Lion of the Blogosphere

Politically incorrect history of Atlantic City

In the news this week, the two-year-old Revel hotel and casino in Atlantic City is completely shutting down because it is too bankrupt to operate.

The only reason anyone ever went to Atlantic City (at least in my lifetime) is because there is gambling there. Otherwise it’s a crime-ridden city and just about any other town along the Jersey shore is a better place to go if you just want to enjoy the beach. Even Seaside Heights where MTV’s Jersey Shore was filmed is a far better destination than Atlantic City if you are looking for a beach town where you don’t have to worry about being killed by gang violence if you walk a block from the beach. Now that there are casinos in Pennsylvania and Connecticut, apparently half of the gamblers who used to frequent Atlantic City prefer the newer alternatives.

From an article that appeared in USA Today in 2013: Millions spent on casinos didn’t help Atlantic City.

But the arrival of casinos has not fixed the deep-seated social problems plaguing a city where nearly 30% of residents live below the poverty line. Unemployment remains high, at nearly 18% last year. Gangs roam in low-income neighborhoods, and the crime rate in 2011 was 107.2 incident per 1,000 residents, compared with 39.3 for Atlantic County.

And the very government agency created to help city residents has since changed its focus — to helping casinos attract more gamblers and visitors.

“In hindsight yes, one of the things that we learned in Atlantic City, whether it’s gambling or other economic development, (is that) economic development in and of itself is not a cure for social problems,” said Jim Whelan, a former Atlantic City mayor who is now a Democratic state senator.

“The hardcore unemployed are a social problem. It’s not an economic problem,” said Whelan, who has taught in Atlantic City’s public schools for 35 years. “The help-wanted sign does not solve that problem. People don’t have the life skills, the job skills, to function in the workplace.”

The excerpt above demonstrates the ironic truth that money doesn’t solve the problems of poverty. Poverty in the United States isn’t caused by lack of money, it’s caused by bad behavior.

It’s worth pondering how Atlantic City came to be such a bad place when the rest of the Jersey Shore is nice enough even though it may not be the Hamptons.

Once upon a time, Atlantic City was the ultimate northeast destination for wealthy summer vacationers. This was a hundred years ago, before plane travel and air conditioning. The rich owners of the big hotels, desiring cheaper labor than white New Jerseyans, encouraged the migration of southern blacks to Atlantic City. According to this website, 95% of hotel workers were black, and Altlantic City had the highest percentage of blacks of any northeastern city at the time.

An article appearing in the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1893 expressed the revulsion felt by Whites:

What are we going to do with our colored people? That is the question. Atlantic City has never before seemed so overrun with the dark skinned race as this season … both the Boardwalk and Atlantic Avenue fairly swarm with them during bathing hours like the fruit in a huckleberry pudding … Of the hundreds of hotels and boardinghouses … it is improbable that not a dozen could be found in which White help is employed. And when to the thousands of waiters and cooks and porters are added the nurse girls, the chambermaids, the barbers and boot blacks and hack drivers and other colored gentry in every walk of life, it will be easily realized what an evil it is that hangs over Atlantic City.

The excerpt above demonstrates what people today would call the common “racism” of the 1890s. However, a White Nationalist would probably argue (and of course White Nationalists are evil, this is just a devil’s advocate type of argument in which I imagine what an evil White Nationalist might say): The person who wrote the article in 1893 was right! By importing black workers, the rich hotel owners sowed the seeds of the city’s destruction, because no one wanted to live in or visit a city full of black people. And just as may have been predicted by racists, the city decayed into violence and poverty.

* * *

Question: If New Jersey legislators give up on Atlantic City and allow a casino to be opened in Seaside Heights, will it be called the guidosino?

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 13, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Posted in Underclass

70 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ““In hindsight yes, one of the things that we learned in Atlantic City, whether it’s gambling or other economic development, (is that) economic development in and of itself is not a cure for social problems,” said Jim Whelan, a former Atlantic City mayor who is now a Democratic state senator.”

    Progress is slow, but there is progress.

    Perhaps 50 years from now, politicians and newspapers will come to the conclusion evil eugenicists had it right.

