.

E Rocc has posited that rationale plenty of times.  But there are lots of coded ways nowadays of saying something.  The term 'thug' is a good example.  You certainly won't hear that term assigned to all violent offenders.  It wasn't used to describe the head-bangers who got into that massive brawl on the Lakewood-Cleveland border.  You won't hear it assigned to the bully at Bay Village HS.  You certainly will hear it used to describe individuals who are not black, but only when those individuals meet certain stereotypes assigned to black youth, regardless of what actions they might have taken.

 

To be clear, I was questioning the notion that the solution needs to come from within a certain 'community.'  The 'subculture' meme is a pointless debate.  It's the equivalent of the "I'm not touching you" game siblings taunt each other with...

The use of the word "thug" really started with its adoption by "gangster" rappers.  As you say, it is applied often enough to whites who fit that stereotype.  It’s not applied to even violent blacks that don’t, such as the older man who shot his neighbor in Bedford Heights.  It basically means gang members and (more numerous) hangers on and imitators, and if it includes 20% of the black population, I’m surprised it’s that high.

 

However, does anyone wish to deny that that 20% causes  problems  on a wildly disproportionate basis?  Or that it defends and expands itself by encouraging and feeding on racial animosity?  Does anyone think that its negative impacts are felt the most strongly in its own community?  Does anyone even question that most of what is left of actual “racism” today is the mistaken belief that being of a certain race means one subscribes to that cultural.

 

I just don’t see how an externally applied “solution” can accomplish anything more than additional resentment.  What’s needed is a decrease in acceptance among those who can’t be accused of being mere shills for the white community.  One man can’t do that, even if so inclined, and way too many black politicians would rather represent their community to the rest of the world than help it join them.  It’s going to take time, a lot of effort, and some actual leadership.

 

Yes there are certain behaviors, ranging from those that are arguably benign to those that are downright sociopathic and dangerous, being exhibited by large groups of people in places like Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, South Euclid, University Heights and similar communities nationwide.  There's no denying that it has to do with class and race.  The problem is that no one knows what to do about it without offending people and few people want to take responsibility for it.  So what is happening is that beautiful and unique areas of Greater Cleveland (i.e. CH and SH) are slowly but consistently becoming less and less livable, realistically, for middle class families of all races.  Because of the complexities of the issues, I don't have much hope that it's going to get better any time soon.

What's needed is a repudiation and eradication of the notion that there is a white community and a black community.  If you genuinely want to help with a solution, that is a good starting point.

The use of the word "thug" really started with its adoption by "gangster" rappers.  As you say, it is applied often enough to whites who fit that stereotype.  Its not applied to even violent blacks that dont, such as the older man who shot his neighbor in Bedford Heights.  It basically means gang members and (more numerous) hangers on and imitators, and if it includes 20% of the black population, Im surprised its that high.

 

It indeed was and still is horribly glorified by the rap business.  But it didn't originate in rap.  It is a term that has been around for nearly a millennia.  Today, those who use it derisively, mostly use it as a substitute for the N word.

What's needed is a repudiation and eradication of the notion that there is a white community and a black community.  If you genuinely want to help with a solution, that is a good starting point.

 

How about this: There is a community of lower-income people, a large chunk of them transient, living in the Heights communities.  There's no denying this, nor is there denying that when it comes to crime (both home-grown and "attracted" from outside), they are a significant source of it.  They are also the source of other, more minor but annoying antisocial issues that make these communities unattractive.

 

Whether or not we want to use labels of separation or identification, there's one more big thing that we cannot deny: Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights in particular have bent over backwards since the 1970s in the name of "diversity" to try to assimilate (is that the right word?) these newcomers into middle-class and suburban culture.  To some degree it has worked better here than elsewhere.  But as alluded to earlier, problems still exist that indicate that this has not worked nearly as well as we would hope.

 

And no, I don't think that this divides cleanly along racial lines.  I believe that there are a great many middle and upper class folks of all races who are frustrated by this situation.

