A thread started in Cincy Music by one of the forumers.  Feel free to real comments from the locals that frequent that board.

 

http://boards.cincymusic.com/index.php?showtopic=23420

I'm confused.  I'm not from Cincy and have never been to OTR.  From this forum however, I got the impression that it was like a warehouse district or E 4th street.  I thought it was on the up-swing.  Are those people a little over-board with the way they put it down.

 

    As Colday says, Over-the-Rhine is a LARGE neighborhood, and varies quite a bit from one end to the other. There are some areas that are improving, and some that are not.

   

 

 

gotribe, the people on that board can be a little over the top.  They took offense when I said that board caters to the suburban Cincinnatian in one of the threads I replied on.  I thought I would post that thread here to share with you guys how many in the region feel.  Over the top or not, that is how many locals view OTR and Downtown for that matter.

OTR has been on decline for many decades.  Twenty years ago people thought it had reached bottom, and with a little investment could be "another back-bay (Boston)".  However, it continues on the whole to be getting worse in terms of poverty, crime and empty buildings turning into vacant lots.  In my opinion it is key to the survival of Cincinnati, and it is sad that a mix of national trends and local superstitions have kept this area the embarrassment that it is.

I can see your point and I haven't been in Cincinnati for 20 years but it seems that while some parts are bad, that the good parts are far better than 20 years ago.  Would this be a correct statement?  Is Main & Sycamore better today?

I'll have to read this in full later.  I took a look at it briefly and saw more ignorant posts on there than I've seen in total on this board.

I am glad that this board has more intelligent comments than the Cincy Music board.

 

Also, yes, Sycamore and Main have improved from their state 20 years ago, but that isn't saying much is it?

>Is Over-the-Rhine As Bad As They Say?

 

Yes. 

 

>Sycamore and Main have improved from their state 20 years ago, but that isn't saying much is it?

 

I've never liked any of those bars down there.  They're all forcing their atmosphere on you and they're too expensive.  Someone needs to open a bar with $1.25 beers, a rowdy juke box, and plywood restrooms.   

 

 

 

I've never liked any of those bars down there.  They're all forcing their atmosphere on you and they're too expensive.  Someone needs to open a bar with $1.25 beers, a rowdy juke box, and plywood restrooms.   

 

I'd say you're the man for the job.

Just make sure you place it in Jackson, Ohio.

OTR is huge there are some bad areas. Green st between vine and elm. 14th and race come to mind. During the day most areas seem to be pretty safe and I walk thru OTR almost everyday for the last couple of years and have never had a problem.  knock knock

Thanks for the insight on the neighborhood.  From what all of you Cincy people have said, it sounds like you can safely compare it to the Tremont neighborhood in Cleveland.  Alot of positive in-fill, yet not quite enough to make it safe to walk down the streets at night.  Probably fancy restaurants on one corner then a "crack-house" one block away.  And let me guess, your newspaper mentions every single negative thing that happens in the neighborhood.

And let me guess, your newspaper mentions every single negative thing that happens in the neighborhood.

 

Of course!

And let me guess, your newspaper mentions every single negative thing that happens in the neighborhood.

 

BINGO!

 

And I almost modified your post by accident hence why my name is under your post.  I have since corrected it.

I've vistied Tremont and OTR and I don't see much comparison.  Both in terms of architecture and in terms of gentrification/restoration.

 

Tremont seems  further down that path than OTR is. 

 

Actually I recall a while back a fairly long thread/discussion on OTR over in the City Discussions area here at Urban Ohio...

 

And yeah, I do think the Enquirer sensationalizes  in-town crime  stories, based on that Cincy Crim thread that Grasscat was running....in fact it even got me spooked until I did a reality check based on my past experiences in downtown Cicny.

 

 

I am glad that this board has more intelligent comments than the Cincy Music board.

 

some of those posts got to be pretty tedious.

 

 

 

 

yea i must say from someone outside of cincy, im confused as to what OTR actually is.  a friend of mine whos from cincy will always say "yea you dont want to be in downtown cincinnati at night" as opposed to being in cleveland's warehouse district till 3am.  but to me, and this is just from passing by at night, it didnt seem too "scary" downtown in cincinnati. 

Over-the-Rhine borders downtown Cincinnati, so it's "spillage" effect is going to hit suburbanites when they think of "downtown Cincinnati." 

I usually hate anything Bronson writes, but I've done walking tours with the group that Mary Poole is a part of and they are truly ambassadors for the city and if she is rattled it can't be good. All it takes is one incidence to spook people and they're done.

 

<b>Crime is 'just politics' the way 9/11 was 'just a plane crash'</b>

By Peter Bronson, Enquirer staff writer

 

Mary Poole has led guided walking tours in Over-the-Rhine on weekends all summer. "Not anymore," she says. Not since she was assaulted and robbed at noon last Saturday as she walked to her car on Elm Street next to Findlay Market.

 

"A man approached me, and I thought he was going to ask me for money, so I was hurrying to get in my car. Then he pulled a gun on me. I didn't know what he wanted, so I started screaming, and I wouldn't let go of my purse. He grabbed me, then he punched me, and I let go."

 

To read more: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050911/COL05/509110315/1009/EDIT

As much as I can't stand Peter Bronson's opinions or his smug delivery, the statistics do bear out his point here.  The 9/11 reference on 9/11 is pretty fucking insensitive though.

First i must say that i haven't lived in Cinti for five years.  However i still make the occasional trip and know some who live there still.

 

I would never compare OTR to Tremont.  There isn't a comparison for OTR to a Cleveland neighborhood.  It is a good sized neighborhood north of the CBD.  The shared border with the CBD is an eight or ten lane divided road that used to be the canal (or the "Rhine") that ran through the city from the I-75 corridor.  You know when you've left the CBD when office buildings are replaced with fantastic Victorian row houses that are rotting from the inside out. 

 

Obviously it was a major German neighborhood (but really what wasn't in Cinti?) years ago and has since become generally a place for poor African Americans and Appalachians.  It definitely has the worst rep in the city (even though i would be far more concerned about walking through the west end or at people's corner) and while there was some money made on Main St with the night life during the turn of the last century, that is certainly on the down slide...  but definitely just one street of "development" which really didn't do much in the way of rehab and sent rents through the roof along Main for crappy old units.  And nothing at all like the Warehouse District that is a neighborhood within the CBD and has a booming housing market.  Did you know that the Warehouse District is completely rehabbed at this time?  Anyway, with the exception of Pendelton (a sub neighborhood within OTR that doesn't want to be associated with OTR) i really wouldn't spend to much time down there myself except at the market when open or at the music hall when there's a show.  Which is a real shame because it really is a beautiful example of urban design with a fantastic park and one of the largest collections of Victorian age housing.