    Thomas

    August 13, 2014 at 1:19 PM

    • They will always be in denial until they are directly affected, but even then…..!

      JS

      August 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM

  2. Atlantic City was already in the crappers when Monopoly was developed.

    Thousands of people walk around Vegas at night. If someone goes to Atlantic City one is stuck until the stay is over and the hotel bus takes the person back to airport. It is like buying a ticket to a prison.

    What is strange is that Atlantic City lasted this long.

    Colmainen

    August 13, 2014 at 1:54 PM

    • Atlantic City might do better if more people flew there, as at least they’d be likely to stay for a couple of nights. But hardly anyone arrives by plane, the airport has relatively little service. AC instead gets day trippers. who don’t spend much outside the casinos and are easily drawn off by casinos in other states.

      Peter

      ironrailsironweights

      August 13, 2014 at 10:09 PM

  3. I have a ton of pictures of Atlantic City from family photo albums in the 1930s-50s, before gambling and white flight. It looked like a normal beach town with an especially nice boardwalk.

    mobat

    August 13, 2014 at 1:58 PM

  4. Black casino workers in AC should sue the customers of whatever the new gambling – it’s “racist” to gamble elsewhere. Judging from what the courts were willing to do in the NYC fire exam and stop&frisk cases, any cockamamie theory will fly.

    marty

    August 13, 2014 at 2:13 PM

  5. In fact, the most astute of the Southern planters could see our current social catastrophe coming as early as the late colonial period.

    Benelli_Bang

    August 13, 2014 at 2:23 PM

    • Of course. Most of the proles did as well. Indeed, most of the population at the time were yeoman farmers many of who mopposed slavery for that reason. But like today, the wealthy pushed it because it was in their (short-term) financial interests — not unlike billionaires push immigration today over the protests of the working and middle class.

      destructure

      August 13, 2014 at 4:45 PM

      • There’s another facet to the immigration thing in addition to the self-serving billionaires.

        New Times L.A. (defunct), Susan Goldsmith, Border Buster (June 20, 2002):

        “Peter Schey was raised on the story of the Nazis marching into Paris during World War II. His gentile mother and communist Jewish father escaped from France on one of the last planes to England…Schey is obsessed with doing what his father couldn’t, and for the last 25 years he’s been on a single-minded course to prevent the U.S. government from closing its eyes to human suffering around the world. His preoccupation has changed America’s demographics and radically altered the ethnic makeup of U.S. public schools.”

        aandrews

        August 13, 2014 at 10:46 PM

    • Lincoln had the best position – repatriate blacks to Africa. With the slaves gone the South could have industrialized and equaled the North’s economy. Instead they broke away to expand Slavery throughout the Southwest even after Lincoln offered them a constitutional amendment which preserved slavery where it already existed.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      August 13, 2014 at 5:50 PM

      • The blacks should build a memorial for John Wilkes Booth, to whom they owe their stay in America.

        Colmainen

        August 13, 2014 at 7:19 PM

    • Correct, thus the American Colonization Society and the push starting by the 1830s (led by a collection of Virginia planters and what where then called abolitionists) to repatriate blacks to Africa. James Madison was a big supporter. When Lincoln supported colonization he was supporting a proposal that was popular in both the South and the North. Problem was that it was very, very costly and the ACS, which was viewed as the primary vehicle for solving the slave problem during the Antebellum period, was never able to get northerners to agree to finance the repatriation and planters didn’t think they could afford to lose both assets (often mortgaged of offered as collateral) in an economy where there was a bit of a bubble economy in slaves.

      I’ve argued on this site before that America’s history is the most effectively fictionalized of any developed nation and the role of the ACS is a classic example. Even up to the start of the Civil War the ACS held significantly greater power in American society than did the radical abolitionists (I say radical because many if not most abolitionists during the Antibellum period were both racists, by today’s definition, Lincoln being a classic example, and opposed to slavery). It was only a very minor segment that were egalitarian and opposed to slavery, like Garrison, yet it is this later group that has come to define the entire anti-slavery effort in American’s now standardized fictionalization of the Civil War and the lead up to war. The role of ACS, much as the post-war starvation and devastation of former slaves in the South while under Union Army control, is a much glossed over part of the war story BECAUSE it is so contrary to the preferred fictional narrative, that the Civil War was some sort of step in an egalitarian progressive trajectory. In fact, Northerners were for the most part opposed to slavery because they were opposed to the expansion of the black race in North America a condition they knew would lead to greater black presence in the North. Most Americans would be stunned to know that early Abolitionists (who, again were racists) ran lecture series and promoted official state reports throughout the North in the Antebellum period highlighting the dangers to white northerners created by the presence of blacks. Again, these were Northern Abolitionists and Northern states that produced these reports.

