Why do poor communities exist in America?

I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR :p) that would be great!
Poor people are free to be poor.
 
No in these threads I always prove you wrong.

Do not ask for rational arguments when you ignore rational arguments and post nothing but fallacies.

No they cannot solve this dilemma and we have equality under the law already you ignorant fool
Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need more worth for pay purposes.

And, yes simple poverty can be easily solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through equal protection of the at-will employment laws.
 
Ad hominems are considered fallacies. You need more worth for pay purposes.

And, yes simple poverty can be easily solved on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through equal protection of the at-will employment laws.
You always begin the ad hominenss so stop being a hypocrite cry baby.

No you are wrong.

History proves government cannot solve poverty

We have equal protection of law now that is fact and you are a liar
 
You always begin the ad hominenss so stop being a hypocrite cry baby.

No you are wrong.

History proves government cannot solve poverty

We have equal protection of law now that is fact and you are a liar
You need a valid argument since You are not Simon.

Yes, simple poverty can easily be solved by solving for the deleterious effects of capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State. Automatic stabilization is why it will work.
 
You need a valid argument since You are not Simon.

Yes, simple poverty can easily be solved by solving for the deleterious effects of capitalism's natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State. Automatic stabilization is why it will work.
I have stated irrefutable fact based valid arguments.

You are a fucking fool and a liar.

Poverty canniot be solved by government.

There is no natural rate of unemployemnt under capitalism. That is fact and your argument is based on ignorance.
 
I have stated irrefutable fact based valid arguments.

You are a fucking fool and a liar.

Poverty canniot be solved by government.

There is no natural rate of unemployemnt under capitalism. That is fact and your argument is based on ignorance.
You have nothing but your words to back it up. And you have nothing but fallacy not any valid arguments.

Of Course, simple poverty can easily be solved by Government. Only right-wingers are too clueless and too Causeless to understand that simple fact.


Any more immoral right-wing false witness bearing you want us to believe?
 
You have nothing but your words to back it up. And you have nothing but fallacy not any valid arguments.

Of Course, simple poverty can easily be solved by Government. Only right-wingers are too clueless and too Causeless to understand that simple fact.


Any more immoral right-wing false witness bearing you want us to believe?
I have facts to back it up

You are trhe one posting fallacies and proving thaty you are a ;liar and uneducated fiucking FOOL

Government cannnot solcve poverty ever/

Youa re s clueless drooling right wing sack of shit who knows nothing of facts law or reality
 
You have nothing but your words to back it up. And you have nothing but fallacy not any valid arguments.

Of Course, simple poverty can easily be solved by Government. Only right-wingers are too clueless and too Causeless to understand that simple fact.


Any more immoral right-wing false witness bearing you want us to believe?
There is no such thing as a natural rate of unemployment
 
I have facts to back it up

You are trhe one posting fallacies and proving thaty you are a ;liar and uneducated fiucking FOOL

Government cannnot solcve poverty ever/

Youa re s clueless drooling right wing sack of shit who knows nothing of facts law or reality
lol. Now, all you need is a valid argument to substantiate your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Otherwise, I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
 
Not if you appeal to ignorance. There is no such thing as right-wing Truth, only fantasy.
lol. Now, all you need is a valid argument to substantiate your currently unsubstantiated opinion.

Otherwise, I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
I stated a factual argument you stated a fallacy

You gainssay nothuing you whine like a bitch after being proven wrong
 
I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR :p) that would be great!
Free will
 
Like a lot of other people, I have had it up to my keister with all this racism talk.

So I shan't comment on the OP's opinions.

I just wanted to congratulate the OP for excellent writing skills.

The OP is obviously well-educated.

I wish the OP great success.
 
I'm from Harlem, New York, and I just started my first day of school today at Bergen Community College, but while I was there, I couldn't help but notice how different people act in Paramus, New Jersey, as opposed to how people act in my part of town.

Aside from the uncomfortably obvious racial difference, people in this area act very unfamiliar with the difficulties that people deal with in poor communities, such as the lack of financial opportunities, abundance of poverty and desperation, pressure to get into illegal business, oppressive police activity, violent gang activity, constant drug use and trafficking, public lewdness and intoxication, overall hopelessness, etc.

Some individuals don't only seem unaware of the characteristics of my type of neighborhood, but also intolerant of the regular tenants of its atmosphere, like the trend of wearing designer clothing, listening to rap music, smoking weed, avoiding romance, as well as maintaining a guarded, skeptical mentality. Even professionals from the ghetto who aren't gang affiliated in any way do most if not all of these things in the 21st century. Despite this however, people's heads spun regardless when I was casually talking about my older brother who did 7 years in Riker's.

It doesn't seem to me like some anyone is really that concerned with what goes on in these communities, and it does seem like this lack of consideration often extends to hatefulness and resentment towards the so-called "vibes."

That aptly brings me back to my question. Quick history lesson here, communities such as Harlem started being developed into poor neighborhoods in the 1960s, when the civil rights movement had finally gained momentum. If that is the case, then the federal government is obviously responsible for every step of the development of these areas ranging from their conception to their final establishment. I can definitely understand the ghetto perhaps having been established to keep certain members of our society "in line," which brings me back to my question.

Why was it even established? Why would the government think it's a good idea to create dangerous neighborhoods all of a sudden? If it really was to keep certain Americans in line, then which ones? Of course, many would assume black people but they clearly don't make up the entirety of the ghetto's demographics. There are also Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Jews, Russians, (and definitely lots of Dominicans!) in New York City's poorest areas. While hate towards the vibes of the ghetto is certainly prejudice on a whole laundry list of levels, it cannot be considered a form of racism. So if people are separated by race in this country, then all five of the races I mentioned before, as well as black people, must have something in common that the federal government finds incredibly dangerous, and thus wishes to inhibit it. (edit: which sounds absolutely silly)

However, if it isn't actually a race issue, then what determines who goes where? Do a couple of senators just flip a coin and get to see who lives in poverty and who gets to live as a middle class citizen? It seems to me like something else must be a deciding factor here.

If someone could help me understand this basic question as it's been sufficiently elaborated (for those who are about to say TL;DR :p) that would be great!
Governments don't create bad neighborhoods, with the possible exception of building "public housing" which seems to always turn into a drug and gang infested ghetto. Neighborhoods rise and fall in some natural cycle. For instance, the area of Los Angeles that I grew up in just west of downtown was a very rich area during the twenties and thirties (I can remember playing on the grounds of dilapidated mansions turned into apartments as a kid) then it went downhill in the fifties and sixties, came back in the eighties when they tore down the mansions and built apartment buildings on the large lots, then went back down and now is a crime ridden ghetto.
 

Forum List

Back
Top