Black Inequity in Los Angeles County: Geographic Information System Maps

[#1 pick]

That sounds great in theory but black folks moving into rural areas would leave them worse off than living in the city. If we ignore the culture shock and lack of skillsets in agriculture for a second, you're looking at communities of black people starting over and struggling for one to two generations for a greater good that only assists a few. The assets would belong to a few families and the rest of the community would be just living to be with no real means of growing their own individual wealth.

We need to start taking advantage of the systematic oppression that has devalued our current neighborhoods. The black faces are there, the wealth is there if families are educated on pooling their money together for investment and debt management, and the land, buildings and spaces are undervalued for gentrification. The ultimate goal is to establish cultural wealth where our people can operate outside or on the fringes of typical American society. This is when our vote, intellectual property and economic power give us leverage to ensure our interests are actually addressed.

Man, honestly, Black people as a collective need real help. It's a globalized society. I got Indians that work with me. They got degrees from India and worked hard but they don't realize they came here with no debt and a six figure job. They came here with a package to live a good life. Not to say they wasn't set in India but just explaining, this ain't oranges to apples. Same for others. nikkas just got no chance in this. Schools are booty. When they do everything right, they end up with a shytton of debt. It makes everything 1kX harder. Relationships, friendships, and add to the fact you got to look for jobs as a BM or BW. That's a fukking bytch! White supremacy is winning but Black hatemacy is the most dominate thing in America right now.

 

[Ol’Otis]

i'm not leaving SoCal
and if i do i'm moving to Dallas

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That sounds great in theory but black folks moving into rural areas would leave them worse off than living in the city. If we ignore the culture shock and lack of skillsets in agriculture for a second, you're looking at communities of black people starting over and struggling for one to two generations for a greater good that only assists a few. The assets would belong to a few families and the rest of the community would be just living to be with no real means of growing their own individual wealth.

We need to start taking advantage of the systematic oppression that has devalued our current neighborhoods. The black faces are there, the wealth is there if families are educated on pooling their money together for investment and debt management, and the land, buildings and spaces are undervalued for gentrification. The ultimate goal is to establish cultural wealth where our people can operate outside or on the fringes of typical American society. This is when our vote, intellectual property and economic power give us leverage to ensure our interests are actually addressed.

I think all of your objections were already addressed in the response you quoted.

In terms of skillsets, as I said, become a farmer, or develop a trade that is sustainable in a rural area, or develop a skill where you can work from home, or live somewhere where commuting to the city from a rural area is viable. There are a great number of options.

So that addresses the skillset issue. It ain't about starting over, there's always gonna be an option where you can do just as well as you would have done in the city, except you're building wealth and living in a healthy environment rather than a crowded, concreted, pollution-choked one. You're living in a place where you have greater self-determination over what your community will look like rather than being subjected to the whims of millions of people in a city you'll never be able to control.

In terms of assets, I explicitly said, get out back into rural areas to the point where you can buy land. In many rural spots you can buy homes and land for insane cheap.

In terms of voting, I don't see why you see that as a benefit in most cities. The concentration of black people into cities is one of the tools that has enabled politicians to gerrymander districts to give Black voters a limited number of "Black" seats and absolutely nothing else. Across the USA it is a given that rural areas have votes that count more than urban areas. But you move to a rural town and you get together just a few hundred people who believe in your mission, that can be enough to swing an election in whatever direction you want. The power of a small group of concerned community activists becomes far more important.

I lived in the sticks before, they don't treat nikkas well in terms of careers there. There is a reason nikkas are in the city. It's not just because we like being poor where it's most expensive.

Cities are still where the epicenter of jobs are too.

Like I said, you can work in the city and still live in a nearby rural area where land ownership is far more viable.

There's also plenty of people who live in the city and ain't finding jobs. So looking to train for a career that could foster in a rural area is a viable option.

It ain't just Black people, EVERY group of people, all over the world, has been moving to the cities the last 100 years. It's where all the temptations are - the corporations push you to live in the cities, the culture pushes you to live in the cities, there's more money there. But are people actually doing better? Are they healthier? Are they happier? Are they wealthier, or just earning higher incomes but with higher costs and more problems?

 

[Hood Critic]

I think all of your objections were already addressed in the response you quoted.

