Do you have any specifics? Also, fwiw, the Saint Louis region has the most representation in leadership in a long time.dweebe wrote: The blood is in the water and the rural Missourah politician sharks are about to have a feeding frenzy. I get the feeling that between now and the 2016 elections the primary goal of the state legislature will be to tear St. Louis down: literally and figuratively.
- 8,155
- 985
^ I think the issue is all the St. Louis area leadership tends to be in the suburban to exurban areas and have views that tend to be hostile to urban development.
- 8,155
^ I think that is largely true; however, I don't think there is going to be some big attack on Saint Louis. It is not like they can pull meaningful transit funding away, for example. 
Also, fwiw, I believe it was Sen. Schmidt who put in funding for the Cortex metrolink and research lab in the budget last year. (Which ultimately got cut out as part of Gov. Nixon's holdbacks.) And Speaker Diehl from T&C could be much worse as far as MO GOP goes.
Also, fwiw, I believe it was Sen. Schmidt who put in funding for the Cortex metrolink and research lab in the budget last year. (Which ultimately got cut out as part of Gov. Nixon's holdbacks.) And Speaker Diehl from T&C could be much worse as far as MO GOP goes.
- 985
^^ The concern is more the social issues legislation from there might draw people away. I know of a few people said they are looking at leaving the metro area due to legislation from Jeff City. In transit funding is less pulling funding away but deciding to double down on suburban sprawl. (The lack of funding issue will likely bite said legislators in the ass in time since it actually hurts rural areas more)
- 3,762
Arch, I'm absolutely not blaming him for relating his experience. I do think that's important. But the tone seemed to me to be advocating for abandonment rather than constructive change, which I don't think helps to bring about the constructive change that we need. Again, I may reading too much into it (maybe the graphic–which may not have been of the author's choosing–influenced my interpretation). I'll give it another, more thorough reading.arch city wrote:I don't understand why people are blaming the author for his genuine seemingly heart-felt observations. It is interesting. He's a native. Listen. He'd f**kin' rather live in f**kin' Ft. Wayne, Indiana than in St. Louis.
- 1,868
It's Missouri, good luck with that!arch city wrote:How about getting rid of all of the RACISTS and bigots - including a few on this board!
In a perfect world, it seems like StL should be able to say "give us 95% of our old transportation funding but spend more of it on something other than roads" and everyone would be better off. But I believe state Republicans would rather stymie transit to spite those urban ferals who are a stain on their state. The Medicare expansion thing convinced me they are motivated largely by hatred of poor people, and they see StL as largely a haven for poor people..
- 8,155
Seems clear that he liked Saint Louis when he was a child -- the age of his son who likes that dump -- but then as he became a teen and began to lose his innocence he came to dislike it very much. And while believing that the racism in Saint Louis is worse than in other places, he acknowledges there have been gains here in some areas since he's left and that other cities like Milwaukee and Ft. Wayne have their own ghosts that haunt those who grew up there. But that isn't his experience. His ghosts are in Saint Louis. Quality piece.urban_dilettante wrote:Arch, I'm absolutely not blaming him for relating his experience. I do think that's important. But the tone seemed to me to be advocating for abandonment rather than constructive change, which I don't think helps to bring about the constructive change that we need. Again, I may reading too much into it (maybe the graphic–which may not have been of the author's choosing–influenced my interpretation). I'll give it another, more thorough reading.arch city wrote:I don't understand why people are blaming the author for his genuine seemingly heart-felt observations. It is interesting. He's a native. Listen. He'd f**kin' rather live in f**kin' Ft. Wayne, Indiana than in St. Louis.
I concur. I liked it. When people point out your flaws, its always hard to swallow. Especially when he knows St. Louis on a personal level. Can any of us say he's wrong? I can't.
I'd like to hear his thoughts and others on how to fix the problems. What does he think can be done to make St. Louis less racist and make the playing field more level?
I'd like to hear his thoughts and others on how to fix the problems. What does he think can be done to make St. Louis less racist and make the playing field more level?
- 8,155
For the record, I also very much like the reference to the Milam landfill. How we present this to the world as a major visual marker for entering the Saint Louis region instead of Cahokia Mounds is just one small piece of our regional dysfunction.
i was pretty annoyed by the piece at first too when he seemed to just be ripping on St. Louis without- in my mind- giving enough time or words to his own reflection that many of his Black and Latino friends recognize and carry the shade and layers of racism present in their own hometowns in a way that he does not see, because it is personal to them and lived by them in their own hometowns.
but then I realized that weight of experiencing layers and legacy of racism is something I know nothing about. I can recognize layered racism better in St. Louis and nationally than I once could growing up here, but that doesn't mean I know anything about what it is to actually experience that shade in my hometown. so who am I to discredit his experience and frustration and anger at the racism he and his family experienced in St. Louis? maybe the problem that gives that racism such continued power in St. Louis isn't that people like the author feels it and expresses it, but rather that my first inclination is to discredit it.
