many white people came to the United States well after slavery ended or are not related to any former slave owners. However, that doesn't diminish the fact that the actions of those people long ago still have real and terrible effects on a large group of people today. But who do you punish and how? You can't take money from the dead slave owners. Do you identify all of their descendants? But then again, over the past 150+ years, many of them may have had many other factors lead to why they do or do not have money today (undoubtedly the descendants of some former slave owners are not wealthy today), so how do you identify exactly who and what they have gained today? And how do you identify who to give it to? Some descendants of former slaves are likely well off, while many are still feeling the effects of generation after generation being stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty. Some African-Americans not even related to former slaves may have been effected by racism stemming from the effects of this poverty over the years. Some may have just become disillusioned. In both races, there are lazy people, good people, hard workers, bad people, and everything in between. Some people may have had a stroke of luck or a series of fortunate events which wiped out the effects of long ago. Many haven't. So again, there are surely no easy solutions to deal with what happened long ago. Obviously, many people want to deal with the situation as best as possible going forward, and I think that's great and may end up being the only solution. But it's hard to tell people who have only known a heritage of poverty dating back almost 200 years to "just suck it up and move on, we promise we'll treat you nicer". I definitely don't pretend to have all the answers, and I don't expect anyone else to. I just think it's a healthy subject to discuss because things sure aren't going to get any better if we ignore the problems.

Yes, I am very happy to see this. I was pretty sure he was gone, so this was surprising to me (in a good way).

Considering that the conversation usually devolves into a fight and goes nowhere I don't see that as surprising. I actually think most of the people who have discussed it in this thread have done a pretty good job at maintaining a rational discussion. This sure has been a more civil thread than the political ones.

As an aside, I am surprised that an issue like this, which is so huge especially in urban areas, attracts such little serious discussion on a website like Urban Ohio.

I think this argument is how many of the White people who avoid Black neighborhoods justify their feelings. However, it totally ignores the historical context of that segregation. The fear of Blacks you describe did not start with black neighborhoods, it started with slavery, and in my opinion, has just transmogrified into other forms and phrases that others have stated here: "law and order", "bad neighborhood", "ghetto" - all shorthand for the media-hyped and on occasion, personally-experienced fear that many Whites have of Blacks. First, let me say that I was trying to state exactly what you said. It IS how many white people justify avoiding black neighborhoods. And I don't think it's right. But it's unfortunately the reality. You have to state the reality if you want to fight against it. I understand what you are saying and I agree with you to an extent, but I don't think there is one fear of blacks by whites (and of course not all whites fear blacks). I think it's different for each individual and the reasons can change over time. I know that even if the crime rate were exactly the same amongst all races, there would still be segregation and prejudices. However, I think you'd see them dissolve much more rapidly. Safety is a major influence in people's decisions, and I believe it is a major roadblock on the way to racial harmony as long as it can be used as an excuse for the fear. I definitely do not think that think whites and blacks are just destined to never get along. I just believe that the process is slower than other groups which have reconciled differences and histocial wrongdoings for a couple reasons: (1) the historical wrongdoings were really wrong and (2) there are more roadblocks in the way of the reconciliation than in some of those other cases. The more of these roadblocks we can tear down, the easier it will be to solve the real problem.

I doubt it, but it's probably his best.

This hasn't been the case in Dayton. I think the proxy works the other way here. Black= the negative of the positive white attributes in my excerpt. This is the case with Trotwood. As you or others may recall I posted a long series of threads on Trotwood last year or the year before. As part of this I was all around Trotwood exploring the place. What I saw was generic suburbia in most cases. A place that looked a lot like the lower middle classs and middle class parts of Kettering in the central and western parts, west of Denlinger (the residential areas, not the Salem cooridor or business parts), in terms of housing stock. Not as solidly built out. The point is Trotwood has a bad reputation. Don't move to Trotwood. Trotwood is "ghetto". This is among whites. But it is equivilant to an average white suburb, and I know the people who live there are not ghetto because I worked with some of them. Yet race becomes a proxy for "bad", negative traits, but this is expressed in euphemism or code. I can relate to this growing up in Solon. There were subdivisions with more black people than others and they had that reputation among white people. But there were also subdivisions that were more Jewish than others, more Asian than others, or more Indian than others...but none of those subdivisions had the same reputation as the black ones. The other side of that though is white people aren't watching the news seeing Jewish people executing people in a park downtown, or Indians getting into gang fights, or Asian people enticing women back to their place with malt liquer then raping and killing them. I don't know if you are trying to justify racism, explain it, or claim it doesn't exist, but that prejudices based only on actual data (such as crime data). Either way, I think that you are getting right to the heart of racism, whether you mean to or not. For various reasons we could argue all day about, I think we can all agree that the fact is that there is a higher crime rate amongst African Americans than Caucasians. Even so, amongst the African American race, the criminals still make up a small minority of the population. But people will judge individuals they don't know based on their skin color due to the statistical difference in crime between the races. Call it statistics. Call it prejudice. Call it what you want. It may be rational, or a protective instinct, or fear, but whatever the reasons are people do it (and most if not all people do to some extent) the fact is that it has real effects on the people being judged, and truly is not fair to the many good people. Some can ignore it, some can overcome it, but the effects are real, and on the whole, many people will be negatively affected. I think that people naturally make these judgements based on a multitude of factors. When a new neighbor moves in, you want to know if he is going to be a nuissance or "bring the block down". When you walk down a dark, lonely street, you have to judge whether or not to keep your guard, cross the street, turn and run, or just continue because you think the other person is "safe". Race is not the only factor in these decisions. But, expecially for white people, race is a BIG factor. And race is the factor which causes the most controversy, because it is one that people cannot control. People may also be judged because of the way they dress, foul language, cleanliness, weight, sexual orientation, gender, income level, education, etc., and whether these judgements are fair or accurate, at least the traits being judged may be controlled or changed. However, a black man was born a black man and will always be a black man, whether he is a criminal or a philanthropist, and to many people the black skin will be the first thing they see and have an effect on their opinions about that person until they really get to know the individual (which often times doesn't happen). And I believe black people have had a harder time overcoming this hurdle than other historical forms of ethnic discrimination in part because it is easier to instantly identify someone as black or white than Irish or German, not because black people inherently have less in common with white people than Irish Catholic immigrants had in common with rich European-American WASPs a hundred years ago. On the whole, I can understand why people make these judgements, and whether you deem them right or wrong, rational or irrational, fighting against them with both awareness and diversity and also affecting the base reasons for those judgements is probably the most effective way of combating and hopefully eventually eliminating racism in the future. I know this is easier said than done, but I hope that we head down this path.

I know what you mean but sorry, that made me laugh. :)

let me fix that^ for you before you incur someone's wrath :wink:. You're right, it wasn't just whites they were talking about---that's the Times for you! Even though Hispanic is actually the correct term! :) /ducks

I think that's the whole point. People aren't overtly racist anymore because that's just not considered OK these days. Instead, some people do things motivated by race but claim ulterior motives. In the example, if Christine was overtly racist, she would have claimed she moved to Utah "to get away from the [insert word of choice for AA's here]". Instead, she claims other reasons for the move. Now we won't know if she's racist or not, even if she truly is. Maybe she isn't, but surely others who are racist could make the same move and use the same reasons, and we wouldn't know which of them individually are racists and which are not. This is all part of the "euphimism game" mentioned by 327, for which I feel he is spot on. The overtly racist have diminshed in number, but the covertly racist have filled [some or much, depending on how cynical you are] of that void. Look, I get that there are people out there who either directly don't like minorities, or subconciously are moving because they are frightened of what minorities represent in their minds. As it relates to the short snippet presented on NPR's website, though, the examples aren't that supportive of his argument. Again, I should probably read the whole book. Christine easily could have moved for reasons other than racism. By the same token, the people that moved because of gang violence in their neighborhood may not be racist, they just don't want their kids getting shot. Whether or not the gang members were black, latino, asian or russian is irrelevant. I was replying to your quote, not trying to say it was a good example for the writer to use (I think it was a terrible example to use). You implied people were saying she was overtly racist if she moved based on race. I was stating that (1) even if she moved based on race, it wouldn't have been overt racism, (2) that covert racism most certain does exist, (3) we can't know why she moved, and (4) that this fact exemplifies the inherent problems with the covert racism of today. It can't be proven or identified and thus doesn't make for a good example, and it always provides people with the "you're just claiming they're racist" rebuttal, since only the individual in question can know their own intentions (and only if they bother to stop and analyze their true intentions). And don't take anything I say personal. (I sensed that when you started your post off with the word "Look". Of course I'm looking if I'm reading your post! :) )

What you say is true, but I don't feel it is the whole story. Rather, I think it compounds the problem of racism, detecting it, and how to solve the problem. There is no doubt that some areas are safer than others and that that is a very important factor in choosing where to live for most people. It is also true that crime rates are very often correlated (notice I said correlated, not caused) with the racial makeup of an area. However, I believe that people also look at the same crime (or action) differently based on race. For example, a few white kids arguing, yelling, or fighting outside of Mentor High School is just "kids being kids" to most white people, but the same thing involving black males outside Cleveland Heights High School is a reason to never come back to the Cedar Lee area due to the amount of "thugs" around and representative of an entire culture. Over the years, I feel these attitudes both exaggerate problems and cause them at the same time, as they become a vicious cycle of lowered expectations and lowered self-esteem. I am sure most have heard of it, but a good example is the 20/20 series where black teens and white teens were put into a park to vandalize a car, and not only was 911 called repeatedly on the black teens and not once on the white teens (IIRC), but somebody actually called 911 on the black teens while they were just sleeping in the car waiting for the film crew to come. Also compounding the problem are people that scream racism at every turn or make a profit from publicizing racial issues. All they tend to do by "crying Wolf" is cover up or downplay the effects of the people who have a real complaint. And don't forget that it is very possible for a person to be racist against their own race. Racism usually involves the way you treat people you don't know based on skin color, not the way you treat people you do know (who have more become individuals to you). Maybe partly, but I think the bigger factor is that it's harder to walk down the street and identify a white person's ethnicity than it is to determine if a person is white or black. There is no doubt that ethnic peoples were very racist when they first came to the United States (even against other white ethnicities), but it was easier for them to assimilate, especially as their accents went away and the white population of the US truly began to be looked at as a melting pot.

I think that's the whole point. People aren't overtly racist anymore because that's just not considered OK these days. Instead, some people do things motivated by race but claim ulterior motives. In the example, if Christine was overtly racist, she would have claimed she moved to Utah "to get away from the [insert word of choice for AA's here]". Instead, she claims other reasons for the move. Now we won't know if she's racist or not, even if she truly is. Maybe she isn't, but surely others who are racist could make the same move and use the same reasons, and we wouldn't know which of them individually are racists and which are not. This is all part of the "euphimism game" mentioned by 327, for which I feel he is spot on. The overtly racist have diminshed in number, but the covertly racist have filled [some or much, depending on how cynical you are] of that void.

I don't think Harrison's great, but I think he is a big improvement over using Jamal Lewis as your primary tailback (at his current age). He seems to have better vision and agility. He has the ability to cut that Jamal Lewis doesn't anymore.

In regards to renovation question each house is its own separate case. My parents renovated their rental house when they bought it in the late 90s, they spent about 30k. The age of a home does not make a difference in regard to the upkeep and maintenance. If a home owner of a pre war home has been meticulous in maintenance vs. a home owner of a 60s home with a bad layout and sub par materials, its a wash. Again, you have no idea what you need to do until you crack open a wall. I completely agree with MTS here. Many older homes were made with quality materials and in the long run will actually require less major maintenance. I have a prewar home and have put a fair amount of money into it, but less than a lot of people I know who have houses built in the past 30 years, and I like to think mine is currently in much better shape than theirs. I know someone who lives in a newer southern suburb whose 15 year old house is literally crumbling (poor foundation). I can't guarantee you that your house won't have problems. It's like a car. If the previous owner took care of it, it's likely to be in just as good of shape as a newer house that may not have been cared for as well. I believe that a lot of people that own a home in Shaker Heights appreciate the architecture and value of the structure itself moreso than a lot of the newer, blander styles of homes and I think it means that many of them have been cared for moreso than some of the newer homes in the area. That doesn't mean you don't need to still be careful when inspecting the home, though. There will always be some people in any area who haven't kept their home up. Pepper Pike is certainly not pedestrain friendly. Not even in the same universe as Shaker Heights. Not only are there not many places to walk to, the car (SUV) culture absolutely dominates.

What's the third? The Gold Coast is in Lakewood. :)

Fernway gets a 48, Mercer gets a 25, and Pepper Pike gets a 9. None of them are super dense, completely walkable neighborhoods, but there is obviously many more things closer to Fernway (and it is much more walkable) than any of the other places mentioned.

I would deifnitely say you can't go wrong with either neighborhood. Both are nice and convenient (close to rapid, stores, schools, libraries, etc.). I personally much prefer the houses and feel of Fernway, and it will be 5 minutes less on the commute. When I was a student at Case, I worked for a year at Chagrin and Lee and often times had to go from Case to work at around 5 pm. It normally took me 10 minutes to get there in rush hour traffic (which really isn't that bad in this area). Travelling to Case is easily 2 minutes shorter thanks to the MLK/Ambleside/Murray Hill shortcut, which is only one way northbound, so it won't help you going back home, but is a great morning route to avoid a lot of traffic and save time going to Case in the morning. The commute to the Mercer neighborhood would be around 15 minutes. To Beachwood it would be 20-25 minutes, depending on what part of Beachwood, and Pepper Pike, Lyndhurst, and Mayfield would all be 25-30 minutes (or more, depending on traffic). As far as crime goes, I would say all of the neighborhoods you mentioned are similar enough that you wouldn't notice any difference in safety.

It's because the population of Youngstown is dropping faster than the GMP.