      Donald Livingston, of Emory University, is trying to reintroduce a semblance of sanity to the telling of Civil War history. This is a must read: http://mises.org/daily/6374/Lincolns-Inversion-of-the-American-Union

      Curle

      August 14, 2014 at 4:33 AM

      • Costly? Just shipping the blacks and dump at Liberia would not have cost that much.

        Colmainen

        August 14, 2014 at 1:05 PM

      • Curle,

        It’s absolutely true egalitarians were a very small portion of abolitionists. If anything, the Lincoln and the abolitionist North’s position – which I still say was right despite how badly Reconstruction was handled – was more racist than that of the slave owners. The war was really a 19th century power struggle over the destiny of America’s Western territories, which both the South and North had claims on.

        Colmainen

        It was costly to Southern plantation owners. Repatriation of more than a token amount of slaves meant they would have had to transition to new industries. Long term this would have been to their benefit because the slavery impeded their transition to industrialization. But the short term benefits were too large for them to give up at least for a few more decades.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        August 14, 2014 at 8:44 PM

      • “[Lincoln] had given up Liberia as an option for colonization because transportation there was too expensive and blacks preferred to remain on the American continent. Instead, he touted Central America, although not mentioning Chiriqui by name, as an area rich in coal where even a small band of colonists might succeed.”

        From earlier in the article (illustrating, per Livingston’s argument, that the North and the Unionists were mostly fearful of black migration North):

        ” In his annual message to Congress in December of that year, Lincoln made his first public statement as president in support of colonization. Former slaves seeking refuge across Union lines, who were regarded as contraband, had aroused the racist fears of northern whites and threatened to become an economic burden. To alleviate the problem, Lincoln suggested that Congress appropriate funds for colonizing the slaves. He also advocated an additional step. “It might be well to consider,” he submitted, “whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.”[10] Thus he called for not just a relief plan for the freedmen, but for a full program of racial separation.”

        “Congress answered Lincoln’s call in the next few months. . . . Thus, only six months after suggesting a colonization policy, Lincoln had received $600,000 in congressional appropriations. ”

        “April 1862, as Congress debated whether to emancipate slaves in Washington, D.C., Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin argued for appropriations for the voluntary emigration of the freed slaves from the District. His arguments incurred angry rebuttal from Senator Garrett Davis of Kentucky and many other border state Unionists who favored forced deportation of the former slaves. If the freedmen were not forced to leave, Davis said, “The negroes that are now liberated, and that remain in this city, will become a sore and a burden and a charge upon the white population.”

        http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0014.204/%E2%80%94abraham-lincoln-and-the-politics-of-black-colonization?rgn=main;view=fulltext

        Curle

        August 14, 2014 at 8:53 PM

  6. The NYT in the 1800s was also a very different paper from what it is today.

    The Black People, as a Class, Have No Thought For the Future –1874, the ‘Times’

    I guess blacks having low future time orientation wasn’t a HBD speculation.

    JS

    August 13, 2014 at 2:31 PM

    • Prominent leftist and Christian thinkers were “pro-HBD” well into the 50s. Cf. Wells, Huxley (both Aldous and Julian), Teilhard de Chardin, Charles d’Arcy, etc.

      The speed at which the civilized Western world adopted a braindead version of the concept of equality is astonishing, and I am open to theories on how it happened.

      Thomas

      August 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM

    • The British Eugenics Society was discredited by anti-eugenics campaigners who linked their policies to Hitler even before WWII began. British eugenicists tried to dissociate themselves from Nazism, but, as you know, to no avail.