as a white St. Louisan that wants my city to be able to move forward, discrediting it isn't going to fix it.
but then I realized that weight of experiencing layers and legacy of racism is something I know nothing about. I can recognize layered racism better in St. Louis and nationally than I once could growing up here, but that doesn't mean I know anything about what it is to actually experience that shade in my hometown. so who am I to discredit his experience and frustration and anger at the racism he and his family experienced in St. Louis? maybe the problem that gives that racism such continued power in St. Louis isn't that people like the author feels it and expresses it, but rather that my first inclination is to discredit it.
as a white St. Louisan that wants my city to be able to move forward, discrediting it isn't going to fix it.
- 271
The more area white people recognize this, and the sooner, the better.DannyJ wrote:i was pretty annoyed by the piece at first too when he seemed to just be ripping on St. Louis without- in my mind- giving enough time or words to his own reflection that many of his Black and Latino friends recognize and carry the shade and layers of racism present in their own hometowns in a way that he does not see, because it is personal to them and lived by them in their own hometowns.
but then I realized that weight of experiencing layers and legacy of racism is something I know nothing about. I can recognize layered racism better in St. Louis and nationally than I once could growing up here, but that doesn't mean I know anything about what it is to actually experience that shade in my hometown. so who am I to discredit his experience and frustration and anger at the racism he and his family experienced in St. Louis? maybe the problem that gives that racism such continued power in St. Louis isn't that people like the author feels it and expresses it, but rather that my first inclination is to discredit it.
as a white St. Louisan that wants my city to be able to move forward, discrediting it isn't going to fix it.
- 8,155
Post-Dispatch has a write-up of the McKissack essay:
http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/b ... f23ea.html
http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/b ... f23ea.html
They see a healthy city as a source of Democratic voters and reduced Republican/outstate power. Anything that makes the city a healthier, happier, more dynamic, more 21st century-like place, they will vote against. Anything that attracts millennials to urban cores, they will vote against. Anything that speeds growth of STL or KC, they will vote against, because they have all surely been briefed by the national party about the demographic trends that threaten them when people live in proximity to one another.But I believe state Republicans would rather stymie transit to spite those urban ferals who are a stain on their state. The Medicare expansion thing convinced me they are motivated largely by hatred of poor people, and they see StL as largely a haven for poor people..
The last thing they want to do is have to redistrict the state so that there is one or two swing districts.
- 985
Actually there is a very strong correlation between voting patterns and population density among whites. This could be one of the roots about why there is a partisan difference in terms of density issues due to self-interest involved.onecity wrote:They see a healthy city as a source of Democratic voters and reduced Republican/outstate power. Anything that makes the city a healthier, happier, more dynamic, more 21st century-like place, they will vote against. Anything that attracts millennials to urban cores, they will vote against. Anything that speeds growth of STL or KC, they will vote against, because they have all surely been briefed by the national party about the demographic trends that threaten them when people live in proximity to one another.But I believe state Republicans would rather stymie transit to spite those urban ferals who are a stain on their state. The Medicare expansion thing convinced me they are motivated largely by hatred of poor people, and they see StL as largely a haven for poor people..
- 3,433
I think folks in the rest of the country who read his piece, and maybe even the author, would be surprised to learn that:
1) St. Louis City and St. Louis County are two of only 4 counties in Missouri that voted for President Obama in both 2008 and 2012.
2) In St. Louis County, which is 77% white, the top elected official for the last 10 years was Charlie Dooley, an African American. And he was strongly supported in his elections by Democrat Bob McCulloch, up until the most recent election in August (before Ferguson), when he chose to switch his support to a St. Louis County Councilman.
3) The Circuit Court of St. Louis County awarded Dred Scott and his family their freedom in 1850. The Missouri Supreme court reversed the ruling and the US Supreme court agreed with the Missouri Supreme Court, not the St. Louis County Circuit Court.
4) St. Louis metro has more majority African American cities than any other metropolitan area in the U.S. Most transitioned successfully from majority white to majority black with little controversy. Some are still in transition. In any case, African Americans have more local decision-making control of their lives in the St. Louis metro area, than in any other metro in America.
5) White folks I know that moved or stayed in Ferguson are not racist. Since Ferguson is part of a large metro area, unlike Selma, Ferguson residents could choose to live anywhere in the metro area and still get to work with a 20 minute commute max. They chose Ferguson. Many are retirees who bought there years ago. Their kids wanted newer better homes elsewhere. Kids of African Americans who grew up in the city probably moved to Ferguson for the same reason -- they wanted newer better homes than the ones in the city -- and they they found them in Ferguson.