Whether or not we want to use labels of separation or identification, there's one more big thing that we cannot deny: Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights in particular have bent over backwards since the 1970s in the name of "diversity" to try to assimilate (is that the right word?) these newcomers into middle-class and suburban culture.

 

How so?

What's needed is a repudiation and eradication of the notion that there is a white community and a black community.  If you genuinely want to help with a solution, that is a good starting point.

 

How about this: There is a community of lower-income people, a large chunk of them transient, living in the Heights communities.  There's no denying this, nor is there denying that when it comes to crime (both home-grown and "attracted" from outside), they are a significant source of it.  They are also the source of other, more minor but annoying antisocial issues that make these communities unattractive.

 

Whether or not we want to use labels of separation or identification, there's one more big thing that we cannot deny: Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights in particular have bent over backwards since the 1970s in the name of "diversity" to try to assimilate (is that the right word?) these newcomers into middle-class and suburban culture.  To some degree it has worked better here than elsewhere.  But as alluded to earlier, problems still exist that indicate that this has not worked nearly as well as we would hope.

 

And no, I don't think that this divides cleanly along racial lines.  I believe that there are a great many middle and upper class folks of all races who are frustrated by this situation.

 

So how do you describe this when it happens in majority white neighborhoods by whites?

What's needed is a repudiation and eradication of the notion that there is a white community and a black community.  If you genuinely want to help with a solution, that is a good starting point.

 

Oh I agree with this one about 3,000%.  It's precisely what's needed.  It's what Dr. King called for, in fact.

 

However, too many "leaders" of the black community have a vested interest in the status quo.  Indeed, assimliated ethnic communities do not need "leaders", except in a strictly cultural sense.  A hundred years ago, the Irish had them and they were powerful.  Now, they decide who will be grand marshall of a parade.

 

Next year will be the 100th anniversary of the death of Booker T. Washington.  It might be worthwhile to review and discuss his debates with DuBois.  I would say he has been largely vindicated.

What's needed is a repudiation and eradication of the notion that there is a white community and a black community.  If you genuinely want to help with a solution, that is a good starting point.

 

Oh I agree with this one about 3,000%.  It's precisely what's needed.  It's what Dr. King called for, in fact.

 

However, too many "leaders" of the black community have a vested interest in the status quo.  Indeed, assimliated ethnic communities do not need "leaders", except in a strictly cultural sense.  A hundred years ago, the Irish had them and they were powerful.  Now, they decide who will be grand marshall of a parade.

 

Next year will be the 100th anniversary of the death of Booker T. Washington.  It might be worthwhile to review and discuss his debates with DuBois.  I would say he has been largely vindicated.

 

So now you're speaking for the Black community?

I agree with his comment about leaders wanting to maintain the status quo.  The Malcolm X philosophy of only black people can help black people is outdated and not practical.  He realized that before he died.... and, if fact, that realization and the reflective change in his sermons might have been the reason why he was killed.

What's needed is a repudiation and eradication of the notion that there is a white community and a black community.  If you genuinely want to help with a solution, that is a good starting point.

 

How about this: There is a community of lower-income people, a large chunk of them transient, living in the Heights communities.  There's no denying this, nor is there denying that when it comes to crime (both home-grown and "attracted" from outside), they are a significant source of it.  They are also the source of other, more minor but annoying antisocial issues that make these communities unattractive.

 

Whether or not we want to use labels of separation or identification, there's one more big thing that we cannot deny: Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights in particular have bent over backwards since the 1970s in the name of "diversity" to try to assimilate (is that the right word?) these newcomers into middle-class and suburban culture.  To some degree it has worked better here than elsewhere.  But as alluded to earlier, problems still exist that indicate that this has not worked nearly as well as we would hope.

 

And no, I don't think that this divides cleanly along racial lines.  I believe that there are a great many middle and upper class folks of all races who are frustrated by this situation.

 

So how do you describe this when it happens in majority white neighborhoods by whites?

 

Truthfully, I don't think it does, or when it does, it's a statistical anomaly.  If we're talking about crime, it's not even up for debate.  If we're talking about other things (like willfully walking in the middle of the street clogging traffic, behaving loudly in public, littering and keeping your surroundings unkempt, etc.), anecdotally from my experience I believe that these things are much more likely to happen in certain Heights neighborhoods than elsewhere because of the attitudes of a lot of the people living here.