      See pages 160-180 of Daniel J Kevles’ In the Name of Eugenics:

      http://books.google.nl/books?id=8esnhRxBomMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:F6dgGBPEZCQC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UGvBU5SnCoajPZfngagO&redir_esc=y

      Well before Nuremberg, the reports from Germany had joined with the scientific, the political, and the religious opposition to turn the tide against eugenic sterlization. In Britain, the move to legalize voluntary sterilization failed utterly and was dead as a legislative issue by 1939. (pg 169)

      The Undiscovered Jew

      August 13, 2014 at 5:56 PM

  7. Progress is an illusion. Western Civilization peaked in the Belle Epoque, 1890-1915.

    Cauchois

    August 13, 2014 at 3:14 PM

    • The British Eugenics Society was discredited by anti-eugenics campaigners who linked their policies to Hitler even before WWII began. British eugenicists tried to dissociate themselves from Nazism, but, as you know, to no avail.

      See pages 160-180 of Daniel J Kevles’ In the Name of Eugenics:

      http://books.google.nl/books?id=8esnhRxBomMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:F6dgGBPEZCQC&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UGvBU5SnCoajPZfngagO&redir_esc=y

      Well before Nuremberg, the reports from Germany had joined with the scientific, the political, and the religious opposition to turn the tide against eugenic sterlization. In Britain, the move to legalize voluntary sterilization failed utterly and was dead as a legislative issue by 1939. (pg 169)

      The Undiscovered Jew

      August 13, 2014 at 5:56 PM

  8. Hard to believe that the Dems held their national convention there in 1964 (at which LBJ was nominated).

    sestamibi

    August 13, 2014 at 3:18 PM

  9. Maybe Rand Paul can open one of his enterprise zones in Atlantic City. That – along with amnesty and giving felons the right to vote – should cure all of A.C.’s woes.

    Bernie

    August 13, 2014 at 4:13 PM

  10. I wonder how that huge horseshoe casino that’s opening up in inner harbor baltimore is going to change that city.

    Casino approval is becoming liberalized – I hope as more and more cities follow suit, it destroyed vegas, which is a soulless and pointless city in a desert that never should’ve existed.

    uatu

    August 13, 2014 at 4:39 PM

    • and it’s a toilet to walk around in already. just over the past decade it’s gone from decent fun to nearly intolerable.

      burke

      August 14, 2014 at 3:36 PM

  11. “It’s worth pondering how Atlantic City came to be such a bad place when the rest of the Jersey Shore is nice enough”

    You can’t have a first class society with a third world population.

    destructure

    August 13, 2014 at 5:03 PM

    • Yes, I have argued with Lion about NYC’s world class status. Half of NYC’s population is black and Hispanic, and most of the Hispanics are the welfare inducing Caribbean types who share the same liberal outlook with blacks, although many of them are trying to get out of it.

      A city can’t be a world class one when you have more than half of its residents who think like de Blasio. It doesn’t show any classiness when you have 25% of the population who are disenfranchised blacks.

      JS

      August 13, 2014 at 9:31 PM

      • OK, but what other city has the Met, the AMNH, Broadway, Lincoln Center…

        There are more cultured cities in Europe, yes, but none in the USA. Besides, Paris has all the Arabs in the banlieues trying to knife French Jews…

        SFG

        August 14, 2014 at 3:44 PM

      • I previously said the USA is a sh*tty place. It’s a cultural wasteland. Sure, they are pockets of greatness, just as the Arab world does too.

        JS

        August 14, 2014 at 6:30 PM

  12. OT: I was watching “House Hunters” the other day. A late-20s SWPL-type eurasion-looking female was looking for a home in DC. Her black gal pal tagged along. They viewed one townhouse in an area of DC that was described as “transitional.” The black gal pal blurted out “…blah, blah, blah…she wouldn’t be comfortable in this neighborhood…”

    Well, I guess that’s one way of saying it.

