The original article says that Detroit has gone through economic changes and he is just pointing out that it has gone through demographic changes as well. I don't think he needs to add any comments to it, the link speaks for itself
Reading this thread, the historical demographic trends were very interesting. Do you think they are irrelevant? If so, please explain why.
Very interesting that from at least the 1850s right up until the 1930s more than a third of the population were immigrants. I would say most of these were from Canada, based on my own study of immigration patterns and knowing it was extremely easy to immigrate from Canada to the US during that period.
Also very interesting that population peaked in the 1950s even though the American auto industry did not go into decline until the 1960s.
> Reading this thread, the historical demographic trends were very interesting. Do you think they are irrelevant? If so, please explain why.
I'll bite. I don't find skin color particularly interesting, nor am I interested in it as a demographic distinction. I think skin color is used as a proxy indicator for things like culture, class, and income. I believe this is generally for expediency's sake (i.e. it is easy to measure and observe).
Ignoring the expediency benefits, I think the focus on skin color and comments such as yours perpetuate the distinction's hold on our global psyche, to our global detriment.
I'm torn on this issue. Socioeconomic class is of towering importance, and has been neglected in favor of pure race for far too long; but racism is very real, and remains a potent force worldwide. It is counter-productive, I think, to look through either lens exclusively.
At least with education, There is a strong correlation between race and education, namely blacks are less likely to be well-educated than whites. Connect that with income and you are not only seeing a drop in population, but very likely a steep drop in overall tax revenue necessary for Detroit to rebuild itself.