 

Look, I live in a part of UH that is a majority white, but just barely, and heavily trafficked (by car, foot, and other modes of transport) by people of all races and ages at almost all times of the day.  Truthfully, the behavior of the mostly white, mostly middle or upper class JCU kids can be pretty bad around here too, but I do think that that's a special exception that exists in every college town (and they've been called out by residents here as well).  But there are also not insignificant, antisocial problems caused by a lot of other people around here as well, people that seem to have a completely different set of characteristics in common with one another.

And that characteristic is almost always poverty.  Poor white people who typically get into more fights, use more drugs and alcohol, act obnoxiously, dress obnoxiously, etc., etc. typically don't live in urban neighborhoods.  They prefer trailers over duplexes and apartments.

^ ohh thats rich.  Plenty of PWP in the city.

 

 

And that characteristic is almost always poverty.  Poor white people who typically get into more fights, use more drugs and alcohol, act obnoxiously, dress obnoxiously, etc., etc. typically don't live in urban neighborhoods.  They prefer trailers over duplexes and apartments.

 

Yeah I agree that the common thread is poverty, which may be amplified by cultural-based behavior, or density, or some other factor that I'm missing.  But either way it does go back to a previous point that I made that CH and SH should be doing what they can to cut down on the number and limit the proliferation of low-income residences, because it's not the responsibility of these communities to take on a back-breaking burden for what is a national problem.

The proliferation of low income residences has more to due with aging and outdated housing stock in certain parts of those cities than anything CH or SH have "bent over backwards" to achieve "in the name of diversity".  I still don't get that comment at all, but I do understand and appreciate your remaining points.

 

^ ohh thats rich.  Plenty of PWP in the city.

 

Thanks for the contribution.  But this is certainly not the case on the east side of the City, and definitely not in the areas which are very close to the inner ring burbs we are discussing.  To the extent some lower class whites are left on the west side, they generally seem to fall into that 'certain subculture' E Rocc is referencing, which only further proves my point that it is poverty and not something as arbitrary as race which you can attribute to increases in crime.  Sorry to disappoint.  But, regardless, you can't deny that inner city poverty is more commonly seen in minorities in about every major city in the US.  There certainly are plenty of poor white people (which I assume is what you mean by PWP), but they are much more disproportionately found off the grid.

The proliferation of low income residences has more to due with aging and outdated housing stock in certain parts of those cities than anything CH or SH have "bent over backwards" to achieve "in the name of diversity".  I still don't get that comment at all

 

 

THANK YOU. Agree 100%

The proliferation of low income residences has more to due with aging and outdated housing stock in certain parts of those cities than anything CH or SH have "bent over backwards" to achieve "in the name of diversity".  I still don't get that comment at all, but I do understand and appreciate your remaining points.

 

Hold on a second, I said that they've bent over backwards to assimilate* lower income newcomers (and to be specific, these have mostly been black) since around the 1980s through today.  And I think that this was the right thing to do considering integration of CH and SH was going to happen either way.  However based on some of the more recent outcomes, I think we perhaps need to rethink and update our new strategies because to some degree our old philosophy is not working now.

 

In terms of low income residences, as I've mentioned previously on this thread and perhaps elsewhere around UO, CH and SH and other similar cities need to be getting rid of as many of these structures as possible.  For starters if I'm CH I work with EC to focus on leveling as much of the Superior Triangle as possible.  If I'm SH I'm keeping a close eye on what's going on along the city's southwestern border area.

 

*Think Ludlow and Lomond community associations whose histories actually go back further through Cleveland Heights' more recent Civility Project.  There are undoubtedly many other efforts that have been implemented by these cities and their residents that I'm not aware of.

^Not a fan of your carrot and stick analogy for various reasons, but agree that culling the housing stock makes some sense in an effort to save the whole enterprise.  And I think this is the direction things are heading, at least to some extent.  Of course, given that so much of the crime in these cities is committed by people coming in from other cities, I don't know much it will help on that front.