In terms of skillsets, as I said, become a farmer, or develop a trade that is sustainable in a rural area, or develop a skill where you can work from home, or live somewhere where commuting to the city from a rural area is viable. There are a great number of options. My pops had a job that only could work in the big city, but in a place like Portland you can go just 30 minutes outside the city and buy acres of land with a big house for 1/3 the cost of a two-bedroom condo in L.A. I know that's gonna be true for plenty of big cities in the South and Midwest too (even if it ain't true in LA or the Northeast).

So that addresses the skillset issue. It ain't about starting over, there's always gonna be an option where you can do just as well as you would have done in the city, except you're building wealth and living in a healthy environment rather than a crowded, concreted, pollution-choked one. You're living in a place where you have greater self-determination over what your community will look like rather than being subjected to the whims of millions of people in a city you'll never be able to control.

In terms of assets, I explicitly said, get out back into rural areas to the point where you can buy land. In many rural spots you can buy homes and land for insane cheap. My sister bought her first place in Nebraska for $34,000 and paid it off in two years. So there is a massive means of growing your individual wealth that is far less viable in the city. Who would actually lose assets by leaving the city at this point? When you are rural, EVERY family can have assets if they manage appropriately. It's not like the city where it takes a giant pile of cash to buy anything at all and any interruption in your income stream will lead to a foreclosure.

In terms of voting, I don't see why you see that as a benefit in most cities. The concentration of black people into cities is one of the tools that has enabled politicians to gerrymander districts to give Black voters a limited number of "Black" seats and absolutely nothing else. Across the USA it is a given that rural areas have votes that count more than urban areas. And in terms of local politics, it takes a shytload of work to get enough people on board for a movement even in Inglewood, a medium-small city. But you move to a rural town and you get together just a few hundred people who believe in your mission, that can be enough to swing an election in whatever direction you want. The power of a small group of concerned community activists becomes far more important.

I don't mind people who try to revitalize Black neighborhoods in the city. That's been a big part of my life. But the longer I'm living in the city, the more I'm seeing these strategic disadvantages:

#1. Air pollution is high, noise pollution is high, light pollution is high, water quality can be suspect, food quality is up to the whims of the stores nearby
#2. Overcrowding is enormous
#3. Crime is high, gang culture is nearby
#4. Schools are low-quality and the school districts are so large that parents have limited influence
#5. There's no connection to nature, few chances for kids to explore, little opportunity for kids to play outside unsupervised like kids
#6. There are fewer opportunities to grow your own food
#7. It is far more difficult to own your own land
#8. Cost of living is higher
#9. You have far less control over the cultural influences your kids are subject to

I'm sure I can think of more but that's what I come up with off the top of my head. I want cities to be better too. I work for cities to be better. But the more I live and think and read, the more I'm feeling that the greatest good can come in the revitalization of rural communities.

My point is more that your sister and father are great examples of the potential but they represent a small group of our community that has the resources that can make that transition. You don't just go and get rural land and become a farmer, especially without capital. The land has to be purchased and all land is not suitable for farming or livestock, so some careful planning in selection has to be made up front. A farm of any kind needs to be insured to protect your investment so that means that farm is going to either need to turn a profit or be heavily subsidized to financially sustain it.

I do not disagree with your overall sentiment, I just feel the resources and the learning needed to transition away from the city could be more efficiently utilized as re-investments into existing neighborhoods. I do believe that communities could prosper in terms of health and well-being by investing in some black owned farms to produce better health and food options but the community as a whole is not benefited by the majority moving in that direction.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

My point is more that your sister and father are great examples of the potential but they represent a small group of our community that has the resources that can make that transition. You don't just go and get rural land and become a farmer, especially without capital. The land has to be purchased and all land is not suitable for farming or livestock, so some careful planning in selection has to be made up front. A farm of any kind needs to be insured to protect your investment so that means that farm is going to either need to turn a profit or be heavily subsidized to financially sustain it.

I do not disagree with your overall sentiment, I just feel the resources and the learning needed to transition away from the city could be more efficiently utilized as re-investments into existing neighborhoods. I do believe that communities could prosper in terms of health and well-being by investing in some black owned farms to produce better health and food options but the community as a whole is not benefited by the majority moving in that direction.

"majority" is a strong word. No way that would ever happen anyway. But why not "significant minority."

I mean hell, people from my area were moving out to San Bernardino and Palmdale and shyt. Palmdale? There is no Black community, roots, traditions, etc. there. Are there even jobs in Palmdale? They went there just because it was away from the gangs and cost of living was lower. Well, if people are moving out of the traditional inner city communities anyway, I'm suggesting there's a chance to make it a real positive.