Black Cities
SEARCH BLOG: DETROIT
A recent post about the dissolution of Detroit elicited the following response:
So, the city of Detroit is screwed up, that is not new news. What point are you trying to make here? Also, while the beginnings of the problem go back to the riots, what is the point of noting the corrupt "black" government. What "color" government do you expect in a city that is 85-90% black?To which I responded:
I also noted that the city was predominantly white and prosperous at one time. So what?This post is about race and politics. It does bring up the issue of cities with largely black populations. In some minds, that automatically will be racist. In those minds, it is not possible to examine the relationship of black Americans [I dislike the term African-Americans because it's akin to saying almost-Americans] to societal problems without being a racist. I simply disagree. Let the reasoning be examined and let the rhetoric be removed.
Are you insinuating that a comment about a black, corrupt government is not permissible?
What I expect is a black government that is not corrupt and works in the best interests of its residents... something that has not happened since before Coleman Young, the great divider, took over the office of the mayor.
Now go back and read the links to the earlier posts.
Here is a list of major cities with at least 50% black population based on the 2000 Census [from Wikipedia]:
| Rank | City | Percentage Black |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gary, Indiana | 84.03 |
| 2 | Detroit, Michigan | 83.73 |
| 3 | Miami Gardens, Florida | 79.39 |
| 4 | Birmingham, Alabama | 73.46 |
| 5 | Jackson, Mississippi | 70.64 |
| 6 | New Orleans, Louisiana | 67.25 |
| 7 | Baltimore, Maryland | 64.34 |
| 8 | Memphis, Tennessee | 61.41 |
| 9 | Atlanta, Georgia | 61.39 |
| 10 | Washington, D.C. | 60.01 |
| 11 | Richmond, Virginia | 57.19 |
| 12 | Savannah, Georgia | 57.08 |
| 13 | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | 55.70 |
| 14 | Newark, New Jersey | 53.46 |
| 15 | Flint, Michigan | 53.27 |
| 16 | St. Louis, Missouri | 51.20 |
| 17 | Cleveland, Ohio | 50.99 |
| 18 | Shreveport, Louisiana | 50.80 |
| 19 | Portsmouth, Virginia | 50.61 |
| 20 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana | 50.02 |
Not every city is a problem-city although each city has its problems. Nevertheless, there is a fairly strong correlation between predominantly black population and urban decay.
One has to be careful in ascribing a racial basis to urban problems. The urban problems may have preceded the loss of other racial and ethnic groups so that all that are left are the poorest... economically and educationally... who had the fewest options to leave. Hence, simply stating a strong correlation does not mean an unrelenting cause-effect.
The fact is, however, that black populations are generally less educated and, concomitantly, poorer. There are higher crime rates [that some minds will see as a racist observation despite the overwhelming percentage being black on black crimes]. And there is an irrational pride in rejecting "white" [read mainstream] values among many of the younger blacks... the generation most needed to turn around the situation.
That does not change the fact that, for Detroit, the present geo-political structure is untenable. Detroit has tremendous natural advantages as a port on the Great Lakes and access to a large population of well-educated people with major industry and universities within a short distance. Underpopulated [less than 1/2 its peak population] Detroit [about 40% derelict or abandoned] simply cannot take advantage of those advantages as long as it is comprised mostly of poorly educated and poor blacks who lack both the means and the attitude to be mainstream successful. That is why the city must be dissolved and reconstituted into manageable units.
At the opposite end of the spectrum with an opposite dynamic is San Francisco.
The reasons given are a little shaky... especially lack of "black culture." Just what does that mean? Is that the reason blacks have stayed in Gary and Detroit... and why those are failed cities? Or could it be that because blacks are more representative of their national percentage of highly educated population that San Francisco is more vibrant and economically sound... and that the blacks who remain are better able to contribute to that vitality while those that leave represent the same educational and economic strata that dominate Detroit?African Americans are leaving San Francisco because of substandard schools, a lack of affordable housing and the dearth of jobs and black culture, according to a report by a committee looking into the exodus.
Read more....The African American Out-migration Task Force, put together by the mayor's office last year to figure out what can be done to preserve the city's remaining black population and cultivate new residents, presented its findings at a public hearing Thursday called by Supervisor Chris Daly.
San Francisco's black population has dropped faster than that of any other large U.S. city's. It went from 13.4 percent in 1970 to an estimated 6.5 percent in 2005, according to the census. Nationally, African Americans make up 12.1 percent of the population.
A city based on poor, ignorant residents doesn't stand a chance of economic success regardless of its "culture." Cities should be the source of wealth, creativity and culture... not a blight on their surroundings. Perhaps it is time for more cities to emulate San Francisco's population than Detroit's... despite some of the other issues associated with San Francisco.
..
From 