 

I'd hate to say it, but everything i see and hear points to OTR sliding further since the riots a few back.  In closing i would say that i would venture into OTR on foot if i had a reason, but i wouldn't take the lady friend (ie my wife) or some kids.  I would definitely be conscious of my surroundings.  But in the end only those of us into urban spaces would be interested in seeing this part of town.  And while it isn't as bad as everyone thinks in the square exurban world, it is still pretty bad.

Welcome to the forum gener. 

The state of the neighborhood makes me want to cry on bad nights.  So much misery and degradation.  You wouldn't believe the stuff we see and hear.

 

I can understand the persistence of poverty.  I mean, poverty will be with us always... but why does it continually get worse in this one neighborhood especially?  It just doesn't make sense!

The state of the neighborhood makes me want to cry on bad nights.  So much misery and degradation.  You wouldn't believe the stuff we see and hear.

 

I can understand the persistence of poverty.  I mean, poverty will be with us always... but why does it continually get worse in this one neighborhood especially?  It just doesn't make sense!

 

Just don't let it flood (if that can happen) then.

 

 

walked to her car on Elm Street next to Findlay Market

one block from green st. maybe less than a block if she was south of elder.

 

Race Street looked unsafe

The tour goes right past green st.  The same areas I pointed out earlier as not good.

 

Anyway, with the exception of Pendelton (a sub neighborhood within OTR that doesn't want to be associated with OTR

Pendleton was never a part of OTR until a few decades ago. I agree with the residents of pendleton they want their historic name

^ Fill me in Maximillian...

 

I thought Pendleton was always a sub neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine.  Are you saying that Pendleton was separate at one time?  If so then why does Pendleton fall under Over-the-Rhine.

^ Something about your last paragraph didn't read write to me but I will move on. 

 

Trust me, if many people had their way Over-the-Rhine would be the last place that many of the poor people would reside.  I don't see how it is bizarre in the grand scheme of inner cities.  You live in Toledo, you are only an hour from Detroit.  If anyone could relate to the disparity of the have and have nots and dangerous inner city neighborhoods I would think it would be an urbanite only an hour from downtown detroit. 

The residents of OTR aren't the problem, most are poor and have some sort of handicap physically or mentally.Most are generally good people that need guidance and help. The gangbangers and drug dealers from the westend, avondale,westwood walnut hills, winton terrace are the problem they use OTR as their playground for business  to solicit drugs, prostitution etc. Soon they will be pushed back into THEIR own neighborhoods.  :x

 

Segregation- both racial and economic. These people have no way out and no connections to people that do. For being a mile from a 100,000 rich office workers, the two groups probably never talk to each other even in passing.

 

I agree the neighborhood is very scary. I feel more uncomfortable there than anywhere else in Ohio. It's weird how many blacks are conecentrated in that one hood. Up in Toledo, our worst ghettos are integrated, so when I visited Cincinnati, I just thought "wtf is this place? Did they just take all the poor black people and throw them to the wolves?" It's a bizarre world down there.

 

To me, it's not a race thing.  Toledo's ghettos are black.  Dayton's ghetto's are black.  Cleveland's ghettos are black.  Columbus' ghettos are black.  Cincinnati's ghettos are black.  Youngstown's ghettos are black.  Akron's ghettos are black.  Even Steubenville's ghettos are black.  So nobody should be surprised of the amount of segregation of classes in ANY Ohio city.

 

What makes Over-the-Rhine stand out from other ghettos of Ohio are two factors: the intimidation factor and the built-environment.  It is easily Ohio's most "hardcore" ghetto in terms of reputation, "feel," and perhaps "where do I go" type of feeling (since OTR's streets CAN be confusing, can be intimidating [in terms of people out 24/7]).  It mirrors west Baltimore and perhaps sections of uptown Harlem in that sense (except Harlem is mostly grid; OTR switches it; Baltimore's is more hilly).  It's very unique for a Midwest neighborhood to have such a feeling (yet at the same time, knowing Cincinnati's history, it makes perfect sense for having an "East Coast" neighborhood).

What makes Over-the-Rhine stand out from other ghettos of Ohio are two factors: the intimidation factor and the built-environment.  It is easily Ohio's most "hardcore" ghetto in terms of reputation, "feel," and perhaps "where do I go" type of feeling (since OTR's streets CAN be confusing, can be intimidating [in terms of people out 24/7]).

 

Absolutely.  It can become claustrophobic in a hurry if you're scared already.  Everything's on top of you and you feel like there's no escape.  I've only felt that way in OTR on a few occasions, but I understand the feeling in general.

 

I can also understand (to a certain degree) the toll that this can take on the residents, and why so many struggle like they do.

 

ColDay, Toledo's ghettos are not black. That's ridiculous for you to say that. Vistula is about half black. LaGrange is about 40% black. Birmingham and The Side are about 25% black. La Viva is about 25% black. Acme is about 35% percent black. I just named you the most dangerous parts of the city. Whites or Latinos are the majority in all but one of those ghettos. Probably 10-20% of the people in those ghettos are mixed race of some sort, so that just adds to the whole integrated ghetto thing I'm getting at. There are majority black areas on the West Side of Toledo that are much safer than the hoods I just listed. Toledo is the capitol of white thugs and white drug dealers (the Siderz). So I guess being majority white makes a ghetto "black." That makes a lot of sense... :drunk:

 

 

My point is that Toledo differs from many other cities in that respect. You really know little about the city and your statement proved that. Toledo is a little under a third black (based on 2005 estimates). Arabs are about 8% of the city. Latinos are about 7%. 5% is mixed race or East Asian. Then 50% is white only (European). Race doesn't make a difference in how rough a place is, but it is telling of how a city's racial structure works. There are trailer courts that are much scarier than Over-the-Rhine, but most Americans aren't going to know about them because the media would rather sell the image of a black ghetto in an old city (it gets a larger audience). Poverty and drugs will bring any place in America down. I'm saying "America" because poverty in some other parts of the world doesn't always bring a lot of crime.

