Black-Owned Businesses Are Quietly Powering Detroit's Resurgence, But No One's Talkin

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

because americans are obsessed with race. it's a high powered, important topic of discussion in this country. it's a thing that we talk about a lot, for better and for worse.

it's america.

We are, it's annoying and weird.

Plus (many) Americans are just dumb, they think Muslims and Latinos are races of people for example. They know nothing about "race" (which doesn't really exist biologically) yet talk about it to no end.

[SD_Phil]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

We are, it's annoying and weird.

Plus (many) Americans are just dumb, they think Muslims and Latinos are races of people for example. They know nothing about "race" (which doesn't really exist biologically) yet talk about it to no end.

Actually, I think this attitude is annoying and weird. Race, Sex, Gender, sexual preference etc. are all social constructions but that doesn't mean that they don't matter and it doesn't mean that race (and sex and gender etc.) aren't used in ways that dramatically affect the quality of a person's life.

In a perfect world maybe we wouldn't have these constructs but we don't live in a perfect world. Ignoring race, in our actual world, only privileges those who benefit from the current system.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

We are, it's annoying and weird.

Plus (many) Americans are just dumb, they think Muslims and Latinos are races of people for example. They know nothing about "race" (which doesn't really exist biologically) yet talk about it to no end.

I'll agree. Hispanic/Latino is not a race and I think it is beyond silly to try to classify yet another group into a separate category. (Media always tries to lump them all into one voting block). If one is half white, they're suddenly not white at all. (Obama). I could be classified as a Hispanic according to the government, but I always describe myself as white/Caucasian. I mean, should we have a "Nordic" option on the census form? It's pretty silly.

It's a tactic used by politicians and the government to divide and conquer the votes. Can't have too many people on one side of an issue...it's gotta be close to 50/50. Because the general population is too busy or just uninformed, they fall for the tactics.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by SD_Phil

Actually, I think this attitude is annoying and weird. Race, Sex, Gender, sexual preference etc. are all social constructions but that doesn't mean that they don't matter and it doesn't mean that race (and sex and gender etc.) aren't used in ways that dramatically affect the quality of a person's life.

In a perfect world maybe we wouldn't have these constructs but we don't live in a perfect world. Ignoring race, in our actual world, only privileges those who benefit from the current system.

I would disagree that these kind of criteria are only social constructions. The cultures (wealth distribution, language, religion, location, customs) of different races, sexes, and genders can all vary, even in America. Maybe in a perfect world we wouldn't take into account such factors...but God made an imperfect world and all of us different. Although in social terms the differences can at time unfairly bite people, in cultural terms I don't think all the differences that people have are necessarily a bad thing.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Onn

I would disagree that these kind of criteria are only social constructions. The cultures (wealth distribution, language, religion, location, customs) of different races, sexes, and genders can all vary, even in America. Maybe in a perfect world we wouldn't take into account such factors...but God made an imperfect world and all of us different. Although in social terms the differences can at time unfairly bite people, in cultural terms I don't think all the differences that people have are necessarily a bad thing.

Race is a social construction. There is no scientific basis for racial classifications.

That's not something you can disagree with any more than you can disagree with the earth being a semi-round sphere.

[hudkina]

That's not entirely true. We can tell a person's ethnicity by their genetic code, so there are slight variables in the DNA of the various ethnicities. Someone who society may classify as "Black" has different DNA coding than someone we may classify as "White". The social construct is created when we try to classify these variations into a set of categories, as was common in the post-Darwinian scientific community, and today with the Census Bureau.

BTW, the Census Bureau doesn't classify Hispanics as a separate race. Anyone of any race can either classify themselves as Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, but they would still choose from one of the seven racial categories designated by the Census Bureau. (White, Black, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Other.)

What I'm interested in knowing is what the Census Bureau thinks when they say "Asian". Are they referring to the various ethnicities in the Middle East? The Indian Sub-Continent? East Asia? Or how about Southeast Asia?

[Urban Zombie]

Maybe if Detroit quit sending it's tough, wisecracking cops to Beverly Hills, public safety would be less of an issue...