We don't disagree all that much, C17..... except for the horse training analogy

Sorry, I was using it colloquially, so I apologize for the connotations.  The point is that we need the governments to be a bit more forceful...I will change it though.

 

In regards to crime as it relates to low income residences, let me elaborate a bit on something I hit on earlier.  I think that non-residents are a source of a lot of crime in the Heights, but I don't think that's a coincidence or simply because these communities are busy with thousands people commuting or visiting every day.  I believe that many non-resident criminals are drawn to this area because they know and are visiting folks living in low-income residences, or they're visiting establishments that thrive on the business of the area's low-income residents.  So the point of getting rid of these types of residences is not just because a larger proportion of people living in them are troublemakers or outright criminals, but also because their existence attracts outsiders of the same ilk to our area.

 

Why might events like St. Greg's festival be targets?  Easy access by transportation is one, but the second big one I think is because the troublemakers know that there is an existing critical mass of troublemakers living in the area that are sure to be there.  You also may have a crowd that attends that perhaps has been overly tolerant of unruly behavior in the past.  All of this can lead to what happened last weekend.

 

And just as an FYI, I'm not proud to be making the above observations and suggestions.  They're classist and exclusionary and on a larger scale really go against what I believe in.  However I don't think it's right for these communities to shoulder all of this burden and continue to crumble while others refuse to pitch in.  If CH, SH, UH, SE, etc. are going to be livable, realistic options for middle class families in the coming decades, something has to change, because what we've been doing isn't working as well as it may have in the past.

In regards to crime as it relates to low income residences, let me elaborate a bit on something I hit on earlier.  I think that non-residents are a source of a lot of crime in the Heights, but I don't think that's a coincidence or simply because these communities are busy with thousands people commuting or visiting every day.  I believe that many non-resident criminals are drawn to this area because they know and are visiting folks living in low-income residences, or they're visiting establishments that thrive on the business of the area's low-income residents.  So the point of getting rid of these types of residences is not just because a larger proportion of people living in them are troublemakers or outright criminals, but also because their existence attracts outsiders of the same ilk to our area.

 

My friends in the Heights all seem to agree that the bad elements are due to the poor schools in East Cleveland/Cleveland.

 

According to them, for the most part families living in Cleveland Heights are good, hard working people.  Once established in the Heights, they let their families from East Cleveland and Cleveland register their kids as residents in the Heights to get access to better schools.  With them comes more elements from inner city schools and poverty stricken neighborhoods.  Inevitably their friends from the old neighborhoods start coming around, and with them the trouble that surrounds poor kids from any race.

 

I have no idea if any of this is true, but certainly sounds plausible.

In regards to crime as it relates to low income residences, let me elaborate a bit on something I hit on earlier.  I think that non-residents are a source of a lot of crime in the Heights, but I don't think that's a coincidence or simply because these communities are busy with thousands people commuting or visiting every day.  I believe that many non-resident criminals are drawn to this area because they know and are visiting folks living in low-income residences, or they're visiting establishments that thrive on the business of the area's low-income residents.  So the point of getting rid of these types of residences is not just because a larger proportion of people living in them are troublemakers or outright criminals, but also because their existence attracts outsiders of the same ilk to our area.

 

My friends in the Heights all seem to agree that the bad elements are due to the poor schools in East Cleveland/Cleveland.

 

According to them, for the most part families living in Cleveland Heights are good, hard working people.  Once established in the Heights, they let their families from East Cleveland and Cleveland register their kids as residents in the Heights to get access to better schools.  With them comes more elements from inner city schools and poverty stricken neighborhoods.  Inevitably their friends from the old neighborhoods start coming around, and with them the trouble that surrounds poor kids from any race.

 

I have no idea if any of this is true, but certainly sounds plausible.

 

It's what happened in Maple Heights.  During tle late 90s and early 00s, there was a strong influx of kids coming across the border from Cleveland to the schools every day, and lots of kids getting picked up at bus stops on the southwest side (furthest from the school) and driven away.  Going to relatives for the afternoon perhaps, but these kids were mostly black, the neighborhood still 80% - 90% white, and for context there was the abovementioned inflow.

The difference between CH/SH and cities such as Garfield Hts, Maple Hts, and Euclid (to a lesser degree) is the speed of white flight. In the latter examples, those cities were mostly white decades after CH and SH began diversifying, but the exodus was massive and exponentially faster.

The difference between CH/SH and cities such as Garfield Hts, Maple Hts, and Euclid (to a lesser degree) is the speed of white flight. In the latter examples, those cities were mostly white decades after CH and SH began diversifying, but the exodus was massive and exponentially faster.

 

Perhaps ironically, when Maple Heights first separated from Bedford, one of the reasons (allegedly) was this largely black section of the township wasn’t getting the same level of service as others.  The first settled part of the town was the “Presidents Row” area that has historically been virtually all black.  While the city was definitely residentially segregated (especially west of the railroad tracks), the schools were not from about 1980 on when Broadway School closed. 

 

Nevertheless, white flight didn’t really happen until the mid to late 90s and it was driven by things happening in the schools.  There was a point where the city was still 40% black but the public schools were about 80%.  Now it’s 70%, and 99%.

 

The difference between CH/SH and cities such as Garfield Hts, Maple Hts, and Euclid (to a lesser degree) is the speed of white flight. In the latter examples, those cities were mostly white decades after CH and SH began diversifying, but the exodus was massive and exponentially faster.

 

Doesn't change your main point about the relative speed of neighborhood change, but FYI, your emphasis on "flight" or "exodus" is a little misleading here.  The much bigger difference I suspect is that SH and CH are better able to attract white movers-in for various-reasons.  In fact, given the high share of renters and UC-affiliated folks among white residents there, I'd guess a higher share of white households exit CH every year than in GH or MH.

My friends in the Heights all seem to agree that the bad elements are due to the poor schools in East Cleveland/Cleveland.

 

According to them, for the most part families living in Cleveland Heights are good, hard working people.  Once established in the Heights, they let their families from East Cleveland and Cleveland register their kids as residents in the Heights to get access to better schools.  With them comes more elements from inner city schools and poverty stricken neighborhoods.  Inevitably their friends from the old neighborhoods start coming around, and with them the trouble that surrounds poor kids from any race.

 

I have no idea if any of this is true, but certainly sounds plausible.

 

I think that there is some truth to this, but I don't agree that all of the lower-income families moving to the Heights are good, hard-working.  A lot of them are and they're coming here for better opportunities, but certainly not all of them.  But the idea that they're bringing in/attracting trouble-making outsiders to the Heights is definitely true either way.

My friends in the Heights all seem to agree that the bad elements are due to the poor schools in East Cleveland/Cleveland.

 

According to them, for the most part families living in Cleveland Heights are good, hard working people.  Once established in the Heights, they let their families from East Cleveland and Cleveland register their kids as residents in the Heights to get access to better schools.  With them comes more elements from inner city schools and poverty stricken neighborhoods.  Inevitably their friends from the old neighborhoods start coming around, and with them the trouble that surrounds poor kids from any race.

 

I have no idea if any of this is true, but certainly sounds plausible.

 

I think that there is some truth to this, but I don't agree that all of the lower-income families moving to the Heights are good, hard-working.  A lot of them are and they're coming here for better opportunities, but certainly not all of them.  But the idea that they're bringing in/attracting trouble-making outsiders to the Heights is definitely true either way.

 

We've talked about this type of trend before.  The first parents are good hard working responsible people.  The kids all too often are not and some of them rebel by trying to "bring it with them".  As they succeed, the old neighbors move out and less responsible people move in  (especially if the flee-ers sell to professional landlords.

Too much generalizing going on here.  We're still talking about people, right?

Too much generalizing going on here.  We're still talking about people, right?

 

Sure, but these are people that, like all people, engage in generally predictable human behaviors, patterns if you will. And it probably makes sense for these patterns to be acknowledged and perhaps in some way used to guide public policy. I'm more concerned with preservation of the "Heights" than I am with seeing this community try to buck macro-level trends on the micro-level.

Ah, but that is exactly what CH has done so well for so long. It's why the Cleveland.bomb haters dislike it so much

^  I think most people think it's a shame whats happening there. 

 

^^"seeing this community try to buck macro-level trends on the micro-level. "  Makes sense to me.  If this was an experiment we would already have our result.

 

 

No, most of the people commenting on Cleveland.bomb are absolutely gleeful every time CH is victimized by criminals coming in from other communities.  Of course, they never take notice of the 'other'..... They just say 'how's that diversity workin' out for ya?!?' 

 

But I guess you all are right.  We should have never let 'them' in..... Errrr..... I mean 'embraced them''.... Errrr..... I mean held out the 'carrot'..... Errrrrr....... Oh, whatever.  People see what they want to see.  Maybe I'm guilty of that too.  But not wanting to see color in everything, even if it distorts my outlook in your opinion, is something I strive for.  Being a minority in my community for most of my youth taught me a thing or two about the shoe being on the other foot, I'd like to think.

 

Btw, you live in Cleveland, right Deansheen?  Would ya mind keeping your murderers and thieves out of my city.  Thanks (sarcasm most definitely intended)

 

No, most of the people commenting on Cleveland.bomb are absolutely gleeful every time CH is victimized by criminals coming in from other communities.  Of course, they never take notice of the 'other'..... They just say 'how's that diversity workin' out for ya?!?' 

 

But I guess you all are right.  We should have never let 'them' in..... Errrr..... I mean 'embraced them''.... Errrr..... I mean held out the 'carrot'..... Errrrrr....... Oh, whatever.  People see what they want to see.  Maybe I'm guilty of that too.  But not wanting to see color in everything, even if it distorts my outlook in your opinion, is something I strive for.  Being a minority in my community for most of my youth taught me a thing or two about the shoe being on the other foot, I'd like to think.

 

Poverty and crime seem closely intertwined.  In this part of the world, poverty and race are also closely intertwined.  I understand that when I write that I want CH, UH, SH, etc. to do what they can to  limit the supply of low-income residences and to make their respective streets much less hospitable to crime that it comes off in a certain way.  I get that, because that's an easy, almost lazy narrative to create.  But you don't get to play that card on me.  I grew up in this community, I still live in this community, and I spent a decade in the school system, not caring then or now about race.

 

All of this is academic.  Either change is going to come or it's not and we're going to lose some of the region's greatest assets because we couldn't adjust to reality in the name of trying to maintain an idealistic dream from yesteryear.

No, most of the people commenting on Cleveland.bomb are absolutely gleeful every time CH is victimized by criminals coming in from other communities.  Of course, they never take notice of the 'other'..... They just say 'how's that diversity workin' out for ya?!?' 

 

But I guess you all are right.  We should have never let 'them' in..... Errrr..... I mean 'embraced them''.... Errrr..... I mean held out the 'carrot'..... Errrrrr....... Oh, whatever.  People see what they want to see.  Maybe I'm guilty of that too.  But not wanting to see color in everything, even if it distorts my outlook in your opinion, is something I strive for.  Being a minority in my community for most of my youth taught me a thing or two about the shoe being on the other foot, I'd like to think.

 

Poverty and crime seem closely intertwined.  In this part of the world, poverty and race are also closely intertwined.  I understand that when I write that I want CH, UH, SH, etc. to do what they can to  limit the supply of low-income residences and to make their respective streets much less hospitable to crime that it comes off in a certain way.  I get that, because that's an easy, almost lazy narrative to create.  But you don't get to play that card on me.  I grew up in this community, I still live in this community, and I spent a decade in the school system, not caring then or now about race.

 

All of this is academic.  Either change is going to come or it's not and we're going to lose some of the region's greatest assets because we couldn't adjust to reality in the name of trying to maintain an idealistic dream from yesteryear.

 

Then and now, one major point has been missed.  People don’t care nearly as much about the race or income level of their neighbors as they do about their values.  Particularly in denser neighborhoods where they live in close proximity.  This has always been true, in fact it’s a big part of the reason ethnic neighborhoods developed.

 

The northern Heightses did a good job of assimilating the people that moved in. They may have had somewhat of an advantage thanks to the continued resistance of the other suburbs because they were able to build concentrations of the people that wanted to go to the suburbs because they already had “suburban” values.  To a lesser degree, this was also true in the suburbs that already had lower profile black neighborhoods.  Those areas really weren’t much different from the adjacent neighborhoods.  True, kids and particularly teens were discouraged from intermingling.  But this was also true among different ethnic groups in the cities.

 

Unfortunately, what we are seeing is the spread of a destructive subculture that has values completely incompatible with those of the rest of our society, including many poor people (especially immigrants).  Its poverty is less the cause of these values than their result, but it’s a vicious circle.  Unfortunately, Dr. King may have been the last leader with both the gumption and the status (within the black community) to turn the tide.  Others who see this quite simply “defect” to the main culture, where of course they are welcome.

 

No, most of the people commenting on Cleveland.bomb are absolutely gleeful every time CH is victimized by criminals coming in from other communities.  Of course, they never take notice of the 'other'..... They just say 'how's that diversity workin' out for ya?!?' 

 

But I guess you all are right.  We should have never let 'them' in..... Errrr..... I mean 'embraced them''.... Errrr..... I mean held out the 'carrot'..... Errrrrr....... Oh, whatever.  People see what they want to see.  Maybe I'm guilty of that too.  But not wanting to see color in everything, even if it distorts my outlook in your opinion, is something I strive for.  Being a minority in my community for most of my youth taught me a thing or two about the shoe being on the other foot, I'd like to think.

 

Btw, you live in Cleveland, right Deansheen?  Would ya mind keeping your murderers and thieves out of my city.  Thanks (sarcasm most definitely intended)

 

 

When you say Minority, in what aspect?  I know growing up we had issues with Jews and Gentles.  I never personally experienced racism until I entered Byron.  In elementary school I knew I was different.  I knew there were very few people of color.  So I understand you saying, "you're not wanting to see color", but in my experience it's a big elephant in the room.

I went to interracial schools--50 years ago--in a small town. My elementary school was about 25-30% black. Now the schools overall are about equal thirds Latino/Hispanic, White and Black (Latinos the larger of the groups; Blacks the smaller group). I don't understand the problem. I guess the Cleveland's "inner ring" suburbs aren't as "progressive" as they claim to be.

I went to interracial schools--50 years ago--in a small town. My elementary school was about 25-30% black. Now the schools overall are about equal thirds Latino/Hispanic, White and Black (Latinos the larger of the groups; Blacks the smaller group). I don't understand the problem. I guess the Cleveland's "inner ring" suburbs aren't as "progressive" as they claim to be.

 

I don't think that is fair to say.  Our surburbs, like many metropolitan areas, are similar yet so very different.

I went to interracial schools--50 years ago--in a small town. My elementary school was about 25-30% black. Now the schools overall are about equal thirds Latino/Hispanic, White and Black (Latinos the larger of the groups; Blacks the smaller group). I don't understand the problem. I guess the Cleveland's "inner ring" suburbs aren't as "progressive" as they claim to be.

 

I don't think that is fair to say.  Our surburbs, like many metropolitan areas, are similar yet so very different.

 

them's fightin' words! lol That may be true, but all the BS about how "superior" certain towns are is just that. Just because people there (in Shaker, Cleve Hts, etc) are more affluent, educated, "professional," :roll: doesn't make them less prejudiced than people from other places. It's limousine liberalism at its worst.

I went to interracial schools--50 years ago--in a small town. My elementary school was about 25-30% black. Now the schools overall are about equal thirds Latino/Hispanic, White and Black (Latinos the larger of the groups; Blacks the smaller group). I don't understand the problem. I guess the Cleveland's "inner ring" suburbs aren't as "progressive" as they claim to be.

 

I don't think that is fair to say.  Our surburbs, like many metropolitan areas, are similar yet so very different.