    E. Rekshun

    August 13, 2014 at 5:50 PM

  13. “According to this website, 95% of hotel workers were black”

    I wonder what the number is today? I would guess that blacks are a small percentage of the casino workforce. Low level jobs like room cleaners, laundry people, and such are probably mostly Hispanic or some Asian. Dealer jobs are too difficult for most blacks: probably a mix of white, Hispanic and Asian. I would guess if blacks are anywhere, it’s doormen, maybe some restaurant workers. Even security guard jobs in a casino are probably beyond much of the Atlantic City population.

    peterike2

    August 13, 2014 at 6:15 PM

    • Maybe things are different up North, but plenty of black card dealers, security personnel, etc. in Southern riverboat casinos (and the Native American ones as well for that matter). Easily one-third, maybe close to half.

      Blacks and some po’ whites did custodial in the public areas and short, Spanish speaking ladies predominated in housekeeping.

      Note the boat requirement is only a technicality. They’re docked full time and adjoined to a land-based hotel.

      anon

      August 13, 2014 at 11:42 PM

    • seems like our ridiculously indulgent welfare state contributes heavily to laying demographic turds around. say hispanics displaced 90% of the black workers in atlantic city– traditionally they’d have moved for work, like they did to come to atlantic city in the first place. but today, why would they move? nobody has to work, really. so you end up with a pile of shiftless, economy-sucking, and in a way rightfully angry people.

      these things are going to get a LOT worse before it even begins to get better. the level of thought about it all is below fringe, it’s a tiny fringe amongst the fringe of the world that the blogosphere is. it’ll be decades before open discussion doesn’t have major job and social costs.

      burke

      August 14, 2014 at 3:41 PM

  14. Atlantic City’s main drawback even when the casinos were running flat-out is that most of the visitors were day trippers who never ventured beyond the Boardwalk. They spent no money outside the casinos, and given that a high percentage were doofy old people with limited incomes they didn’t have much to spend even if they wanted to do so.

    Las Vegas, in contrast, was and is a destination resort, with visitors often staying for multiple nights and doing a whole lot more spending.

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    August 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM

  15. -The guy in 1893 was right.

    -However, pre-civil rights blacks could be kept in line. Blacks under control are perfectly nice, charming and servile to those with power over them. Bringing in a black workforce was a reasonable idea. In the old days most whites didn’t have trouble with blacks because blacks knew to behave themselves. Poor whites, north and south, got harassed by blacks but whites from maybe the lower middle-class to above saw only friendly, smiling black faces and couldn’t imagine what the problem would be with letting blacks live in white neighborhoods, go to white schools, and work in white jobs.

    -Now you have to be at least upper middle-class to only see blacks who are less powerful than you, or if of equal power not interested in rocking the boat. But white upper middle-class and above liberals couldn’t care less what any white trash thinks or what their experience is, so that is the controlling attitude.

    -TPTB emancipated blacks because it was to their political advantage and made them feel good. But they are not stupid. They knew blacks could no longer be counted on as a servile domestic workforce, so along with civil rights they restarted large-scale immigration for a new one.

    -Hispanics are less troublesome than blacks but as their numbers increase the same thing will happen. But TPTB like the idea of living in a Latin American country- the elite live very nicely there, nicer than here- so that is where we are going.

    thrasymachus33308

    August 13, 2014 at 7:21 PM

    • Blacks under control are perfectly nice, charming and servile to those with power over them. Bringing in a black workforce was a reasonable idea. In the old days most whites didn’t have trouble with blacks because blacks knew to behave themselves.

      I don’t know if I can buy into their disposition being satisfactory under Jim Crow or plantation age either. In one SOTU message Teddy Roosevelt mentions blacks were overrepresented as rapists of white women. And in an era when the KKKlan no less was a moderately well tolerated paramilitary organization that provided blacks extra incentive to be on their best behavior.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      August 13, 2014 at 9:52 PM

    • “but whites from maybe the lower middle-class to above saw only friendly, smiling black faces and couldn’t imagine what the problem would be with letting blacks live in white neighborhoods, go to white schools, and work in white jobs.”

      This concords not one iota with my understanding of the past. You’re saying all classes of non-destitute whites were welcoming blacks with open arms??? This was widespread in neither the North nor the South. The only whites affirmatively pro-black prior to the Civil Rights era were northern religious types (Abolitionists and their descendants). A people who had never lived amongst non-trivial numbers of blacks.

      anon

      August 13, 2014 at 11:57 PM

    • “the elite live very nicely there, nicer than here- so that is where we are going.” ———————-

      Exactly.