...on the other hand, cases of bananas being stuffed in car tailpipes would likely be on the rise.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by hudkina

That's not entirely true. We can tell a person's ethnicity by their genetic code, so there are slight variables in the DNA of the various ethnicities. Someone who society may classify as "Black" has different DNA coding than someone we may classify as "White". The social construct is created when we try to classify these variations into a set of categories, as was common in the post-Darwinian scientific community, and today with the Census Bureau.

BTW, the Census Bureau doesn't classify Hispanics as a separate race. Anyone of any race can either classify themselves as Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, but they would still choose from one of the seven racial categories designated by the Census Bureau. (White, Black, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Other.)

What I'm interested in knowing is what the Census Bureau thinks when they say "Asian". Are they referring to the various ethnicities in the Middle East? The Indian Sub-Continent? East Asia? Or how about Southeast Asia?

You can figure out where a person's ancestors lived by looking at their genetic make up but that does not mean race is anything based in science. It is possible (and very common) for two people of the same race to be more genetically dissimilar than two people of different races.

[10023]

Isn't it a little early to be talking about Detroit's resurgence?

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by 10023

Isn't it a little early to be talking about Detroit's resurgence?

Again, crime is falling. The city is able to pay its bills. Population loss has slowed. City services are beginning to improve. Blighted structures are being removed en masse. Businesses (both local and national) are opening shop in the city. Jobs in the city are increasing. The population in the core is rising. Long-abandoned skyscrapers are being renovated. The white population is increasing for the first time in decades. A streetcar line is under construction. Apartment vacancies in the core are about 1%. Rental rates are at the $2 per square foot magic number. Hipsters are being priced out of Midtown. A game-changing arena/entertainment district is being built. Streetlife in the core has increased. The median income in the core has gone way up. Infrastructure improvements are underway. And so on...

The definition of resurgence: "an increase or revival after a period of little activity, popularity, or occurrence."

It's not saying Detroit is completely turned around. It's saying that positive economic activity is occurring in the city in much greater levels at than at any time in the last 50 years.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You can figure out where a person's ancestors lived by looking at their genetic make up but that does not mean race is anything based in science. It is possible (and very common) for two people of the same race to be more genetically dissimilar than two people of different races.

How are you defining "race"? It's pretty clear that populations native to Equatorial Africa are genetically different in many ways from populations native to Arctic North America, for example. That's how evolution works. Populations isolated in different ecosystems are likely to have characteristics evolved over time that favor the environment in which they live, and in doing so become increasingly different from their common ancestor and each other.

There are several different haplogroups defined by variations in our DNA. These various groups are defined by when they left East Africa and where they migrated to. Humans have only had roughly 6,500 generations to allow for this variations, so obviously they aren't as pronounced. The fact that we share 99% of our DNA with what we consider a completely separate species, shows just how much the slightest variation in our DNA can define who we are.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by hudkina

How are you defining "race"? It's pretty clear that populations native to Equatorial Africa are genetically different in many ways from populations native to Arctic North America, for example. That's how evolution works. Populations isolated in different ecosystems are likely to have characteristics evolved over time that favor the environment in which they live, and in doing so become increasingly different from their common ancestor and each other.

There are several different haplogroups defined by variations in our DNA. These various groups are defined by when they left East Africa and where they migrated to. Humans have only had roughly 6,500 generations to allow for this variations, so obviously they aren't as pronounced. The fact that we share 99% of our DNA with what we consider a completely separate species, shows just how much the slightest variation in our DNA can define who we are.

Humans are a species that thrives on the idea of "us" and "them." This distinction has been, and, is being made on the basis of color, religion, language.

This is not a moral question, but, a reproduction question, because such groups serve to nurture children by emphasizing the importance of women having children to mature into adults who in turn have children and believe strongly in the "morals" preached by the group.

Historically, the only way to blend groups together is to form a bigger group that operates the same way, but on a larger scale. This is often seen in religions.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by hudkina

How are you defining "race"?

I define it as a human classification system that has no basis in science.