 

Over-the-Rhine is mainly scary because of the high crime rates there and yes, the buildings look very run-down and old. Also, the residents are not very friendly (why should they be?- the living conditions are horrid). Not all impoverished areas have high crime, but Over-the-Rhine is a place that does. Over-the-Rhine also is symbolic of the racial and economic structure of the area. It's sad that the bottom has such a high percentage of blacks. Of course Cleveland, Dayton, Detroit, and Chicago are exactly the same. The reason that Over-the-Rhine's black percentage is shocking is because Cincy central city is a little under 45% black. It's not shocking in the sense that America is racially segregated, but shocking because of how disproportionate the crime is in Cincy between the races. You need to ask yourself why so much crime is happening in Cincy's black neighborhoods and why Toledo's crime cuts across all racial lines with the worst in white neighborhoods. Think beyond the notion that all cities and all ghettos are the same. I can explain the history to you. I've studied this in great depth, but it would take a new thread.

 

 

The majority of black Toledo I can guarentee live within the central city or around it.  They either live near or IN ghettos (again, the MAJORITY; not all).  Hell, even Columbus and Dayton can claim "white ghettos" and Latino areas of "ghetto."  But to be completely real, sorry, there is no "integrated" hood except for parts each cities' ghettos.  Toledo may lack a sizeable black population (if that is what you are getting at) but the city is not "scott free" in terms of "integration."  Every city in this state has an "integrated" impoverished area but the majority of them have a large black population that are under the poverty line.

 

It is more likely that an impoverished area is going to have higher crime than a non-poverish area, so it is no surprised that parts of Cleveland city, Cincinnati's basin, west Dayton, east Akron, most of Youngstown (:D), east Columbus and parts of central Toledo are going to be/have crime and are majority black (since blacks have been struggling for YEARS to get an education and such).  Toledo might be more like the Ohio version of Downriver (Detroit), Michigan, in which there is a high white population living below the poverty line and with a scattering of blacks throughout (which is entirely possible, as the River Rouge area isn't that far from Toledo; shit 20ish miles) but I have yet to see a "hardcore" ghetto area of Ohio that is majority white except for perhaps parts of Hilltop in Columbus.  Well, either that or Toledo simply lacks "ghetto" and is just simply overabundant of lower-middle class living in "not-bad-but-not-good" living conditions.  When I mean GHETTO, I mean Over-the-Rhine, Westwood (Dayton), East Cleveland, Near East (Columbus), Arlington (Akron), and such.  THEN there are just impoverished areas of crime such as Roosevelt (Dayton), Evanston (Cincinnati), Hilltop (Columbus), parts of Glenville (Cleveland), and the aforementioned Visutla (Toledo).

 

What I know of and talk to friends in Toledo is that "black people are in the ghetto and white people are either in the city or in the burbs."  Generalization, sure, but it isn't exactly a worthy praise for an "integrated" city.  Basically, it should not be any sort of shock to any urban Ohioan to see a ghetto and think "wow, there are black people here!"  It's a shame but it's America.

 

Think beyond the notion that all cities and all ghettos are the same. I can explain the history to you. I've studied this in great depth, but it would take a new thread.

 

Who hasn't in urban planning? lol

 

Simple analysis of the "segregation" that plagues Ohio's metro/cities.

 

Comparatively, perhaps Ohio's most "integrated" Metro Cincinnati (or should I say, most spread pockets; least concentration)...

 

Over-the-Rhine is mainly scary because of the high crime rates there and yes, the buildings look very run-down and old. Also, the residents are not very friendly (why should they be?- the living conditions are horrid).

Of course the buildings look old its a Historic district the rundown buildings are waiting their turn. The living conditions in some of the buildings are the same as any other part of cincinnati. You don't know OTR the RESIDENTS are friendly. The scumbags that come in and take over the streets from other neighborhoods aren't friendly. It's dangerous in OTR if you are a young black male using or dealing in drugs.

<b>Some wear out their welcome</b>

By Tony Cook, Post staff reporter

 

While most of the 14 Hurricane Katrina victims who arrived on charter buses from Louisiana last week are steadily adjusting to life in Cincinnati, one is in jail and some host families are growing weary of caring for evacuees.

 

Daniel Eaton, 44, of St. Bernard Parish, La., opened and drank a 24-ounce Bud Ice beer - valued at $1.49 - at the Over-the-Rhine Kroger store Saturday afternoon, according to Cincinnati police. He then threatened to kill a police officer and had a crack pipe in his possession, according to city prosecutors. He was being held at the Hamilton County Justice Center.

 

To read more: http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050914/NEWS01/509140353

My point is about crime related to race. East Toledo has some of the highest rates of crime in the city.

 

As I pointed out in my arguement, there are white areas of the state of Ohio with a high crime rate as well.  That does not necessarily make an area "ghetto."  Otherwise, Inglewood, California and Long Island City, NY are "ghetto" (in which, they are not).

 

Those maps are hard to decipher, but it seems like Nati has way more areas with over 50% black.

 

Because Cincinnati's topography has made pockets of African-American neighborhoods.  And no, the maps aren't hard to decipher; it's strictly a generalization of where people live.

 

If an area is 75% white, that indicates no segregation whatsoever (because Ohio is 85% white).

 

No.  An area that is 75% white could be highly segregated.

 

Obviously, if an area is 50% black, that could indicate segregation (Ohio is only 12% black).

 

Not necessarily, as the other 50% could live next door to the 50% blacks.

 

Either way, this makes Nati look way more segregated than Toledo (which it is).

 

Apparently not, if Toledo has a more concentration of blacks in one area than Cincinnati, with a splattering around the city and metropolitan area.  If anything, this map shows the disproportion of blacks in Toledo city vs. Toledo Metro "against" Cincinnati city vs. Cincinnati metro.  So in reality, this map makes Toledo look like a lesser Detroit.

 

There are far more areas with over 50% black in Nati.

 

They are called "black neighborhoods."  Toledo apparently has them too (according to these Census maps).

 

I know you're probably thinking "Nati has a higher percentage of blacks." If we are talking metros, Toledo and Cincy have about the same percentage of blacks.

 

Bingo.  Thus, if Cincinnati has more blacks in the suburbs than Toledo (judging by these maps), what does that tell you about Black Toledo vs. Black Cincinnati?  Detroit-syndrome, perhaps?

 

 

 

In Toledo, there a ton of blacks in the green areas.

 

Apparently not.  It isn't hard to read a legend.

 

If an area is say 75% white and 25% black (which a lot of the Toledo map is), how is it not integrated?

 

Not really.  It could be Asian, it could be Hispanic, it could be black, it could be "non-Census." More of the Cincinnati map is "lighter colors" than Toledo.  Black Toledo apparently lives in a wedge that crosses the western half of the city up to downtown and northeast of that.  That isn't exactly "integration" if I can point that out.  So if I see more "light grey" and "light green" on the Cincinnati map than Toledo's, what does that tell you?