      Curle

      August 14, 2014 at 4:53 AM

    • The whites in Latin AMerica live like kings only because they can import US military goods at cheap and they know US military will bail them out if the coloreds are getting too uppity. If US ends like that the coloreds will have huge doubts about the white superiority.

      Colmainen

      August 14, 2014 at 1:09 PM

  16. Las Vegas gets a lot of income from big conventions — some oriented to end consumers, but most are for businesses that buy from other businesses (machinery conventions, software conventions, etc). Sales reps like to go there, business owners are ok with going there. LV has an advantage that it has a huge number of hotel rooms. Going to a convention in a place like Boston can be a real pain in the ass as there can be no decent hotel rooms available. Lots of good restaurants in LV.

    GMR

    August 13, 2014 at 8:59 PM

  17. Here’s an interesting observation I made while recently in SF (a famously liberal city of course). There are very few black people in SF. Very few. The hotel staff was predominantly Asian! A lot of the service workers were Asian as well (east and south east asian). It was really odd to see compared to the east coast cities. However this appears to be hardly ever mentioned: SF is not a very chocolate city at all. And I suspect the people who live there like it that way but shhhh.

    ASF

    August 13, 2014 at 9:00 PM

    • Value transference liberal cities are full of blacks such as NYC. More than 2 million!

      JS

      August 13, 2014 at 9:22 PM

    • While being at a business conference in San Antonio, Texas, many of the attendees from the deep south kept commenting that Latinos in Texas made much better hospitality workers than blacks did. And yes, one could walk around downtown San Antonio at night without any real fear even though the town is over 70% Latino and most of the whites live far to the north of Downtown.

      superdestroyer

      August 13, 2014 at 9:32 PM

      • Would you rather be in South American countries such as Ecuador or Peru or in sub Sahara Africa? The answer is obvious. Better yet, most high IQ people would rather be in Ecuador or Peru than a country such as Brazil or any other Latin American nation with a significant amount Afro influences in culture and genetics.

        JS

        August 13, 2014 at 10:44 PM

  18. I’ve spoken to some educated Hispanics who presumably don’t have any black ancestry. Their comments about blacks seems to be the same with the commentators here. A strong dislike of them and they hope much of America would be free of them because they are a liability.

    JS

    August 13, 2014 at 9:25 PM

    • Hispanics have pushed blacks out of many neighborhoods in LA. While not as safe as a white suburban neighborhood, these neighborhoods have become much safer. Now these hispanic neighborhoods with better locations are becoming “gentrified” as whites move in. While blacks would probably harass the whites moving in, hispanics generally don’t.

      Of course hispanics in LA are mostly mestizo Mexicans and Central Americans and not of Caribbean origin.

      alex

      August 14, 2014 at 12:51 AM

      • In NYC, the more civic minded Hispanics (Mexicans, Mestizo CAs and SAs) live in areas populated with White proles, where as the Caribbean Afro types live in close proximity to SWPLs. And yes, a lot of people dislike Puerto Ricans and Dominicans. They’re the “blacks” of the Hispanics, and they love Democrats for all their welfare freebies. If there is any good news when it comes to Hispanics, the Mestizos are slowly displacing the Mulatto types.

        JS

        August 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

      • Hispanics and white rednecks have something in common: while both groups have fairly high crime rates, most of their crime occurs within their own communities. Predatory attacks on outsiders are quite rare.

        Peter

        ironrailsironweights

        August 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

      • Slightly O/T – Philadelphia is a semi Camden NJ, with more than half of its residents being black.

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-dies-shooting-philly-peace-concert-24974501

        Gunshots leaves one dead at a Peace Concert featuring rap music performances at the Dell Music Center, which attracts a black majority audience.

        Ah duh, Rap Music with NAMs don’t promote peace!

        JS

        August 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM

    • My Hispanic wife used to have a job doing mortgages for not-so-educated Spanish-speaking immigrants. They were very upfront and open–in Spanish, mind you–about not wanting to live near black people.