6) St. Louis has done a few things right -- Bob McCulloch released the Grand Jury transcripts. New York did not. I'm sure if it had been the other way around, it would have been taken as one more strike against St. Louis by the large Eastern media. Somehow, they are OK with New York's secret proceedings.
In some ways it's funny that the Boston bombing and the St. Louis riots were both caused by folks who grew up right in their respective communities. But the perceptions are vastly different. In Boston, the early presumption was that outside terrorists were to blame and the community came together to fight the external foe. In St. Louis, the early reports were that it was a local cop gone rogue -- a result of intentional metro-wide structural racism. It turns out both cases are not that different -- disenfranchised youth growing up locally who don't feel they can ever get their fair share of economic or legal justice as minorities.
1) St. Louis City and St. Louis County are two of only 4 counties in Missouri that voted for President Obama in both 2008 and 2012.
2) In St. Louis County, which is 77% white, the top elected official for the last 10 years was Charlie Dooley, an African American. And he was strongly supported in his elections by Democrat Bob McCulloch, up until the most recent election in August (before Ferguson), when he chose to switch his support to a St. Louis County Councilman.
3) The Circuit Court of St. Louis County awarded Dred Scott and his family their freedom in 1850. The Missouri Supreme court reversed the ruling and the US Supreme court agreed with the Missouri Supreme Court, not the St. Louis County Circuit Court.
4) St. Louis metro has more majority African American cities than any other metropolitan area in the U.S. Most transitioned successfully from majority white to majority black with little controversy. Some are still in transition. In any case, African Americans have more local decision-making control of their lives in the St. Louis metro area, than in any other metro in America.
5) White folks I know that moved or stayed in Ferguson are not racist. Since Ferguson is part of a large metro area, unlike Selma, Ferguson residents could choose to live anywhere in the metro area and still get to work with a 20 minute commute max. They chose Ferguson. Many are retirees who bought there years ago. Their kids wanted newer better homes elsewhere. Kids of African Americans who grew up in the city probably moved to Ferguson for the same reason -- they wanted newer better homes than the ones in the city -- and they they found them in Ferguson.
6) St. Louis has done a few things right -- Bob McCulloch released the Grand Jury transcripts. New York did not. I'm sure if it had been the other way around, it would have been taken as one more strike against St. Louis by the large Eastern media. Somehow, they are OK with New York's secret proceedings.
In some ways it's funny that the Boston bombing and the St. Louis riots were both caused by folks who grew up right in their respective communities. But the perceptions are vastly different. In Boston, the early presumption was that outside terrorists were to blame and the community came together to fight the external foe. In St. Louis, the early reports were that it was a local cop gone rogue -- a result of intentional metro-wide structural racism. It turns out both cases are not that different -- disenfranchised youth growing up locally who don't feel they can ever get their fair share of economic or legal justice as minorities.
- 1,364
Being a rural Missourian, I don't get the feeling from people around here that they want to harm St. Louis in any way. Our politicians I don't know about.
A lot of people around here are afraid of visiting St. Louis, especially certain places after dark (understandable). But a lot of it is fear and dislike of cities in general.
I know a few years ago rural schools sued Missouri because they were spending so much more on kids in St. Louis schools. But that's mostly been forgotten by now.
A lot of the dislike that may exist between urban and rural goes back to politics. Rural Missourians tend to be conservative, whereas urbanites tend to be liberal. I usually fall somewhere in between. It doesn't help that rural Missourians see urbanites negatively and urbanites see rural people negatively. You'll find uneducated and bigoted people anywhere, even in the city.
A lot of people around here are afraid of visiting St. Louis, especially certain places after dark (understandable). But a lot of it is fear and dislike of cities in general.
I know a few years ago rural schools sued Missouri because they were spending so much more on kids in St. Louis schools. But that's mostly been forgotten by now.
A lot of the dislike that may exist between urban and rural goes back to politics. Rural Missourians tend to be conservative, whereas urbanites tend to be liberal. I usually fall somewhere in between. It doesn't help that rural Missourians see urbanites negatively and urbanites see rural people negatively. You'll find uneducated and bigoted people anywhere, even in the city.
Rural Missouri is just sad, the Southeast of the state especially. There's just nothing going on.
Except this isn't true. How could you make such an erroneous blanket statement yet be mad about rural Missourians who make blanket statements about the city? You literally just exhibited the very attitude you and several others derided over the last couple pages of this thread.Ebsy wrote:Rural Missouri is just sad, the Southeast of the state especially. There's just nothing going on.
.stlcardsblues1989 wrote:You'll find uneducated and bigoted people anywhere, even in the city.
