Why is Detroit and Chicago the way they are now? - An honest take

The Last Stand

Lady Bougainvillea
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Black people and Democrats.

That's a popular take.

What people don't mention is that Detroit and Chicago were once thriving cities for America's bombing automobile industry in the 20th century. When Americans decided to export more than import, that industry felt and never recovered.

It doesn't help that with the Great Migration, Blacks were discouraged to work or even live alongside Whites for a period.

The car industry has been outsourced to several countries because of cheap labor. When there were no opportunities in those cities, a population exodus, or "White flight" occurred. That left them in a state of disrepair for decades to come.
 
tumblr_mn219dcM2Y1rkrg1zo1_500.png
 
2021 is getting off to a pretty much normal year in Chicago..

31 homicides so far, and all by firearms. Which makes me kinda sad, I love to read about a good knifing death..

Detroit
Honestly, when the automakers left, the white people left (we know, as the working class) and the niggers stayed behind to divy up the spoils (extreme poverty and apathy).

Chicago

Don't know much about Chicago's history..However, when I want to read about the city, I just open up heyjackass.com.
 
Detroit and Chicago were both built as industrial hubs.

Detroit in particular focused on the auto industry while Chicago was more of a "jack of all trades" when it came to manufacturing. Certain suburbs in Chicago were dedicated to specific industries. Gary was focused on the steel industry. Pullman was named after the railroad car company and had a factory there.

When Ronald Reagan came around in the 80's and corporatism fully became the norm in America with the Sixth Party System ensuring both the Democrats and GOP were corporatists and globalists, all these factory jobs became increasingly outsourced.

Detroit was also hit by competition from foreign cars in the 80's and early 90's while Chicago had a local government that was extremely corrupt even by the standards of Democrat political machines.

Keep in mind that a lot of these policies came about right after both of the cities were hit hard by the economic decline in the 1970's and around the 80's and 90's, we started to see the negative effects that LBJ's policies had on poor blacks really begin to take root.
 
Republicans were so crooked in Chicago and damaged their reputation so horrifically that the city has been ruled by Democrats ever since. The problem isn't necessarily the Democrats, though they have been in charge during the city's decline. At the very core of the problem with a city like Chicago is that there is no meaningful opposition to the party in power and therefore no reason to build consensus or consider other options. Chicago is a shining example of the consequences of a uniparty system.

It does not matter if it is Republican, Democrat or something else. One party without the need to consider a minority opinion is doomed to failure and stagnation.
 
And also don’t forget the unnecessary amount of lockdowns that have been the reason why most (Democrat) controlled cities have been on the verge of being poverty-stricken.
Yes, so terrible what they're doing.

Who remembers the old industrial cities during the crack epidemic? They looked worse then Aleppo. My local shithole cities started cleaning up in the late 90s and early 2000s and then even more when rich millennials moved into some of the old neighborhoods in the past 10-15 years. With the epidemic it'll go right back to how it was before.
 
At the very core of the problem with a city like Chicago is that there is no meaningful opposition to the party in power and therefore no reason to build consensus or consider other options. Chicago is a shining example of the consequences of a uniparty system.
Scott Adams said something that always stuck with me.

"Blacks have no true political sway because they all vote the same way no matter what. Why would you ever do anything for them?"
 
Republicans were so crooked in Chicago and damaged their reputation so horrifically that the city has been ruled by Democrats ever since. The problem isn't necessarily the Democrats, though they have been in charge during the city's decline. At the very core of the problem with a city like Chicago is that there is no meaningful opposition to the party in power and therefore no reason to build consensus or consider other options. Chicago is a shining example of the consequences of a uniparty system.

It does not matter if it is Republican, Democrat or something else. One party without the need to consider a minority opinion is doomed to failure and stagnation.
I had thought that if Chicago would go Republican for a while, those problems would be fixed.

I didn't know that all Chicago politicans were corrupt for a time? Why is that?