      O'Nonymous

      August 14, 2014 at 6:30 AM

      • In Chicago, one can observe the phenomenon of “integration without blacks.” In certain neighborhoods (Bridgeport, Logan Square, Pilsen), you have a mixed White-Hispanic-Asian population. But there are almost no blacks. Whites will move into a Hispanic neighborhood, but not into a black one.

        MLH

        August 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

      • The Black race is universally disliked and avoided, but only Whites take the heat for it.

        Jonathan Silber

        August 14, 2014 at 5:31 PM

  19. “By importing black workers, the rich hotel owners sowed the seeds of the city’s destruction, because no one wanted to live in or visit a city full of black people. And just as may have been predicted by racists, the city decayed into violence and poverty.”

    Of course this is just a devil’s advocate type observation/reply, but one could argue that the same thing is occurring on a national scale in the USA with illegal immigration presently.

    Truth

    August 13, 2014 at 11:18 PM

    • Thats not devils advocate, Devils advocate would take the opposite position and argue something along the lines of….Atlantic cities decline has nothing to do with the race of its residents it all has to with a bad economy, not enough good jobs to support a middle class.

      Devils advocate to your point would say… many economists recommend the free flow of labor as one of the easiest ways to improve the economy. Therefore we should allow more immigrants in so that we are all richer. Economics is not a zero sum game, if I make bread and you make bread everyone will have more bread.

      XVO

      August 14, 2014 at 3:17 PM

  20. Yes, I live around Austin and visit San Antonio often. It often gets called a blue collar city – which it mostly is – but it’s safe. As was said, there is plenty of money to the north/northwest of downtown, and the Riverwalk might be my favorite urban part of the state. The Hispanic growth over the years has chased out much of the blacks and the Hispanics are just fine with that. The exact same thing is happening in Austin and the city leaders are beginning to voice their concerns and want to do something to reverse this… because they are left wing idiots who live in fantasy land.

    Bobby

    August 14, 2014 at 5:04 AM

    • Liberals are idiots because they don’t understand that Mestizo Hispanics are generally better off than most blacks, yet they lump these 2 groups together as being disenfranchised, not fully understanding that blacks are mostly incapable of uplifting themselves in anyway.

      Further, most blacks have LOW LOW LOW entrepreneurial rates. Even among African and Caribbean Black Immigrants who own businesses, where their presence is so minuscule even when comparing to the Caribbean Mulatto Hispanics such as the Dominicans, who are able to operate a dingy convenience store or bakery.

      JS

      August 14, 2014 at 10:58 AM

      • Even among African and Caribbean Black Immigrants who own businesses, where their presence is so minuscule even when comparing to the Caribbean Mulatto Hispanics such as the Dominicans, who are able to operate a dingy convenience store or bakery.

        As the child of Caribbean immigrants, I would note that if you land in the States or Canada with a reasonable amount of English, you can avoid most of the crappy jobs that pay poorly, or eventually move out of them. Plus, there just isn’t the same incentive to start up a business when every easy niche such as a Caribbean bakery or shipper has been taken already. It’s just easier to find a job that pays above minimum wage and work crazy hours, hope for a civil service position to open up, and nag your kids into trying to go to college.

        David Alexander

        August 15, 2014 at 10:51 AM

    • Interesting. Where are they all going? The suburbs?

      jimbo

      August 14, 2014 at 1:46 PM

      • Yes. My childhood suburban town is now heavily NAM. Was all white with a smattering of Asian in the 70s and 80s.

        Curle

        August 15, 2014 at 11:16 AM

  21. I’ve only been to Atlantic City for a few hours (this was in August 2013), but I had a nice experience. Some of the places right outside the boardwalk/casinos looked pretty sketchy though.

    Still waiting for MaryK’s response to “guidosino”!

    FWG

    August 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM

    • I’m not feeling very combative these days due to the death of my father last month. In honor of my Dad (he was Irish-American) I’d be more apt to get angry now over hearing an Irish neighborhood referred to as “micville” than anything said against Italians. One consolation: when I die I’ll be buried in the same plot as Dad And I’ve decided that my tombstone should contain my maiden name, which is Irish. So the real irony is that few people who look at that tombstone will even know that I was part Italian. Although I suppose they could speculate since the cemetery is in Staten Island!

