"White Flight" - Could this trend happen in Australia?

[Chooke]

Sounds like all the people that said they were going to move overseas pending the result of the last federal election. Unfortunately they're all still here

They probably realised that with a probable one term government, there is now no need to move.

 

[Angel]

Going back to the Tudors, and the Spanish, and every other European Nation which colonised other places..... One of their reasons was to convert the pagans to Christianity. Especially when spoken by the "caring" Queens such as Isabella of Castile. As surely as you insist that George W Bush invaded Iraq for its oil (to liberate the people from a tyrannical ruler and to install women's rights as we enjoy in the West, and because Sadam had boasted of having missiles pointed towards Israel and boasted about eradicating Israel from the face of the earth), Ferdinand and Isabella financed Columbus's expedition to the Americas for its lands and its gold. O that's right, Queen Isabella wanted to convert all the natives to Christ for their own good. Henry VIII colonised Ireland for its land, the Irish were already Catholic and didn't need converting. Henry probably wanted all the gold from their monasteries too.

Now it seems pretty natural for Muslims wanting to convert us poor misguided westerners to Islam, for our own good.

 

[Hulkster]

I remember an article on white flight during some study I was doing.

The study (late 90's/early 00's) was based on Atlanta and showed a rather interesting pattern over time. The white families had fled downtown areas into the first ring of suburbs and gentrification ensued. Over time, upwardly mobile non-whites moved into this first ring and gradually adjusted the demographics.

The next stage was that as more and more non-whites moved into this first ring, the whites gradually started moving out to the next ring and so on.

The study from memory talked about the impacts on schools and subsequently some of the areas property prices fell as an area became predominantly non-white.

 

[nhg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

Atheist Militants.

Any excuse to take power even if it requires genocide. None of this is a religious problem, it's a people problem. Religion is a tool, like a knife, what you do with it wether for good or for evil, well that's up to you.

 

[Corey Batt]

I remember an article on white flight during some study I was doing.

The study (late 90's/early 00's) was based on Atlanta and showed a rather interesting pattern over time. The white families had fled downtown areas into the first ring of suburbs and gentrification ensued. Over time, upwardly mobile non-whites moved into this first ring and gradually adjusted the demographics.

The next stage was that as more and more non-whites moved into this first ring, the whites gradually started moving out to the next ring and so on.

The study from memory talked about the impacts on schools and subsequently some of the areas property prices fell as an area became predominantly non-white.

I do remember that study from when I was in university, and another study based on the population flows in Detroit.

The study based in Detroit showed the two staged process, where white families would leave the area, followed by similarly economically well off non-white communities. What was then left was a majority lower socio economic population who didn't have the economic means to leave their geographic situation because of the poverty trap.

 

[BayView]

Folks live in a suburb of choice because of how it is....how it is now.

When that image changes enough that they don't like the image; in their mind it's time to move out.

Sadly; the non-PC explanation is they only want what they had before - if that was a mostly white neighborhood, then that's the reason.

Is it right?

Probably no, but it is one of the main reasons.

While we all want to live in the PC world of equality and tolerance and all that; at the end of the day it's a rose coloured glasses view to a large degree.

Just look at golf clubs for example (my career for 30 years); many have rules where you can only join if you've known a certain amount of Members for a set minimum period of time - eg; 6 Members for a minimum of 6 years. These Members have to propose you, or you have no chance of joining.

After this; someone may still "blackball" you and you won't get in.

These rules are put in place so they only get "like-minded" folks as Members in their "suburb" if you like...they don't want folks who are deemed "different".

Is it right?

Sorry; but yes. When you join a club or organisation such as these; one of the reasons is to spend time with only the folks you want to.

This is more yer exclusive private Club scenario; many private Clubs are much more open and accepting (they usually need the money from Members' fees), but even in these two types of Clubs I observed Clubs within Clubs, where some Members would not associate with other Members - not necessarily race or colour - often it is age related, or skill level related, or vocation related, etc.

Fernwood womens' gym would be another example of selective associations.

It's human nature in many of life's ways to have these behaviors..

With regards to where you live; you haven't the luxury of excluding folks from it; so you have to move; or adapt.

 

[C-mac]

Some interesting insights on the Detroit and Atlanta examples given. I'll have to go do more research on them.

 

[DavidMc]

I'm talking more about ausprops comment that a beheading is automatically terrorism but it appears it's only the case if Muslims are involved and I don't think that's right.

The act and motivation of something is what should determine if it's a terrorist act or not and not the religion of the person doing the act

I would disagree.

From Wikipedia - "Terrorism is commonly defined as violent acts (or threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Another common definition is political, ideological or religious violence by non-state actors."

It has very much to do with the religious, political or ideological 'who' (and not just the 'what').

An act like this caused by some crazy person acting alone is a lot less scary than it being done by 'a group'. One lone crazy person gets taken out and they're gone and people feel safe(ish).

However, the same act caused by a member of a group (especially a group that's rising in numbers, power and wealth) is what people find scary. E.g. as these two guys BayView were talking about were stopped, there could be others planning the same thing.

You on the other hand appear to not have had your tablets this morning so I'd suggest a cup of tea and a lie Down

Please realise this remark could be considered quite offensive to someone with a mental illness (before you go around calling people racist - which I don't think anyone has been).