For a first world country, this is quite embarrassing. I would say just make Chicago a "containment zone" of sorts. Let it die out on its own, but it's a slow, agonizing death of a once thriving city.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radical Cadre
In Detroit's case from all that I read about, it was pretty much deindustrialization and blacks. Or rather the black leadership that managed to take over Detroit were horrible in dealing with the economic and demographic changes in the city. It didn't help that many of them were either corrupt, demagogues or both.

Chicago's case is more complex and I don't say this as a Chicagoan. Whereas deindustrialization happened here as well, the city's leaders managed to bring other industries here and didn't rely on one soon to be failing industry thus preventing Chicago to go to the economic dogs like Detroit. Plus although Blacks according to stats make up a plurality, it's only a slim plurality and only a third of the population compared to Detroit's supermajority of blacks. Because of these demographics, blacks are relegated to enclaves and thus aren't the only power structure in Chicago. It’s actually declining making way for Latinos.

Republicans were so crooked in Chicago and damaged their reputation so horrifically that the city has been ruled by Democrats ever since.

That was only Big Bill. He had the misfortune of being a controversial republican mayor in the eve of the great depression. Didn't matter since the dems used his tactics to help carry Chicago ever since.
 
Last edited:
@brentkanaris you've lived in Chicago? Which part?

If you want, could you elaborate more on your experience there? I figured the best answer of Chicago's demise is somebody who lived there.
 
Chicago's fate sure casts a hilariously ironic air on the Chicago hipsters of the AV Club and their enthusiasm from a decade ago.


Detroit was that bad so long ago that even Kentucky Fried Movie from 1977 "loldetroit amirite" was a thing
I wonder if John Landis felt some remorse for some of the jokes and in that movie and Animal House and that's why he went on to do things like his poking fun at Neo Nazis in Blues Brothers, his Twilight Zone The Movie segment and Coming To America.
 
Most of the problems are because the people learned a deviant social and economic system.

I'm from the suburbs and I love it in Metro Detroit. Real estate is cheap, so you can own a nice vacation spot up north on the lake for like 50-60k, lots of entertainment options, casinos, you can always find something to do. The decline of urban centers like Flint and Detroit was predictable, but it was managed poorly. To be fair, the death of a city's economy is darn near impossible to manage. But if you avoid the bad spots, there is a ton of good. Great restaurants downtown, four sports teams, the DSO is great, tons of concert venues, and you don't have to drive through the broke down neighborhoods.

As for the neighborhoods, of course they would be what they are. There's pretty much no economic opportunity or development in the city, other than downtown and a few small pockets where factories exist. If I was born at Woodward and McNichols, I would probably be selling drugs, guns, or something illegal to get by. The notion that people are going to choose the valiant option of starving over committing crime when they have very little opportunity is odd to me, and when people grow up surrounded by crime, well, people learn from watching the world around them and observing the good and bad from the decisions that other people make. If they see one person starving with no job and another person living decent by selling drugs, they're gonna sell drugs.

As for why doesn't it change in ways where criminal behavior is considered a bad option, well it seems to me that there are a lack of role models that illustrate that people can do well by living a straight life. Lots of churches, but the churches don't do much more than occasionally condemn stealing from big businesses or selling drugs to people in the community. Personally, I think church leaders should make plans to show how good works that improve the community also create opportunity. For example, there are a lot of beaten down, busted out homes in the city, a lot of brokedown cars that get tagged, towed, and demolished. Teaching how to fix things like homes or cars and do things with their hands would mean they learn some skill and see how the skill results in creating something positive in real-time. In doing so, they can also take something they obtained for free and obtain title over it while fixing it. I believe that the American Black is lazy because he learns to be lazy, not because of genetics. If they see the personal benefit of improving their community, they will be more inclined to do it. Detroit is like it is because when the jobs left, so did the adults to teach the children to do something. Community leaders and institutions need to step-up to that challenge.

There's a lot more to it, but this is too long as is, so I think I will just :reply: here.
 
Back