Bashing Chicago Should Not be Tolerated Despite The History

[Uncle Joe]

Last edited Thu Oct 17, 2013, 03:12 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-chicagodays-martinlutherking-story,0,4515753.story

On this muggy Friday afternoon, Martin Luther King Jr. stepped out of the car that had ferried him to Marquette Park on Chicago's Southwest Side to lead a march of about 700 people. The civil-rights leader and his supporters were in the white ethnic enclave to protest housing segregation. Thousands of jeering, taunting whites had gathered. The mood was ominous. One placard read: "King would look good with a knife in his back."

As King marched, someone hurled a stone. It struck King on the head. Stunned, he fell to one knee. He stayed on the ground for several seconds. As he rose, aides and bodyguards surrounded him to protect him from the rocks, bottles and firecrackers that rained down on the demonstrators. King was one of 30 people who were injured; the disturbance resulted in 40 arrests. He later explained why he put himself at risk: "I have to do this--to expose myself--to bring this hate into the open." He had done that before, but Chicago was different. "I have seen many demonstrations in the South, but I have never seen anything so hostile and so hateful as I've seen here today," he said.

King brought his protest movement north in 1966 to take on black urban problems, especially segregation. Chicago seemed like the perfect battleground. To show his commitment to the northern campaign, King rented an apartment on the West Side.

The Marquette Park march was one of many staged by King's movement that summer. The protests were designed to pressure the city's white leaders into making solid commitments to open housing. But King also faced Mayor Richard J. Daleywho disdained outsiders pointing out Chicago's faults. "Maybe he doesn't have all the facts on the local situation," the mayor said. "After all, he is a resident of another city."

Racism is regionalism's twin, the former basing judgement against tens of millions based on the color of their skin and the latter doing the same against tens of millions based on where they were born and/or live.

Furthermore anyone stating that even "Bubbas" can't change is patently wrong.

http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passing-of-u.s.-senator-robert-byrd

WASHINGTON, DC - The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed."

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

[brer cat]

1. If you will allow me

to snark a bit on your serious thread, I think it would be a good idea to bash Chicago for awhile and let us Southerners have a break.

[Uncle Joe]

2. No snarking allowed.

[leftstreet]

3. The working classes need to unite, not divide n/t

[Uncle Joe]

4. I totally agree, leftstreet.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Exactly. Who needs a "divide and conquer" adversary when we do it

ourselves to ourselves for silly reasons like regionalist arrogance.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. Liberals don't favor censorship. If you don't want to bash Chicago (or the South), don't do it.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Using that logic means liberals should tolerate the use of the N word ad nauseum so long as they

don't do it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

21. No it doesn't.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Why isn't it, that would fall under "censorhip?"

[ieoeja]

7. That was the SOUTH side of Chicago.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Which has me wondering if most Northern Cities' lower income sections are on the Southern side? Here

in Nashville the poorest section is on the Northern Side of town.

[ieoeja]

12. I've only lived in two. The other was Indianapolis. And, yes, the south side was the poor side.

I figured it had something to do with waste water and money flowing in opposite directions.

[surrealAmerican]

23. Not so much.

The poor section of town is wherever the land is less valuable, for whatever reason - more likely to flood, less likely to support large structures, far from good roads, etc.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Yes but cities have control over where and how land/roads are zoned or developed.

I agree in regards to the flooding aspect.

[raging moderate]

9. I grew up in Chicago. Go ahead and bash.

I have lived in a number of places all through Illinois. Some were very racist, others were not bad at all. Chicago is very much the same way. Some neighborhoods somehow have had a lot of good leadership in this area, others have not. In the racist communities, there were always people who dissented from the dominant theme but had their voices drowned out. And sometimes a whole bunch of new people have moved into an area and changed it somewhat. I have been in places where the racism had decreased recently.

The Chicagoans who don't like racism should welcome the critical comments from outsiders, as something they can hold up to the racists and say, "See? You are making us all look bad." This is true of the other places in Illinois. And the other states. And the whole world.

[Uncle Joe]

11. I believe in criticising individuals or political groups, for example in MLK protest incident

listed above, it would be the racists or in shutting down the government it was the Republicans.

I believe criticising whole blanket regions, states or even cities is counterproductive and simple minded.

I believe Chicagoans who don't like racism would welcome critical comments regarding the racists, but I don't believe most of them would appreciate a wholesale trashing of their city particularly if it were done on a consistent basis.

Detroit has its' share of problems but I know the people living there don't believe in Republican efforts to write them off as a lost cause.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. In Chicago, we know that (most) possessive pronouns don't require apostrophes

That's why they gave us that manual of style.

[Uncle Joe]

13. I've been out of school for too long.

[Hutzpa]

14. This does not mean anything

racism is racism, I hate when people try to justify their action by pointing the finger -- hey look you
see they do it too.