      Some good news though: Lion responded to my email! A personal response from The Lion would make the day of any LOTB reader

      Maryk

      August 15, 2014 at 5:36 PM

  22. Why the huge disclaimer about white nationalists? Why even mention them at all. Why not point to a different example:

    Of all of the Islands in the Eastern Carribean, excluding Cuba, only one is not majority or supermajority black. That Island, St Barth’s, gets to charge 6x – 10x as much in tourist rents as its neighbors, despite being an unscenic dry desert of an island. Rich White people just dont want to vacation surrounded by black people.

    Rotten

    August 14, 2014 at 11:44 AM

    • Yet the elites believe racial integration with blacks is a necessity for people beneath them.

      JS

      August 15, 2014 at 9:28 AM

  23. Apologies for the O/T post, but since you’ve posted on it previously — the Silicon Valley class-action employment settlement was rejected by the Judge.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26303592/apple-google-intel-face-setback-after-judge-tosses

    Portlander

    August 14, 2014 at 11:51 AM

  24. I’m looking for liberals to distance themselves from Hispanics because they are no longer seen as the perpetual losers with blacks.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/report-finds-hispanics-faring-better-than-blacks.html?_r=0

    Better yet, they should be petitioning for more illegal immigrants from Mexico, because they MAKE BETTER CITIZENS THAN BLACKS!

    JS

    August 14, 2014 at 12:31 PM

    • By the way, that article said there were Hispanics in certain areas who doing better than proles in terms of employment. But no black demographic were doing better than Whites when it came to jobs. So for the Liberals, more Hispanic immigration please!

      JS

      August 14, 2014 at 12:36 PM

      • I’ve previously stated that Hispanics tend to behave the same as whites with the same IQ.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 14, 2014 at 1:20 PM

      • Yes, acculturated and educated Hispanics actually blend in better with Whites than East Asians. East Asians tend to be introverted and less social. And culturally, they are more apart.

        AND BY THE WAY, most American men would find Selena Gomez, Eva Longoria, Jessica Alba and Shakira to be much more attractive than your average Asian woman.

        JS

        August 14, 2014 at 6:41 PM

      • “AND BY THE WAY, most American men would find Selena Gomez, Eva Longoria, Jessica Alba and Shakira to be much more attractive than your average Asian woman.”

        All those women are Euro-descended Spaniards, not Indo-Americans. The only Aztec girl that I know of who is attractive is Stacy Dash who is also black/white. Believe me. If there’s one thing I know it’s the genetic breakdown of celebrities I’ve never met.

        Most Mayan/Incan/Aztec/Olmec-descended women are short, squat, fat, ugly, and low IQ. The average East Asian girl blows away any of the native peoples of Central/South America.

        “Yes, acculturated and educated Hispanics actually blend in better with Whites than East Asians. East Asians tend to be introverted and less social. And culturally, they are more apart.”

        Good Grief, JS! Why the Asian Hate? The only “Hispanics” who blend in better with Whites are, again, Euro-descended Spaniards, in other words: Whites.

        Robert the Wise

        August 17, 2014 at 1:58 AM

  25. Funny how it all comes down to the search for cheap labor doesn’t it? Indentured servitude, slavery, company stores, H1Bs, Outsourcing, in-sourcing, illegal immigration, et cetera ad nauseum. Capital makes the same mistakes over and over and it doesn’t give a crap about the consequences to the culture, to the people, to the country, not if it means a few extra bucks in the next quarterly statement. I’m not saying unions are a good solution, or even that there is one. I’m just sick of it.

    Sisyphean

    August 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM

    • IMO the only solution if you’re born prole has always been to work your arse off, save money (and, crucially, this must involve being an asshole because making money MUST be a priority over every personal relationship in your life including your wife/children/parents) and use the cash you make to buy dividend-paying stock. The ONLY way to not get screwed over by business interests in the US is to save money and buy a shite load of dividend-paying stock over the course of forty years of hard frickin work, and single-minded focus on making dollars. That should be every non-elite American’s mission, but of course it takes discipline and intelligence so it is instead the rare and exceptional prole who does this. Most obviously do the exact opposite.

      Benelli_Bang

      August 14, 2014 at 5:53 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: