Tuesday, March 22, 2011

USA TODAY:Black populations fall in major cities

 USA Today...


The black population is declining in a growing number of major cities — more evidence that the settlement pattern of African Americans is changing as they disperse to suburbia and warmer parts of the nation.

2010 Census data released so far this year show that 20 of the 25 cities that have at least 250,000 people and a 20% black population either lost more blacks or gained fewer in the past decade than during the 1990s. The declines happened in some traditional black strongholds: Chicago, Oakland, Atlanta, Cleveland and St. Louis.
The loss is fueled by three distinct trends:
•Blacks — many in the middle or upper-middle class — leaving cities for the suburbs.
•Blacks leaving Northern cities for thriving centers in the South.

Shrinking numbers

The black population is declining in many major cities:

Source: Analysis of 2010 Census data by William Frey, Brookings Institution
•The aging of the African-American population, whose growth rate has dropped from more than 16% in the 1990s to about 10% since 2000.
"In the Northern cities, a lot of young blacks who might have grown up in cities are leaving maybe the entire region," says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution who analyzed the data. "They're going to the Sun Belt and particularly the South. The ones who stay in the area want to move to the suburbs."
Atlanta's loss of blacks tripled since 2000 to almost 30,000. The percentage of blacks in the city shrank to 53% from 61%. But in Atlanta's vast metropolitan area, the black population soared 40% to 1.7 million, a clear indication that many spread out to suburban counties. The Atlanta region has the second-largest black population after New York.
  • The trend is playing out differently in Chicago. The city lost more than 200,000 residents, and more than 180,000 of them were African-American. In the metropolitan area, the black population fell 3.5% to 1.6 million, pushing it 66,000 below metro Atlanta's. "Sadly for Chicago, I think in large part it's the weather," says Chinwe Onyeagoro, CEO of O-H Community Partners, a Chicago-based economic development consulting firm.
Sunny skies and warm temperatures are luring not only retirees but also young professionals who may have friends or relatives in the Sun Belt — Atlanta and Houston in particular, she says.
Suburbs anywhere are a huge draw.
"Typically, middle-class African-American families make the same kind of choices that white families have made for some time," Onyeagoro says. "As soon as kids are school-age, they move to the suburbs." Suburbs are also luring lower-income blacks who are leaving neighborhoods that don't have supermarkets and other retail, she says.
Recent Census surveys show that the District of Columbia's black population declined since 2000. Census data will be released this week for Washington and other major cities, including New York.
The drop also can be partially attributed to a declining black fertility rate and the aging of the black population, says John Logan, director of US 2010 Project at Brown University, which studies trends in American society. "We're starting to see the graying not only of the white population but of the black population," he says.

I can't believe that this kind of thinking exists in this country today. They make blacks sound like migrating birds or some other animal. The stereo typing of this article is sickening to me. Are blacks any different then whites for wanting to move to warmer weather or suburban living? How is the color of their skin or the color of my skin make any difference in their "migration"? Why are they focusing on the color of skin?

It's as if the media is trying to divide us by color. I reject this kind of thinking. I reject the thinking that we are many races. We are one race, different like snowflakes but still snow. The color of my skin doesn't say anything about me, unless I let it. 

Maybe we need to look at ideology instead of color of skin. Could it be that blacks are leaving the cities for the same reason that whites did? The cities that have had a Democratic Party monopoly for decades are failing. Look at the schools, look at culture and crime. Look at city government and what ideology has been running these cities into the ground. There is a reason why the left-wing keeps pointing at the color of skin. It diverts us from looking at the real problem that is causing people from leaving the cities. The media needs to stop treating blacks like they are some lower form of animal on the Darwinian chart. We are all related to Adam and Eve. We are equal to each other, but not equal to animals. All people are above the animals, we are not animals and neither are our black brothers and sisters.
Am I Not a Man and a Brother?


  1. I just read a series of interesting article by Thomas Sowell that addresses this issue:



    And this one http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032211.php3, which has a very pertinent part:

    "The Obama administration seems to be following what might be called "the Detroit pattern"-- increasing taxes, harassing businesses, and pandering to unions. In the short run, it got mayors re-elected. In the long-run, it reduced Detroit from a thriving city to an economic disaster area, whose population was cut in half, as its most productive citizens fled."

    Bonus WSJ article on the Governor Rick Snyder:


  2. Man In The Mirror22 March, 2011 17:41

    USA Today reports on a summer Gallup/USA Today poll on “race relations,” the conventional media term that dances around without naming the actual reality of systemic racism. They surveyed 702 whites, 608 blacks, and 502 Hispanics. The reporters make these opening claims:

    The survey paints a mixed picture of race relations. The racial divide over whether African Americans are treated fairly hasn’t abated, and blacks and whites are deeply divided on how much of a role bias plays in problems faced by the African American community. On the other hand, a record 58% of Americans say race relations “eventually will be worked out,” while 38% say they will “always be a problem.”

    The reporters use this weak opening that tries to put a pretty face on racism. After doing the usual balancing of “bad” racial news with “good” racial news–that is after framing the story from a version of the white racial frame that wants to play down racism–the reporter then notes some troubling and revealing data:

    Two-thirds of non-Hispanic whites say they are satisfied with the way blacks are treated in the USA; two-thirds of blacks say they are dissatisfied. Most blacks identify racial discrimination as a major factor in a list of problems the African American community faces, including shorter life expectancies than whites and a higher likelihood of going to prison. Most whites call racism a minor factor or not a factor in those situations.

    This “analysis” too is firmly framed from a version of the white racial frame. Why should we treat whites as valid sources on the extent of racial discrimination faced by black Americans? Why are there not many more questions on this discrimination faced by African Americans and reporting on how, when, and where they experience it? Why is there no comment on how out of touch many whites are on this discrimination faced by African Americans? Again, we have another form of white-framed balancing, which considers white answers to superficial survey questions on antiblack discrimination to be as important as black answers!

    The reporters then, again, try to put a pretty face on U.S. racism:

    The gap between blacks and whites in assessing race relations seems to be narrowing. Last year, 75% of whites and 55% of blacks said black-white relations were good, a 20-point gap. This year, that difference of opinion drops to 9 points. . . . Eight in 10 whites and seven in 10 blacks say civil rights for blacks have improved in the past decade.

    Clearly, survey researchers often have a limited understanding of racial matters in this country, as is revealed in such superficial questioning. Why not ask more sophisticated and probing questions that get at the major differences in the way that black and white Americans see these issues of “race relations” (systemic racism) and civil rights progress? Why not do some interviewing on these matters? I am pretty sure they would find major differences if they did in-depth interviewing or focus groups.

    And how about some more insightful analysis? For example, an African American can of course see improvement if the recent racial past was one of the lynchings and other extreme brutality and oppression of the legal segregation era that lasted into the 1970s—indeed, which ended a rather short time ago when many of us were already adults. It can still, of course, be a very bad situation today as other answers indicate.

    This tepid “racial divide” language suggests just how white-framed, and thus out of touch with reality, the maintain mass media are. The so-called “racial divide” is the result of systemic racism created and perpetrated by whites — a system that has now operated over some 400 years in this country, yet it is very rare for this systemic racism, its racial hierarchy, or it rationalizing white racial frame to be critically analyzed in our whitewashed media. Is it a type of “collective psychosis” when large groups of people, like many whites inside and outside of the media, are way out of touch with our still highly racialized reality?

  3. Not one left-winger had anything to say about this. How left-wing of them. Hiding from the truth.

  4. Mitchell,
    Lmao. Isn't Sowell just dividing us by race something Chris wailed about in the blue font?

    As for the 3-15 article he neglects to inform the reader that it wasn't unions that drove US steel down nor General motors. It was in the case of Us steel cheap steel from overseas and in GM's case a lack of building cars people wanted to buy and having employed people for nearly a hundred years.

  5. If Joe read the article he would know that Sowell is pointing out how liberal policies are inherently racist and drive black people out. How is pointing out hypocrisy dividing us by race? What a joke!

    Then Joe tries to change the subject. The point of what Mitchell linked to is obviously about the racist liberals. But Joe wants to turn it into an economic discussion, a discussion that he is obviously sorely lacking in skills or knowledge to provide a worthy opponent.

    For instance, why is overseas steel cheaper? Dummy, it is LABOR costs. Something that unions drive UP. Wow, is Joe really that stupid? Once again unions drive work away and then lobby for tariffs on imports, making the middle class and average American pay more, one way or the other, for their big fat pensions.

    Joe, stay in the shallow end until you learn to swim. Idiot.

  6. Ive noticed this Joe dude doesnt even dispute the facts of the inherent racism of liberal ideologies. Is this because A) There is no defending the leftist ideology or B) Joe is too stupid to defend the leftist ideology or C) All of the above? Maybe even Joe can figure out this one, since it's multiple choice!

  7. Joe what about the blatent racism in this USAToday? Nothing to say about that? Once again it's proven that racism is OK to the liberals when a liberal does it.

  8. Oops. thanks Anon. I should have read your post first. Great responce. Joe is just protecting his ilk. It's no wonder the liberals all thought the Tea Partiers were racist, they would have been if we had a black Republican President. The liberals love to project themselves on us. Just like they thought we would become dangerous and violent, they are the dangerous violent ones.

  9. War on Poverty 1965! Trillions Spent Millions still in Poverty. Another one of those Fuzzy Feel Good thingys Libs love. Like any other social program without GOALs. All that was lost is couple generations of Citizems for nothing more than political gain!

    Detroit lost 25% of its population in a decade wonder why? Crime and School System second to everybody else. Detroit is perfect example of RUIN it and Citizems will FLEE to fimd there Own solutions to Liberal Policies.

  10. Anon,
    Funny how you say

    Anonymous said...
    "If Joe read the article he would know"

    Acting as if i hadn't read the article. Really funny because i read the article at least three times through and skimmed it for some relevant parts a couple more. In the end i decided not to debate the majority of the article and stick with the one relevant fact that is pervasive here.

    Sowell can be as racially divisive as anyone and the articles he wrote where certainly more so than the USA today story Chris goes after. I also found his "blame" of the liberals to be inane and lacking in depth of evidence. Generally he throws some simple stats out and without any context proceeds to make up any claims he wishes about those stats. Livonia. if you read it you should know what that means.

    I find this statement when tied to the first quote absolutely astounding.
    Anonymous said...
    "Then Joe tries to change the subject."

    1. If you had read the articles you'd know Thomas Sowell brought up US steel and Gm in the 3-15 article. DUH! I didn't change the subject, i talked about how his article was wrong.

    2. I didn't know i was engaging him in an economic discussion. I thought i was just talking about simple things that Sowell missed. I'm not sure if i would pit my economic instruction against his, but i would certainly do it with you. I may be in the shallow end vs. Sowell Krugman and many others, but shit i got in the water. Your sitting in the house scared of drowning.

    3. Yes, I'm dumb. LOL. Of course its labor costs. Is that nugget all the U of adult ed taught you before the GED test? They pay their workers what in China and other places? How many fish heads a day should the union workers have bargained for at US steel as their daily wage? Add in the fact that work place safety is non-existent and you feel we should do what?

    Lower our safety standards and have the same deaths in workplaces as the Chinese do. Hey do you want to be part of the 77,000 people increase? That would be the entire city of Shelby dying each year.

    So now you want to work for 500 a year and the increased chance of dying there. Good for you. and I'm the dumb one.

    And I'll take you up on an economic debate any time. I doubt you know enough to get in the pool.