The bottom line here is this, the South are still battling with discrimination and prejudice, there are
many incidents one can point to that goes on in the South at present day that don't occur anywhere else in the
country, so lets stop with the subtle insinuation of denouncing the southern prejudice and discrimination
as South bashing.

This is how it begins.

[Uncle Joe]

15. No where in the OP or on this thread have I tried to "justify" anything regarding racism.

By your first sentence you have taken presumptions regarding my character based on my region, your regionalism has no moral advantage over racism.

If you want to denounce racism, then denounce racism, if you want to denounce a political party because said party supports racism, then denounce that political party for its' policies.

To denounce an entire region of close to a 100 hundred million people because it has issues with discrimination and prejudice is a simple minded answer to a complex problem and it serves no useful purpose, other than making reform and rapprochement all the more difficult.

The more divided the nation is whether it be for region or race, only gives advantage to those you claim to detest.

[Hutzpa]

18. It is easier to generalize than to singularize

I base this assumption purely on our surrounding and can be used on topic at hand. Let me be clear,
my initial post is not an attack on you, it is based purely on the ideology of the article, I was merely pointing
out that racism goes on everywhere in this country and using exceptions is not a way to address the problem
it instead moves us away from finding a solution to the problem.

Not everyone living in the South is racist just as not everyone in Chicago or the North of Chicago is, when we
try to make a point by using idiomatic expressions then, we have failed to take advantage of an opportunity to
educate.

If you want to denounce racism, then denounce racism, if you want to denounce a political
party because said party supports racism, then denounce that political party for its' policies.

This is not a matter of denunciation, this is more about the action of a political party stemming from a
particular region of the country, a region that has so often neglect the concerns of others when it comes to
racism, prejudice and discrimination from other parts of the country. People are frustrated with the south because
they are resisting change to their attitude.

To denounce an entire region of close to a 100 hundred million people because it has issues with discrimination and prejudice is a simple minded answer to a complex problem and it serves no useful purpose, other than
making reform and rapprochement all the more difficult.

I've seen few threads on DU that are making this point of denouncing an entire region (south bashing), I know
friends and families that are living in the South who aren't racist, but understands that the South's resistance to
change does not help. If reform and rapprochement is difficult because of ridicule or bashing of the south then they
probably don't want reform and rapprochement, hence the ridicule, but I do understand your point and frustration
especially if progress are being made, but we also have to remember that anyone that wants change will not point a
finger or use distraction.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Yes it's easier to "generalize than to singularize" and that's exactly what racists do.

I base this assumption purely on our surrounding and can be used on topic at hand. Let me be clear,
my initial post is not an attack on you, it is based purely on the ideology of the article, I was merely pointing
out that racism goes on everywhere in this country and using exceptions is not a way to address the problem
it instead moves us away from finding a solution to the problem.

The title of my OP and my remarks on the OP supported by the ideology of the article supported my contention that bashing a region, state, or city for the actions of only some is foolhardy, counterproductive and no different than "generalizing" in regards to race.

This is not a matter of denunciation, this is more about the action of a political party stemming from a
particular region of the country, a region that has so often neglect the concerns of others when it comes to
racism, prejudice and discrimination from other parts of the country. People are frustrated with the south because
they are resisting change to their attitude.

It is about denouncing, but you denounce that political party's actions or policies, "you don't destroy the village to save it", you go after the "leaders" who may or may not have come to power via legitimate means, you educate, inform and enlighten those who resist change, the Internet makes this all the easier.

What you don't do if you're serious about wanting them to change is to trash their home en-masse, which only serves to place a hostile psychological barrier between the speaker and the listener (s). Not only have you then estranged them but you create estrangement between you and those in said region that already believe in your general ideals but identify with their homes, family, friends and neighbors.

I've seen few threads on DU that are making this point of denouncing an entire region (south bashing), I know
friends and families that are living in the South who aren't racist, but understands that the South's resistance to
change does not help. If reform and rapprochement is difficult because of ridicule or bashing of the south then they
probably don't want reform and rapprochement, hence the ridicule, but I do understand your point and frustration
especially if progress are being made, but we also have to remember that anyone that wants change will not point a
finger or use distraction.

I have seen quite a few threads popping up from time to time, I have never seen any other region being bashed East, West or North, not that I would support such a thing if it were to occur.

Denouncing regionalism isn't distraction, anymore than denouncing racism to be a distraction.

The only useful purpose for using regionalism is in giving aid and comfort to those who would profit by a divided nation, that being the Republican Party in general and more specifically the unenlightend segment of the 1%.

[treestar]

16. Straw man

No one days there can't be change. In fact there has been. In the South and elsewhere.

[Uncle Joe]

17. That's not true, just one of many posts on this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3871877