 

Ohio is like 85% white and America is over 70% white, so I think of that when I look at these types of maps.

 

I also think of how Hispanic the United States is becoming and the lack of Hispanics in Ohio vs. the national average.  So the idea of America being only 70% non-Hispanic white currently out the door in terms of statistics for this state.

 

I'm looking for disproportions, which Nati has more of with more blacks in concentrated blocks.

 

No.  Toledo has one large block (or wedge) of African-Americans extending horizontally in one concentration.  Cincinnati is more pockets that are surrounded by 50%+ white areas.  So no, Cincinnati isn't more "segregated" as Toledo is simply more concentrated with African Americans.  Again, like a smaller Detroit.

 

While Cincy has substantial blacks outside of the central city, it seems they all live together which indicates no integration whatsoever (just the opposite).

 

Not according to this map.  I see lighter areas of greys in Forest Park, Springdale, Woodlawn, and such.  So no, it does not indicate that it is segregated as the majority of those areas seem to be 25-50% black.  Hardly segregated.

 

Integration is way more than where races live of course (although it matters)- it has economic and social implications too. Your map (wherever it's from) basically proved my point about Toledo's ghettos. Like I said, the majority black hoods (old Westside) have much lower crime than the whiter East Side and mixed Northside.

 

The maps indicate incomes.  Judging by the Toledo maps, the black areas seem to have more of a proportion of poor vs. the "Eastside" (whites).  So no, your point isn't correct.

 

My point all along was where the crime is located and how it relates to the races there. Many of Toledo's whiter areas have the most crime.

 

I have no idea but like I said, it might have the River Rouge syndrome.  Ya never know.  But the black areas still proportionately have the lowest poverty line, according to that income map.

 

Cincy's blacker area's have the most crime. That's the difference.

 

Wha?  There are sections of Price Hill (whiter than black) and other parts of the city with a higher crime rate than "blacker" neighborhoods.  So no, your "difference" is null.

 

And if there's one thing this map did prove, it was how the poverty in Toledo is spread all over the races in the city, like I've said all along. The under 25,000 covered many whiter areas, and the 25-35,000 went well into the whiter suburbs (including my town of course).

 

So Toledo is poor, basically.  Still not getting the idea how "integration" equates with "everybody's at the same income!"  Sorry, racial integration doesn't have any sort of logic when dealing with "economics."  There are sections of Detroit Metro with poor whites (again, Downriver) that have a high percentage of segregation vs. the "black" Detroit.  Both are poor yet both still live in segregation. 

 

What makes Toledo more integrated is the following:

 

The money isn't concentrated in one race or another

 

Uhhh...read my point above.

 

The crime isn't concentrated in one race or another (I'll get some crime maps for ya)

 

Crime, again, isn't always about race.  But the majority of poor black ghettos are going to have "the most" crime in Ohio cities.  But again, Toledo could be the Downriver of Ohio.  Lord only knows.

 

Things are more in proportion in Toledo

 

Proportion doesn't equate with "less segregated."

 

The black population only has a couple areas where they are the majority in the metro.

 

Like, one.  The whole wedge in the central part of the city.

 

The rest is spread all over the metro (a map like this won't indicate that since it makes the cutoff at 75% of any race).

 

Integration should not be just "5%" black, sorry.  So yes, this map is very useful in determing the integration of Metropolitan Areas.  Otherwise, the Census would not post these maps.

 

This map is certainly not accurate btw.

 

Cry to the Census, not myself.

 

It says Southwyck is 75% white, which is dead wrong. It is majority black. I would assume there are many errors for Cincy too. And why didn't you post the Cincy income map?

 

I have no clue what Southwyck is but again, it's just a Census map.

 

Here is Cincinnati's "income map"

 

 

And *gasps* what do I see?  BLACK AREAS WITH MIDDLE TO HIGH INCOME?!?!  Wow!!  What a CONCEPT!  Just look north of the city boundaries at the "black" suburbs and see the income.  So by your logic (of Toledo, that is), since Metro Black Cincinnati has a higher proportion of income compared to Toledo, don't you think Cincinnati Metro is more "integrated" regardaring racial economics than Toledo?  Hmmm...

 

Thanks for proving my point Colday.

 

No, thank YOU for proving mine.

 

Metro Toledo only has a small area where blacks are the majority as would be expected in a more integrated city.

 

Oh, you silly Njaim.  They are all in one area!  Look at the map, again.  They are all concentrated in one area of the metropolitan area!  Oy.

 

Metro Cincinnati (which has a similar percentage of blacks) has tons of areas where blacks are the majority.

 

And tons that they aren't.  Most of the "majority" are in the city, in traditional black areas.  Much like the Hispanics in La Viva (which, btw, isn't registering any sort of Hispanic majority on those maps).  They are called "enclaves."

 

The segregation hits all parts of the city. But like I said, I'm not sure how accurate these maps are given the Southwyck error. 75% white means nothing on this map because there are a lot more whites than blacks in America.

 

Do I even need to address that silly stuff? :)

 

Now anyplace majority black indicates a lot more. Blacks are only 13% of America, so if an area is majority black, that could indicate some serious segregation amongst other things. Take this for example. Toledo is 1/3rd black and 310,000 people over 81 square miles. Cincy is 45% black and 320,000 people over 78 square miles. Judging by the maps, we can see that Cincy's black population is seperated from the rest.

 

If anything, those maps show how Cincinnati's black population are dispersed throughout the city and our surrounded by more "majority" white areas.  While "good ole" Toledo is just a big concentration of blacks in a central area (again, like a smaller, less black Detroit).

 

Toledo's black population is only seperated in an old West Side area. Doesn't it strike you odd how two cities with somewhat similar size and black populations can have such a difference in the amount of area that is majority black? The more majority black, the more segregated. That's what this map proves if anything.

 

Again, all I see is a swath of blacks in a central line.  So yes, it strikes me odd that Cincinnati has a dispersement of blacks throughout the city (and metro) while Toledo kept the Detroit-syndrome of "blacks in the city; whites in the burbs."  So sorry, the maps prove the point of "well, perhaps Toledo IS Detroit Jr. ;)."

 

Does race matter in Toledo? Of course, it's America, but I think it's safe to say it differs from Cincinnati in many ways. Toledo is a MUCH different city than Nati. There are few similiarities other than size.

