Gruesome weekend for Chicago

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
No, my point is that racist policies of 60-80 years ago aren't exactly relevant to todays problems - the problem isn't that white people are keeping black people from Lincoln Park.

The issue is a large contingent of people in poverty on south and west sides of Chicago and multi-generational gang culture lifestyle. Take a look at Pilsen for example - for the longest time blue collar eastern european neighborhood, that has turned into Latin King gang land in the 70s and 80s. That is, long after any sort of systematic segregation was in place.

Those housing policies allowed the beneficiaries to build up a lot of wealth. That absolutely continues to impact people today.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ng-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/

This is one of the many, many reasons why the 'racism is over' thing is so misguided.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,614
13,296
146
No, my point is that racist policies of 60-80 years ago aren't exactly relevant to todays problems - the problem isn't that white people are keeping black people from Lincoln Park.

The issue is a large contingent of people in poverty on south and west sides of Chicago and multi-generational gang culture lifestyle. Take a look at Pilsen for example - for the longest time blue collar eastern european neighborhood, that has turned into Latin King gang land in the 70s and 80s. That is, long after any sort of systematic segregation was in place.

This kind of discrimination has multigenerational impacts. Your minority Chicagoan is starting off their life with less than if their parents had been able to live where they were financial capable of living without discriminatory policies in place.

Plus, as the article I linked to shows, while banks were forced to lend in the neighborhoods they take deposits from, (the much hated CRA), insurance companies were being sued for racial discrimination into the 90's. There's still no federal law comparable to what the banks had forced on them only some state laws.

Every mortgage I've ever had has required home owners insurance. If a minority person is trying to move to a better part of the city, and the banks will loan the money for the house it's still doesn't help if they can't get pay the mortgage and the insurance because the insurance company is charging higher prices due to ethnicity.

While I agree people are now paying to live in the nice areas and I'm not saying it's impossible for some to move to better areas it's worthwhile to understand history and policies that help create and perpetuate the disparity.
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
MTI3NTgyMjcwNjIxMzI1Nzkw.jpg


... the disappearance of Chicago’s middle-class and mixed-income neighborhoods since 1970, measured by each Census tract’s median family income as a percentage of the median family income for the Chicago metropolitan region as a whole.

“I feel relatively comfortable telling the story of how Chicago came to be so segregated by race; I’m much humbler about my ability to explain this, except inasmuch as the ever-widening ghetto of the affluent could not exist without, yes, radically exclusionary housing laws,” said the student, Daniel Hertz.


While we can endlessly debate whether the Middle Class left Chicago, or Chicago left the Middle Class, none of that will change the fact that the trend is for the city becoming ever more economically polarized.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a graduate student when I was in South Florida (Lauderdale). He was from Florida's Gulf Coast south of Tampa. I asked what the economy was like there. His response was:

Two tiers, rich retired people and the people that cut their grass and wash their cars...

Of course, In cities around the world, two-tier societies are becoming increasingly common...

Perhaps though, we shouldn't blame it on Chicago too much... After all, the national statistics tell us that the US middle class is also shrinking...

Could be that Chicago is just a leading indicator...

Uno
 
Last edited:

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Those housing policies allowed the beneficiaries to build up a lot of wealth. That absolutely continues to impact people today.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ng-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/

This is one of the many, many reasons why the 'racism is over' thing is so misguided.

You should probably look into Chicago history before making these sort of generalizations; the neighborhood demographics here have historically been in flux.

The "white area" of chicago was poor immigrant ghetto until the mid 80s:

In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Lincoln Park became home to the first Puerto Rican immigrants to Chicago. Jose Cha Cha Jimenez transformed the local Young Lords gang into human rights activists for Latinos and the poor. They mounted sit-ins and takeovers of institutions and churches at Grant Hospital, Armitage Ave. Methodist Church, and McCormick Theological Seminary. In 1969, some members of the Puerto Rican Young Lords gang protested the demolition of buildings on the corner of Halsted and Armitage Streets, by occupying the space and some administration buildings at DePaul University.[7]
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,896
32,695
136
<shrug> If that's the depth of analysis you are going for, that's a limitation on your intellect. Have at it, I prefer to look a little more in depth.

No, that's me adhering to the topic. That wealthy areas have more crime than poor areas isn't exactly a shock to me. It's been this way since civilization began. Eventually you have to look at the overall level of crime for a whole area to arrive at a plausible determination of relative safety in an area for the population at large. A city doesn't get an adjusted murder rate just because it's only poor people killing each other.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
This isn't about gun control as much as it is about gang control.

If the local municipalities and the feds are allowed to take their gloves off and use different (read-brutal) tactics on these gangs, then the problem gets resolved.

Of course, that would be in violation of several aspects of our constitution... But the gov't has no problem working around that document when they label you a "Terrorist".
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,896
32,695
136
This isn't about gun control as much as it is about gang control.

If the local municipalities and the feds are allowed to take their gloves off and use different (read-brutal) tactics on these gangs, then the problem gets resolved.

Of course, that would be in violation of several aspects of our constitution... But the gov't has no problem working around that document when they label you a "Terrorist".

So you want to classify criminals as terrorists and strip them of constitutional protections?

Your username is appropriate.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,990
6,793
136
This isn't about gun control as much as it is about gang control.

If the local municipalities and the feds are allowed to take their gloves off and use different (read-brutal) tactics on these gangs, then the problem gets resolved.

Of course, that would be in violation of several aspects of our constitution... But the gov't has no problem working around that document when they label you a "Terrorist".
:rolleyes:

Stand up for the Constitution, except when it's inconvenient, right? It's actually a big problem that the government uses a label like "terrorist" to side step the Constitution.

If you want to break the cycle of poverty and gang violence, take a look at some recent, successful initiatives that don't involve violating people's constitutional rights.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
No, that's me adhering to the topic. That wealthy areas have more crime than poor areas isn't exactly a shock to me. It's been this way since civilization began. Eventually you have to look at the overall level of crime for a whole area to arrive at a plausible determination of relative safety in an area for the population at large. A city doesn't get an adjusted murder rate just because it's only poor people killing each other.

As I said, if your intellectual limitations prevent you from looking further, that's fine, stick to the superficial.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,896
32,695
136
As I said, if your intellectual limitations prevent you from looking further, that's fine, stick to the superficial.

Your inability to grasp the bigger picture is not an intellectual failing on my part.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Your inability to grasp the bigger picture is not an intellectual failing on my part.

I have no problem grasping the "bigger picture". You can make all the comparisons in the world, but they are worthless and meaningless if you don't get to the level where the data is logically differentiated.

As an example, lets pretend there's a big city with absolutely no crime except for one particular block, where there are 10 people gunned down every night. If someone was going to be in that block -- very dangerous. Not in that block? 100% safe. How would you compare the "overall safety" of that city to another city with the same 10 people killed each night but with a more normal distribution? Simple answer: you wouldn't, because it wouldn't be meaningful. You would need further information to make a useful comparison.
 

artvscommerce

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2010
1,143
17
81
This.

But it still won't matter. Based on how society tolerates rap music but can't tolerate a flag its clear it really has nothing to do with being offensive and divisive. I'm guessing there was even some of that rap music playing in the background at the time many of the victims died. Sad really.

I didn't know government buildings played offensive rap music on their speakers.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
I didn't know government buildings played offensive rap music on their speakers.

I didn't know we were talking about government buildings. In any case, the point was that its stupid to argue that something makes people do things or act a certain way. That's just an excuse.