  11. Wow, that's quite a blanket statement. How or where has Sowell ever been racially divisive? What color is the sky in your world? You WISH he was racially divisive. We all know he isn't. Oh, I see, pointing out the hypocrisy and racism of the left is obviously racially divisive. The guy who demonstrates how race-blind the free-market system is is racially divisive. You are a total moron. What's more, you are a moron that lies. Are you declaring racism to try to negate his logic? What a shame that you liberals have to resort to playing the race card every time!

    Don't worry about me reading the articles Joe, I read them. I'm just stating the obvious, that you try to change the subject from what the blog author was talking about, and what Mitchell posted about (racism) into a straw man argument about the price of labor in the US.

    Don't worry Joe, you could hold your own with Krugman because he's an idiot too.

    You mention cheap steel from overseas, but isn't it funny that you fail to mention the reason that it is cheap? Then when I point it out the reason is labor costs, you try to insinuate all kinds of things about me! LOL Way to go Joe, rather than argue the points or logic, you turn it into me wanting to kill a bunch of people. You are a total asshole. And pathetic at debate.

    So who are you to set the price of steel or labor? Who the F do you think YOU or ANYONE is to set that? Labor should cost what it costs, no more no less. Ever notice how poor Cuba is (despite Michale Moore and the left's fawning for their system)? Think that has anything to do with blocked trade? People should be free to trade, to enter into any agreement that they find mutually beneficial. The capital freed up from paying for less expensive steel not only allows the price of the items made from the steel to go down (allowing poorer people the ability to afford those items, and more of them) but also allows companies the ability to invest in other things. It's all so very complicated ... oh wait, no it isn't. It only gets complicated when morons like you get all protectionist and decide that you know what is best for everyone, even though you are quite plainly barely educated, except at the knee of Marx and his ilk.

    Why do you hate the poor Joe? Why do you want to price things out of their range? I warrant that your policies, the policies of Mao and Marx, have killed more people than any other economic system. What do you think about that Joe?

    Furthermore, why do you hate jobs? Why do you keep raising the price of labor, and the minimum wage, thereby pricing students/entry-level workers out of the job? It's one of the most idiotic policies in a liberal agenda chock-full of idiotic policies. Then you wonder why a company would rather replace an idiot like you on the line with a robot that can do it for less, and they don't have to put up with all your whining union bullshit. Not to mention the robot is not a Marxist/racist.

    So Joe stop picking on the poor. Stop killing the poor through privation. Think of all those poor people that freeze to death, when if the other things they need cost just a little less they could afford the electric/gas that they need to stay alive. Murderer!

    As I said Joe, you'd better put your little water wings on and stay in the wading pool, like one of those 3' diameter x 3" deep kiddie pools they have outside K-Mart. The big kids are swimming out here, you're just going to get hurt. Stick with Krugman, he tells you exactly what you want to hear.

  12. Furthermore Joe, I guess you posit that other countries should not purchase any goods from our country if they cost less. Every country should just trade within itself. Did you know that the only time we had an export surplus was during the Great Depression? Thanks to FDR's protectionist policies. That worked great, didn't it? I wonder how many died during the GD because of those policies, the policies that you clearly champion even today.

  13. Joe, why is your economic system/ideology all based on using the force of government to force people to do things against their will? My chosen economic system/ideology is based on ADULTS making decisions for THEMSELVES, including if they want to work at a particular job (i.e. if they accept the conditions of reimbursement provided by the employer for their work) or not.

    Your liberal schools turn out students with the IQ's of turnips, then you price them out of entry level jobs where they might have at least gotten experience on the job and risen through the ranks. You and your ilk are destroying today and tomorrow's youths. You already did it to the blacks, now you want to do it to the young. For shame.

  14. This Joe guy has a real lousy take on his fellow American. Seems he thinks that any business owner will turn into a slave-driver if given the chance. Also seems like he thinks no worker will ever be able to just quit a job that has working conditions he doesn't agree with. Joe is a real idiot.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.