Originally Posted by hudkina

It's pretty clear that populations native to Equatorial Africa are genetically different in many ways from populations native to Arctic North America, for example. That's how evolution works. Populations isolated in different ecosystems are likely to have characteristics evolved over time that favor the environment in which they live, and in doing so become increasingly different from their common ancestor and each other.

Yes, a group of people who have lived in the same isolated environment for a long period of time will have a similar genetic makeup. I have not disputed that. There are countless groups of people that have been relatively isolated from the rest of humanity for an extended period of time. Do each of those groups get divided into a race? Where do you draw the line between one race and another? Is there a test that you can use to say X person is or is not of Y race that will hold true for all people of said race and no one else? What about the rest of us (which includes everyone reading this forum) whose ancestors have been pretty active in the global genetic gene pool?

There is no single genetic characteristic that can be used to put human beings into any meaningful race classification system. If you use skin color, there are people who are "black" that have lighter skin than someone who may be considered "white." If you use hair texture then that breaks similarly. If you use any trait imaginable it is almost certainly not distinct to members of a certain human subgroup.

[hudkina]

So you aren't defining race at all. You can classify people by their genetic history. Whether or not you want to call these classifications "races" is up to you. There are dozens of different haplogroups defined by either their mitochondrial DNA or their Y-chromosome. It has nothing to do with classifying people by their skin tone. It has nothing to do with social construct. It has everything to do with basic science, and is an interesting way of seeing how humans have dispersed through the globe.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by hudkina

So you aren't defining race at all. You can classify people by their genetic history. Whether or not you want to call these classifications "races" is up to you. There are dozens of different haplogroups defined by either their mitochondrial DNA or their Y-chromosome. It has nothing to do with classifying people by their skin tone. It has nothing to do with social construct. It has everything to do with basic science, and is an interesting way of seeing how humans have dispersed through the globe.

Now please explain what that has to do with race.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, a group of people who have lived in the same isolated environment for a long period of time will have a similar genetic makeup. I have not disputed that. There are countless groups of people that have been relatively isolated from the rest of humanity for an extended period of time. Do each of those groups get divided into a race? Where do you draw the line between one race and another? Is there a test that you can use to say X person is or is not of Y race that will hold true for all people of said race and no one else? What about the rest of us (which includes everyone reading this forum) whose ancestors have been pretty active in the global genetic gene pool?

There is no single genetic characteristic that can be used to put human beings into any meaningful race classification system. If you use skin color, there are people who are "black" that have lighter skin than someone who may be considered "white." If you use hair texture then that breaks similarly. If you use any trait imaginable it is almost certainly not distinct to members of a certain human subgroup.

You could use the same logic for all continuums in which we have to draw arbitrary lines.

For example, the climate is a continuum between Detroit and Miami. There's no noticeable difference in climate between Detroit and, say, Toledo. "Where do you draw the line?" The answer is, we can find places to draw them. The alternative would be that we consider all of Earth to have the same exact climate. For any location you can think of, there is a location just next door that has basically the exact same climate, but slightly slightly different. For any person you can think of, there is a very similar person that has generally similar characteristics but is slightly further on the genetic path towards a different ethnicity.

So we find ways to manage to define the Earth's various climates (imperfectly). Same with races. There's a continuum between all the races, yet it's very possible to identify distinct characteristics, even though of course some people will be in between.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

You could use the same logic for all continuums in which we have to draw arbitrary lines.

For example, the climate is a continuum between Detroit and Miami. There's no noticeable difference in climate between Detroit and, say, Toledo. "Where do you draw the line?" The answer is, we can find places to draw them. The alternative would be that we consider all of Earth to have the same exact climate. For any location you can think of, there is a location just next door that has basically the exact same climate, but slightly slightly different. For any person you can think of, there is a very similar person that has generally similar characteristics but is slightly further on the genetic path towards a different ethnicity.

So we find ways to manage to define the Earth's various climates (imperfectly). Same with races. There's a continuum between all the races, yet it's very possible to identify distinct characteristics, even though of course some people will be in between.