 

them's fighting' words! lol That may be true, but all the BS about how "superior" certain towns are is just that. Just because people there (in Shaker, Cleve Hts, etc) are more affluent, educated, "professional," :roll: doesn't make them less prejudiced than people from other places. It's limousine liberalism at its worst.

 

I would agree.  It's not (soley) racism its elitism.

Sorry EVD.  Not taking the bait.

 

When you say Minority, in what aspect? 

 

Racial

^that's okay, I understand. MTS is more fair and balanced.

I would agree.  It's not (soley) racism its elitism.

 

Classism might be a better word.  But again, it's more "valuesism":  people choosing to be around those with similar values. 

I would agree.  It's not (soley) racism its elitism.

 

Classism might be a better word.  But again, it's more "valuesism":  people choosing to be around those with similar values. 

 

You might also add to the end of your post, "and ethnicity"

Whatever 'ism' you want to talk about, the sad part is how much attention a tragedy like the one at Brennan's gets while I am not sure we even so much as mentioned the 4 year girl who was shot while on the playground in the City of Cleveland right around the same time.  The longer we ignore THAT problem, the more the surrounding communities will suffer in addition to the City itself.  No matter how much you might be predisposed to hate CH/SH for its liberalism, diversity, or whatever, that type of tragedy does not happen there and the majority of the truly egregious crime which does occur is committed by people who come from the inner city where such tragedies DO happen without much notice.

"much as mentioned the 4 year girl who was shot while on the playground in the City of Cleveland right around the same time"

 

I had a personal experience with that very issue being discussed at work by interns. One knew one of the boys and was making excuses for him, the other was saying you can never know what a person is capable of, to her credit.

 

The community must stop harboring and protecting this behavior.  If the rest of us are to care then a bit of a sea change in attitude needs to occur within as well.

 

 

Whatever 'ism' you want to talk about, the sad part is how much attention a tragedy like the one at Brennan's gets while I am not sure we even so much as mentioned the 4 year girl who was shot while on the playground in the City of Cleveland right around the same time.  The longer we ignore THAT problem, the more the surrounding communities will suffer in addition to the City itself.  No matter how much you might be predisposed to hate CH/SH for its liberalism, diversity, or whatever, that type of tragedy does not happen there and the majority of the truly egregious crime which does occur is committed by people who come from the inner city where such tragedies DO happen without much notice.

 

Yes, and we also have issues in the 'burbs that don't happen in the city that we wash away with $$$.  If someone in the 'burbs commits a white collar crime, it's not viewed in the same.

^true to some extent, including the number of would be felony convictions that get reduced to expungable misdemeanors for kids and young adults whose parents have the money to fight the charges

 

 

The community must stop harboring and protecting this behavior.  If the rest of us are to care then a bit of a sea change in attitude needs to occur within as well.

 

I am not sure what type of people you associate with, but I know of not one single person who would harbor or protect the type of behavior which results in the murder of a 4 yr old girl.  Not one.  And I associate with people from all different kinds of backgrounds

 

I also am not sure who you mean by "the community" and "the rest of us"

Well I met one who did defend a person involved in the case and what I mean is that it's a shame when excuses are made for people directly involved in the shooting of a 4 year old.

 

As for the rest of us, and the community, I mean the social mores of the hood, snitches get stitches etc. Some of these things are tolerated in the hood and that needs to change if change is to occur.  I've seen enough of this sort of behavior to become somewhat callous to the entire situation.  YMMV.

 

 

Well, if I was you I would consider rethinking who I associate with.

 

So "the community" = "the hood"..... and "the rest of us" is everyone outside "the hood"?  You expect 'the hood' to fix itself from within?  Good luck with that. 

 

You are going to have a hard time convincing criminals not to honor the pastime of 'Omerta'...... or whatever you might want to call it in an attempt to imply it only exists in "the hood."  That 'code' is as old as the law and it exists in all forms of society, especially the poor areas.  Do a little research on the Ozark Mafia or the Dixie Mafia.  You have places in this country where families have feuded for a hundred years without much intervention from the law.