 

Right.  Toledo has more of a concentration of blacks in one area; Cincinnati has pockets of blacks throughout the metro.  So yes, they are MUCH different cities.

 

Also, how do you know what the maps classify as "white" because it would make a difference in Toledo due to the Arab and Latino population (Many Arabs and Latinos are counted as white).

 

Latinos are not counted as white, if they put down "Latino."  These maps show Latino sections (orange codes). For example, Cleveland's Hispanic area near Lorain Ave.

 

 

Ghettos are all about the crime, man.

 

Not at all.

 

Compton looks like many suburban areas in Ohio, but you won't see anyone take that neighborhood as a joke.

 

A. Compton is a suburb of Los Angeles, not a neighborhood.

B. Compton is very beautiful and is safe in most parts.  It is sectional.

C. Compton is not, by any stretch of the means, "ghetto."

 

Ghettos come in all shapes and flavors and architectures.

 

Certainly.

 

They can even come in the form of a trailer park. There are parts of Toledo that look "safe" but are as dangerous as Over-the-Rhine.

 

I find that hard to believe, but hey, it's possible.

fellas,fellas, the differences between the two seem to me to be mostly due to topography. unlike flat toledo, cinci seems to have pockets of everything, not just ghetto or black areas. also, in my experiences you can get a bit worried tooling around some pockets of cinci sometimes, but not really in toledo (because it's flat & you can see where you are? i dk).

 

time for a little humor here? this discussion always reminds me of an anecdote by harvey pekar. cool geeky ny character actor wally shawn (incredibles voice, princess bride, etc.) came to cleveland one day in the 1970s to visit his relatives and somehow harv hooked up with him and drove him around cleveland on a tour.  can you imagine the comedy? so anyway they drove down broadway or somewhere and wally remarked,"welllll, here's something you don't see everyday....a white ghetto!" -- if you know harvey's raspy voice & that whiney nasally voice wally has it's much funnier.

 

 

fellas,fellas, the differences between the two seem to me to be mostly due to topography. unlike flat toledo, cinci seems to have pockets of everything, not just ghetto or black areas. also, in my experiences you can get a bit worried tooling around some pockets of cinci sometimes, but not really in toledo (because it's flat & you can see where you are? i dk).

 

You definately got a big chunk of it.  Agreed.  (Wow, mrnyc, we have been agreein' alot lately; this isn't healthy!)

 

time for a little humor here? this discussion always reminds me of an anecdote by harvey pekar. cool geeky ny character actor wally shawn (incredibles voice, princess bride, etc.) came to cleveland one day in the 1970s to visit his relatives and somehow harv hooked up with him and drove him around cleveland on a tour.  can you imagine the comedy? so anyway they drove down broadway or somewhere and wally remarked,"welllll, here's something you don't see everyday....a white ghetto!" -- if you know harvey's raspy voice & that whiney nasally voice wally has it's much funnier.

 

LOL!

Some comments....

 

Greater Detroit is one of the most segregated, crime-ridden areas in America and that is a problem. It's hard for disadvantaged groups to get out of the hood when everyone around them is just like themselves.

 

Greater Detroit??? Tell me where in Livonia, Dearborn, Plymouth, Royal Oak, ect... are you going to find the most crime ridden areas in America. This is all really news to me... The segregation and crime occurs in  the CITY of Detroit, the suburbs (GREATER Detroit) just help facilitate it...

 

Toledo's connection to Ann Arbor is greater than its connection to Detroit. What does Detroit have that Toledo doesn't? (other than pro sports teams). Our nightlife, dining, art museum, and zoo are actually better than what Detroit offers.

 

Please put down te pipe and get off of Monroe Street..

 

It's hard for disadvantaged groups to get out of the hood when everyone around them is just like themselves. Ditto for Over-the-Rhine, but gentrification will always help if a ton of people decide to move in.

 

WRONG, what makes it so hard for disadvantaged groups to get out of the hood is when white yuppies move into neighborhoods and open their expensive coffee shops and fix up their homes (gentrification) and force the poor people that actually made up the community to pay higher property taxes and be forced out to some new 'ghetto', in a place where white people can't see it or have to deal with it (away from the downtown, and still far away from the suburbs). 

 

Gentrification may seem like a very good thing, but it also has just as many negative side effects that are usually harder for people to see. It is all about finding the right balance and making sure you treat the people who do live in a gentrifying neighborhood with some respect. Look at any recently gentrified neighborhood and you will find that the number of non-whites and families in poverty have decreased.. Not because the people living there got more money, it's because those people were forced out.. To where, who the hell knows??? While more wealthy folk move in and create better numbers for the census to count... 

 

Anway, I do not think that OTR is as bad as it may seem, it is highly publicized and that creates a dangerous aura.. Also, Detroit isn't as bad as is publicized either, I may not feel completely comfortable in some of the 'ghetto' areas of the city, after all I am as white as can be, but I certaintly don't feel like my life is going to be threatened in any way, or that my camera is going to get stolen!! That is just ridiculous..

wow, cdawg, you completely amaze me with every single sentence. You seriously spew just about as much shit as locutus ofboard did.

 

But since ColDay is doing a pretty good job calling you out on it, i have nothing else to say.

 

~ps: what's next? toledo is a better city than jolly old london becuase of the plethora of lebanese restaurants?

"Locutus does spew off some shit, but the difference is that I back up my statements, Locutus rarely does (although sometimes he is on the right track)."

 

Correction - Locutus did and no longer does and has been banned.

Cleveumbus;

I completely disagree that OTR is safer than it appears or that "gentrification" in OTR would be "bad" for the people who live there now. 

 

Is your position that a neighborhood should never change?  That if it is a poor area, it should always stay poor?  What if the change happens slowly, over generations?  The income and the number of people in OTR has been declining for 80 years!  Should the decline be allowed to continue? 

 

This article http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/2005/04/usa_today_gentr.html , and my personal experience of 15 years in OTR tell me that "no gentrification" = "neighborhood stays poor".  This is a very serious issue, and I believe that attitudes like yours have kept people out of the city and have made the situation worse for the people living here.

 

I want investment and rehab in OTR.  And I am not ashamed to say it.

 

And yes, if you walk down my street tonight, I am pretty sure your camera will be stolen from around your neck!  If you don't think so, you don't know OTR.

 

 

 

 

I'm just going to say that you know nothing about Toledo. Have you lived there in recent years? Have you gone to school there? Have you seen the mass of Michigan plates at many of Toledo's attractions and restaurants? Last time I went to the zoo, there were more Michigan plates than Ohio ones. Most said "Wayne," "Oakland" etc.