Look no further than the response right after your post. Unreal
- 271
In light of the horrific, racist things the author experienced/experiences in his time spent in St. Louis, I'm sure knowing all of that would make him feel so much bettergary kreie wrote:I think folks in the rest of the country who read his piece, and maybe even the author, would be surprised to learn that:
1) St. Louis City and St. Louis County are two of only 4 counties in Missouri that voted for President Obama in both 2008 and 2012.
2) In St. Louis County, which is 77% white, the top elected official for the last 10 years was Charlie Dooley, an African American. And he was strongly supported in his elections by Democrat Bob McCulloch, up until the most recent election in August (before Ferguson), when he chose to switch his support to a St. Louis County Councilman.
3) The Circuit Court of St. Louis County awarded Dred Scott and his family their freedom in 1850. The Missouri Supreme court reversed the ruling and the US Supreme court agreed with the Missouri Supreme Court, not the St. Louis County Circuit Court.
4) St. Louis metro has more majority African American cities than any other metropolitan area in the U.S. Most transitioned successfully from majority white to majority black with little controversy. Some are still in transition. In any case, African Americans have more local decision-making control of their lives in the St. Louis metro area, than in any other metro in America.
5) White folks I know that moved or stayed in Ferguson are not racist. Since Ferguson is part of a large metro area, unlike Selma, Ferguson residents could choose to live anywhere in the metro area and still get to work with a 20 minute commute max. They chose Ferguson. Many are retirees who bought there years ago. Their kids wanted newer better homes elsewhere. Kids of African Americans who grew up in the city probably moved to Ferguson for the same reason -- they wanted newer better homes than the ones in the city -- and they they found them in Ferguson.
6) St. Louis has done a few things right -- Bob McCulloch released the Grand Jury transcripts. New York did not. I'm sure if it had been the other way around, it would have been taken as one more strike against St. Louis by the large Eastern media. Somehow, they are OK with New York's secret proceedings.
In some ways it's funny that the Boston bombing and the St. Louis riots were both caused by folks who grew up right in their respective communities. But the perceptions are vastly different. In Boston, the early presumption was that outside terrorists were to blame and the community came together to fight the external foe. In St. Louis, the early reports were that it was a local cop gone rogue -- a result of intentional metro-wide structural racism. It turns out both cases are not that different -- disenfranchised youth growing up locally who don't feel they can ever get their fair share of economic or legal justice as minorities.
Not to minimize the reality of St. Louis' racial strife, but we're not the only city that thinks its racial problems the worst. Just google "Chicago racist city" or "Boston racist city" or "Philadelphia racist city" and you'll find the same type of claims about those cities. Ghosts linger n every city.
- 1,364
I think Ebsy just proved my point.
Southeast Missouri doesn't have a lot going on industry-wise, but it has wonderful people who would give you the shirt off your back if you needed it. It has beautiful trails and plenty of places to fish. It does (at least in the bootheel) grow many crops, being 7th nationwide in cotton production and 5th in rice.
As far as the idea of Southeast Missouri being racist and bigoted, historically the I-70 corridor had more slaves than Southeast Missouri. http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... slaves.php
Southeast Missouri doesn't have a lot going on industry-wise, but it has wonderful people who would give you the shirt off your back if you needed it. It has beautiful trails and plenty of places to fish. It does (at least in the bootheel) grow many crops, being 7th nationwide in cotton production and 5th in rice.
As far as the idea of Southeast Missouri being racist and bigoted, historically the I-70 corridor had more slaves than Southeast Missouri. http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... slaves.php
- 8,155
^^ That's part of the reason why the essay is so good; McKissack acknowledges that while he and his black friends think racism was/is(?) more ***** up here, black people from elsewhere face their own ghosts of painful pasts. But he was called nigger here. And it's here he couldn't go to his white friend's house in a different part of town, etc., etc.. This is his lived experience. And for too many black people, Saint Louis remains a place of pain and little opportunity.
^ that's true about slavery and Little Dixie also extended up the Mississippi to Hannibal but the reason there were more slaves there than in southern Missouri was due to soil conditions and topography which allowed for wealthy plantation owners as opposed to the respective racial attitudes of the whites in the different regions. The land and people were too poor in Southern Missouri to have a lot of slaves. And post-Civil War there were numerous lynchings of blacks in southern Missouri, including SE MO.stlcardsblues1989 wrote: Southeast Missouri doesn't have a lot going on industry-wise, but it has wonderful people who would give you the shirt off your back if you needed it. It has beautiful trails and plenty of places to fish. It does (at least in the bootheel) grow many crops, being 7th nationwide in cotton production and 5th in rice.
As far as the idea of Southeast Missouri being racist and bigoted, historically the I-70 corridor had more slaves than Southeast Missouri. http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... slaves.php
But, yes, the area is beautiful and there are nice people there.