Climate zones are measured by distance from equator, which is pretty straightforward. The problem with measuring human populations like that is that humans have been a very mobile species. There is no clean way to group people a significant amount of human beings into clean racial subcategories, which is why the concept of race has no scientific support.

I think many people get caught on up on common characteristics as proof that race is scientific. For instance, people from certain parts of sub-Saharan Africa have a trait that makes them susceptible to sickle-cell anemia, but that trait is theorized to have been introduced to the sub-Saharan Africans by humans that are native to southern Europe. More importantly, we should realize that in 1,000 years when all that's left of us are bones it'll be pretty easy to tell many of us Americans apart from people of other parts of the world due to the way we have been nutrition-ed. But there is not a common American genetic trait among us, and there still won't be one when they are examining our bodies in 1,000 years.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Again, crime is falling. The city is able to pay its bills. Population loss has slowed. City services are beginning to improve. Blighted structures are being removed en masse. Businesses (both local and national) are opening shop in the city. Jobs in the city are increasing. The population in the core is rising. Long-abandoned skyscrapers are being renovated. The white population is increasing for the first time in decades. A streetcar line is under construction. Apartment vacancies in the core are about 1%. Rental rates are at the $2 per square foot magic number. Hipsters are being priced out of Midtown. A game-changing arena/entertainment district is being built. Streetlife in the core has increased. The median income in the core has gone way up. Infrastructure improvements are underway. And so on...

The definition of resurgence: "an increase or revival after a period of little activity, popularity, or occurrence."

It's not saying Detroit is completely turned around. It's saying that positive economic activity is occurring in the city in much greater levels at than at any time in the last 50 years.

It had nowhere to go but up at this point....hopefully Detroti's worst days are now past. Philadelphia was on the edge of the cliff 24 years ago....and they are still fixing the issues that took 50 years to create.

[hudkina]

You think sickle-cell disease was introduced by Europeans? Sickle-cell disease occurs in certain haplogroups more frequently because of our genetic differences. The disease is hereditary. People in sub-Saharan Africa are more likely to inherit the disease (as are several other haplogroups) while other groups (Europeans, etc.) are not. It isn't caused by an outside source. It is a genetic abnormality. The reason it became relatively common in sub-Saharan Africa is because people who are born with the predisposition to the disease often show a strong defense towards Malaria. That's why the disease is so common in areas where Malaria was known to exist. It was evolutionarily advantageous to have the genetic mutation, as it also defended against the worst symptoms of Malaria. People without the mutation were more likely to die from Malaria, while people with the mutation were more likely to survive an infection and pass on their genes to the next generation.

That's how evolution works. There's a reason certain haplogroups tend to have more melanin than others. People closer to the equator received more direct sunlight. The environment favored people with more melanin (which tends to produce the darker skin tones) as it blocked the higher levels of UV radiation. When humans migrated north, the level of melanin in the skin wasn't as necessary, and people with less melanin were just as genetically successful as those with more melanin.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by hudkina

You think sickle-cell disease was introduced by Europeans? Sickle-cell disease occurs in certain haplogroups more frequently because of our genetic differences. The disease is hereditary. People in sub-Saharan Africa are more likely to inherit the disease (as are several other haplogroups) while other groups (Europeans, etc.) are not. It isn't caused by an outside source. It is a genetic abnormality. The reason it became relatively common in sub-Saharan Africa is because people who are born with the predisposition to the disease often show a strong defense towards Malaria. That's why the disease is so common in areas where Malaria was known to exist. It was evolutionarily advantageous to have the genetic mutation, as it also defended against the worst symptoms of Malaria. People without the mutation were more likely to die from Malaria, while people with the mutation were more likely to survive an infection and pass on their genes to the next generation.

That's how evolution works. There's a reason certain haplogroups tend to have more melanin than others. People closer to the equator received more direct sunlight. The environment favored people with more melanin (which tends to produce the darker skin tones) as it blocked the higher levels of UV radiation. When humans migrated north, the level of melanin in the skin wasn't as necessary, and people with less melanin were just as genetically successful as those with more melanin.

Because malaria never existed in Europe, lol. You are clearly the expert on everything so I will bow out of this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...an_Renaissance