 

Locutus does spew off some shit, but the difference is that I back up my statements, Locutus rarely does (although sometimes he is on the right track).

 

wow, that's really amazing considering no single michigan plate contains any indication of county. I mean i know there is a wayne co. ohio, do you know your own license plates?

Oy, right when I went to Starbucks...

 

I don't understand why Colday can't see my points. He is too biased towards Cincy to see through the fallacies of his maps.

 

That has too much irony written all over it.

 

Any area that is 75% white does not indicate segregation.

 

Most blanket statement of the day.  The map showcases the density of ethnic groups; not the amount.  Thus, if 75% of whites are "closer together" than blacks, what does that tell you?  Seg...re...ga...tion...perhaps?

 

If the map indicated the 90% white areas, then it would be more believable.

 

75%, 90%, doesn't matter.

 

There were glaring errors anyway, like Southwyck in Toledo. Blacks are the minority in America (13% of the population), so in an integrated city/metro, there should be few areas where they are the majority.

 

America has a thing called "unforceable segregation."  Meaning, people tend to stick with people they know.  Much like ethnic neighborhoods, blacks tended to stick around other blacks early on and pretty much did not venture outside their area.  Any ethnic map of the United States' metropolitan areas will showcase this point, almost severly (re: Detroit).

 

If a metro has a huge area that is majority black, then there is some serious segregation (Detroit's is bad of course). Cincy has far more total area like that than Toledo.

 

No, it means that there are black areas that happen to be suburban.  If there are "light grey" areas on the map or even "middle grey," that indicates more integration (meaning, less density of blacks; meaning less black folks living next to each other) than a darker section.  Suburban Cincinnati has more than Suburban Toledo (which lacks any sort of grey area at all).  Thus, Suburban Cincinnati is more "integrated" (I use that loosely) than Suburban Toledo, which again is a Detroit-model of "black city, white suburbs," but on a less scale.

 

Detroit is not even comparable to Toledo. Colday's whole defense of the "black neighborhood" (which was socially engineered to keep blacks at the bottom of the food chain) seems ridiculous to me.

 

Detroit...NOT...comparable...to...Toledo.  And you call ME "biased?"  Look at the damn map.  Detroit AND Toledo hold the a majority of black populations in their city limits.  Sorry, just too silly to even reply to.  Why did I even waste my time.

 

Every city tried hard to keep blacks seperated from whites. The further you go back in history, the worse it was. So Cincy has more majority black areas than Toledo. No shit. Blacks arrived in Cincy much earlier than Toledo, so the racism was worse when they got there.

 

That has to be one of the worst logical statements I've ever read.  Blacks come earlier, so more racism?  Blacks came to Philadelphia earlier than Toledo, yet Philadelphia was once heralded as a progressive black city.  Boston had blacks before Toledo, yet Boston was heralded as a "racist" city for blacks.  Both are older than Toledo (by a long shot) and have had blacks for centuries.  Yet one is "racist" and the other isn't.  Explain that logic, please.

 

It doesn't matter if there is a white hood next to a black hood. In an integrated metro, those whites would be living WITH the blacks and have the same standard of living. Why are people missing this?

 

You're starting to slip, now.  By that logic, you have "helped" my arguement in which the scattered pockets of Cincinnati's black neighborhoods are next door to majority white ones.  Thus, "more integration," compared to Toledo's "wedge" of blacks within the central city.  So there, you "helped" my arguement (which in reality, isn't even a bias but just 'pointing out colors on a map.")

 

Toledo's majority black area is about one third the size of Cincy's majority black area. Again, same size of central cities (although metros differ), so there has to be a lot of blacks in the white areas up in Toledo (which there are of course).

 

Incorrect.  Proportionally, Toledo's black population is rather small, thus it is not surprised to see a "decently sized" wedge/block of blacks living/concentrated in one area.  Cincinnati has more blacks, thus more spread.

 

Also, Detroit's majority black area is almost the entire central city. Toledo's is a section of the old west side.

 

The Old West Side isn't in Ottawa Hills, is it.

 

No valid comparison there. Detroit's map shows extreme segregation of the metro because the central city lacks hardly any of those 75% white areas. Toledo on the other hand is loaded with them.

 

Again, having areas of 75% white in the city is NOT a coorelation of "integration." 

 

The black percentage in metro Detroit is not much higher than the Ohio cities (it is higher, but not enough to warrant such a large majority black area in the central city). There are reasons Toledo is less segregated than some other Ohio cities. By far the number one reason is that much of Toledo's black population came to the city later than other cities around it.

 

Uh...no.  Sorry.  It isn't much different than other Ohio cities (aka, it looks about right).  Toledo is not less segregated than other Ohio cities (according to these maps).  Thus, silly arguement.

 

If an area is 25% black and 75% white, it is more than integrated (like I said, only 13% of America is black).

 

Think about that for a second (because that logic is definately "false.")

 

What would really show segregation would be maps that gave 90% white areas and 90% black areas. Can we please get some of those on here or maybe some info on some real integration, not what parts of a city are majority black or white.

 

Don't cry that Toledo has blocks of grey just as much as Cincinnati or Detroit.  These maps tell enough about "where people are."  You can bet that any dark scale of grey/green on that map will hold an area of 90% whoever.  It's just logic.

 

Start looking at the right information

 

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/ETI/integration/integration.htm

 

So Columbus is Ohio's most "integrated" metro.  Uh huh.

 

By studying that page, you'll see that all American metros are segregated (no shock there). The midwest metros are pretty average overall based on integration. Toledo is less segregated than Cincy. Despite having a slightly lower percentage of blacks than Cincy, Toledo has less areas that are over 80% white (that map Colday posted missed that by just 5%).

 

You missed something (regarding your site).

 

Columbus, OH MSA  218,565  40.3%

Youngstown--Warren, OH MSA  63,221  39.6% 

Akron, OH PMSA  80,180  38.7% 

Cincinnati, OH--KY--IN PMSA  220,034  37.1% 

Toledo, OH MSA  82,304  36.0%

Dayton--Springfield, OH MSA  141,038  30.0%

Cleveland--Lorain--Elyria, OH PMSA  425,722  24.0% 

 

The amount of blocks occupied by blacks is only a 25% difference in total across the state of Ohio.  Meaning, not much.

 

Keep in mind that 85% of Ohio is white. What is most shocking about this website is that the differences are small between all the cities and metros, but the main thing that stuck out was the "other mixture" category on the midwestern section. Toledo, Columbus, and Youngstown blow away the other Ohio metros. Of course Toledo and Columbus make sense, but Youngstown's very high percent of other mix (almost 10 percent) is something worth looking into.

 

Incorrect again.

 

Columbus, OH MSA  63.10 

Akron, OH PMSA  65.85 

Toledo, OH MSA  69.10 

Dayton--Springfield, OH MSA  70.16 

Youngstown--Warren, OH MSA  72.85 

Cincinnati, OH--KY--IN PMSA  74.84 

Cleveland--Lorain--Elyria, OH PMSA  77.32 

 

Gee.  Toledo is closer to Cincinnati's number than it is to Columbus'.  IS ANYBODY SURPRISED?!?!  No.  Shouldn't be.  Akron and Columbus should be commended; the rest, no.

 

Toledo ranks 30 out of 100 for the most integrated metros in America base on white-black mix (which isn't the whole picture since Toledo has more of the "other and mixed races" than most metros in the midwest). This is defined as the percentage of the metro living on black-white integrated blocks. Cincy ranks 33rd, Detroit ranks 55th. Cleveland ranks 36. Dayton-Springfield ranks 41. The most integrated metro in the country is Virginia Beach-Norfolk. If you look at just the largest central cities, Columbus does very well, as would be expected. Columbus also is the most integrated metro in Ohio, which makes perfect sense. It ranks 25th. What you'll notice though is that the differences are small and most of America is segregated, which is very sad but true.

 

Metropolitan areas that are statistically segregated are mostly older cities that had a strong prescence of industry for blacks to cling to.  Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, etc.  If Cincinnati is 33, Cleveland is 36, and Toledo is 30 (by this measure, which like my map, is flawed), then it suggests that, guess what!  All three are THE SAME.  But then again, defining "black to white" segregation can also construded in which it is simply block to block.  My map is simply the DENSITY of blacks in an area vs. whites in an area.  Both studies are interesting (though mine is the Census ;)) but in order to understand segregation, one must understand concentration.  Your study is simply "block to block;" Mine is "area to area."  Big difference, as a block of blacks can hold 5 black families and 1 white one, and that is already 20%.

 

I know Colday will continue to spout off his "Cincy is most integrated this, less segregated that..."  crap, but he's going to have a hell of a time convincing me of that without some serious research other than his opinions (which are a little biased).

 

Wow, talk about "Pot meets the Kettle." Your study wasn't exactly helping you either, buddy.  Mine atleast was A). Census, B). Easy to Understand; C). Proves the point on "where people are," which is the whole idea of segregation.  Yours was A). Used for a case study on Milwaukee; B). Used block by block, not area to area; and C). Didn't even help your arguement about Toledo, at all.

 

He likes to fish for any example to disprove a factual statement, but will not back up his statements with real numbers or reliable sources. What has been proven is Cincy is integrated based on white-black mix (which the website I linked proves) when you compare it to the rest of America, but there is a lot more to it than that. The reason Toledo and Cincinnati are not good cities to compare is how different they are. Metro Toledo has a MUCH higher percentage of the "other" minorities, and more people of multiple ethnic and racial backgrounds than Cincinnati (more mixed-race people could indicate integration too).

 

Almost too emotionally-cloudy and unfactual.  Then again, Toledo Metro is only 650,000, so perhaps it's the Toledo pride.  Hmmm...

 

Toledo's worst ghettos are white slums (Northside and Eastside). Cincy's worst are black slums. They are much different in that respect. The media loves Cincy when it comes to racial issues because of its stereotypical black ghettos with high crime. It's not fair, but it makes money. It sells to the scared suburbanites. You won't see much of Toledo's crimeholes on the news because of the large amounts of whites residing there. It defies the ghetto stereotype media relies too heavily on.

 

Okay, that's just silly.  I know MANY "suburban" Toledo people that are scared of the city of Toledo because of how "ghetto" it is and how "black" it is.  Sorry, that's not even worth my time.

 

I applaud C-Dawg's love for Toledo and NW Ohio, but this debate is pointless.

 

Ya got that right.

 

Basically, there is segregation everywhere in some shape or form (it goes way beyond races too, everything from one's beauty to religion matters just as much if not more).

 

First thing I agree with; congrats.

 

I just gave an example of segregation based merely on the percentage of blacks and whites living together, which is just a small part of the racial picture.

 

As I basically gave you maps on who is living with who.  That simple.  The Census likes things to be simple.

 

I feel the larger part are things like per capita income per race or ethnicity, crime rates in majority black and majority white areas, percentage of each race with a college degree, proportions of races in media, politics, etc. We should start discussing that. If anyone wants to go into those waters, I'd love to dive in.

 

Oy, and also to promote Toledo as an integrated, white-ghetto, paradise?  Sorry, I'll pass.  Not even worth my AEP Columbus electric bill :D.

I'm just going to say that you know nothing about Toledo. Have you lived there in recent years? Have you gone to school there? Have you seen the mass of Michigan plates at many of Toledo's attractions and restaurants? Last time I went to the zoo, there were more Michigan plates than Ohio ones. Most said "Wayne," "Oakland" etc. Have you seen the limos downtown on Thursday night flashing their Michigan plates?

 

The man's from suburban Detroit.  He knows Toledo more than most Ohioans.  Michigan plates do not have county tags, unlike Ohio's recent numeric ones.  And I'd hope that you'd see more Michigan plates in Toledo than Lucas County plates in Michigan.  Michigan has 6 million people in their southeast region; Toledo MSA is only 600,000.

 

When you are in Ann Arbor, you will see many Ohio plates that say "Lucas." Detroit supports Toledo more than Toledo supports Detroit in many ways.

 

That is true.  Most Toledoans go to Metro Detroit Airport (while Toledo Express is well...dead).  Detroit news allows Toledo to use their helicopters.  Basically, Toledo is turning to Flint South, though Flint atleast has an international airport.  So sorry, Toledoans need Detroit far more than Detroit needs Toledo.

 

There is a connection, but small. Many Toledo area people will travel to Ann Arbor for some added culture, but not Detroit (excluding pro sports of course).

 

I highly doubt that.  Working in Detroit, I found many Toledoans that went to Somerset, Twelve Oaks, and even the DIA and Greektown. 

 

You are the one on crack if you think Detroit is a big draw. The whole carpet bombing of the city, and excessive ghettoness turn many people off. Detroit does have some good things though. Their Greek area is far superior to Toledo's. But in general, Detroit is one of the last cities people go to for recreation. No casino on earth will save it. There a couple Detroit suburbs people will travel to (like Royal Oak, etc.), but few do much in the central city.

 

Detroit's downtown and Midtown area are still a big draw.  Detroit Institute of Art, the RenCen, the sports, the casinos, the other museums, Wayne State, and even (still) Belle Isle are still regarded as "class," even in Detroit's former decline.

 

BTW, Detroit's metrowide crime rank is usually at the top of the pack by most crime research institutes. Morgan-Quito (they aren't always totally accurate) ranks the metro worst in the country for crime. I've seen it many other places too, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

 

I have no idea.

This thread has had some of the greatest bitchslaps in UO history.  Keep it going guys--this is way too entertaining.

Colday I'm not going to argue the Cincy-Toledo integration anymore. My study showed people living in integrated areas. Your maps mainly showed areas where white or blacks are the majority.

 

Oy.  Headache.  Think about what you just said.  "your maps showed areas where blacks and whites are the majority."  Then  you say "people living in integrated areas."  So basically, segregation vs. integration.  Wow, ying/yang.

 

They are different studies, and I'm sure both have their weaknesses, but the study I posted seemed much more in-depth than a simple map. Nothing you have posted proves your point of Cincy being Ohio's most integrated metro.

 

Neither have you.  Your study was block to block, not city to city, nor area to area.  Sorry, your point is null as well.  Atleast mine had colors :D.

 

I think it was your pride speaking when you posted that.

 

Not really.  Just my sarcasm and disdain for silly arguements that are presented with "facts" that can be easily cancelled out.  Trust me, if I was trying, I'd actually give a damn.  But it's like comparing Canton's integration with Columbus'.  Two different ballgames.

 

I was calling you out on that, and that's how this whole thing started. Now, we have BOTH gotten too biased in this discussion to make the previous discussion continue as is. I'll admit my bias came into play a few times and I think you should admit the same. I apologize for my bias wherever people saw it.

 

Well, atleast you know your fault.  If my "bias" included dispelling myths of "black suburban Cincinnati," then sure, I apologize.  But otherwise, I didn't even address Cincinnati that much in this "debate" but moreso dispell Toledo myths of it being an integrated, white-ghetto, non-Detroit (lol) paradise.

 

Colday, that's YOUR logic (where's the proof?).

 

Well, let's see.  90% > 75%.  So if a map is 75%+, then there is a GOOD chance that that area will hold 90%+ areas of an ethnic group's density.  Math, I know.

 

I pointed out that Cincy had more areas over 80% white than Toledo.

 

I would hope so.  Cincinnati has more whites than Toledo.  I know, I'm being a smart ass on that one.

 

Toledo had more areas over 75% white than Cincy. That 5% was all it took to change the balance.

 

So basically, Toledo has more areas over 75% white than Cincinnati yet on the crunch, Cincinnati has more than 80%.  So let's see, Toledo is more likely to have an area of whites over 75% density than Cincinnati.  Cincinnati's is more specific yet Toledo's is more broad.  Interesting...

 

Now, I WOULD like to discuss segregation based on the other criteria. I invite you to discuss that with me. It's much more complex than a census map. It's more about the proportion of power between the races. Say there was a city where all the blacks lived in their own neighborhoods, and all the whites lived in theirs. The city is split 75/25 white/black. 25 percent of the managers in the city are black, 75 percent are white. 25 percent of the politicians are black, 75 percent are white. Everything else is in proportion and the per capita incomes are the same between the races. Is that city segregated? Of course it is segregated if you simply look at where the races live, but everything else in it is integrated and you could probably assume that city does not have much racism given each group has their fair share of power.

 

Hardly.  Again, general logic does not apply.  If an area has a black population that lives on the "eastside" of a city that is 25% black, and the 75% of a city is white and live on the west side, yet they still have representation, is the city scott-free that the blacks are on one side of town and the whites are another?  By golly, you'd have Oakland County and Detroit City.  Sorry, it DOES have everything to do with location.  You can share power all you want but if you aren't near/next to/living with the people you are sharing, that's segregation.  Case in point, Over-the-Rhine vs. Downtown Cincinnati.  They are next to each other, share power politically (though downtown gets more brownie points due to that whole Fortune 500 thingie), yet couldn't be anymore worlds apart.

 

I look at integration more as the "fair share of power" between different racial and ethnic groups.

 

I look at integration as a mixture of all races, living next to each other, with the same balance of income and education.  "Fair share of power" was used in the 60's and never worked to dispell segregation.  Change did.

 

And also, the words "ghetto" and "paradise" should never be used together.  :-D

 

Neither should "Toledo" and "Big City" :D.

you said it grasscat, this is quite the informative, interesting & enjoyable thread. best of all they're so into it they're doing all the grunt work looking the good stuff up for us!

 

may i suggest some background music while you read over the great debate? howz about some old george clinton and parliment/funkadelic?: "god bless chocolate city....and it's vanilla suburbs!" follow up with starship: "we built this city!" and then finally we can all come together and chill out with disco era war: city country city.  :banger:

 

 

Who ever said I actually totally agreed with affirmative action and quotas?  They certainly help disprivilaged African-Americans (and SOME Hispanics; though there are some faults with the system), what about the poor Appalachians, the poor Hispanics, and the poor Chinese living in disgusting conditions in Ft. Lee, New Jersey?

 

Fair share of power IS the ultimate goal but it should not be the CURRENT goal.  The CURRENT goal should be to have equality socially, economically, and racially.  There is no such thing as "fair share of power" in today's world.  Otherwise, my black ass would be in that area right away, ASAP.

you said it grasscat, this is quite the informative, interesting & enjoyable thread. best of all they're so into it they're doing all the grunt work looking the good stuff up for us!

 

may i suggest some background music while you read over the great debate? howz about some old george clinton and parliment/funkadelic?: "god bless chocolate city....and it's vanilla suburbs!" follow up with starship: "we built this city!" and then finally we can all come together and chill out with disco era war: city country city.  :banger:

 

 

 

LOL!!! 

 

George Clinton...a legend!  BLACK POWER BABY!!!! ;)

 

But seriously, I'm not even working a sweat in this "debate."  To me, it's a silly arguement with false logic and some data that really has no relavance.  I'm just having fun, mrnyc.   You know I can't take Toledo people seriously!  Look what happened to LocutusOfBoard!  Now YOU and I !!!  WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A BRAWL, SOON!!!

^ i thought you'd dig that, thatswhudahmtalkinabout!

 

say, are you threatening me? i am the great cornholio!!! i need teepee...