Discussion of Census Forms and Questions

On the U.S. Census I decided to answer number 1:

1.) Why do you think "Indians not taxed" were an exception in the instructions on enumeration?

Answer: I believe that the way they wanted to embrace the Indians was to only be able to count them as humans and part of the population was if the Indians were being part of the white society. If the Indians go into the white world, be part of the white culture then that is the only way the Indians would be included into the population census.

4.) What is your overall sense about the likelihood of achieving accuracy on these forms for counting and gathering data about the population?

Answer: I believe that while these forms and ways for gathering data are nice and have many attributes for why we do them, I believe that they have just as many faults. Persons would be happy to lie about their status because of fear of being caught by immigration. I also think that the idea behind why we do a Census every ten years is a really good thing. It allows a city to understand how and why it is growing as well as what makes the population grow. Could it be the environment, families want more pace and more of a quiet life? These kinds of questions can always give a society more information on a culture and what cultures do. I just think there need to be better questions asked on the Census for those same persons in fear of answering honestly.

Reflections and Impressions on Websites.

In the first website I looked at entitled revealing Chicago I thought the pictures were nice, interesting and pretty but to be honest they didn't really stand out. I can say my favorite picture was the one of Lake Shore Drive where it meets Sheridan Road. That picture was pretty and nice and I think it does captivate the city really well but for the most part those pictures did not motivate me to want to take pictures of the city. I believe a picture one states should be motivated as well as breath taking to some degree by the picture taker.

The second website I looked at entitled picturing Chicago was a great site. I love it. Just looking at the album entitled North Shore North Side was diverse and culturally interesting. It was not just pictures of people, places, trees, or empty buildings but rather it was pictures of signs attached to building in black and white. I love black and white. I think it makes the building or picture itself more full of imagination for the viewer. The pictures show a culture and the people who live in that culture. I believe to the fullest that is the way pictures should be taken in a society and city. Especially one as big, full and diverse as Chicago. This site makes me want to go out and take pictures to see what my city has to offer.

The last website I didn't really enjoy either. I felt it was to bland and boring. There was not imagination and or intrigue to make a person want to look at what they have to offer.

Discussion of Classmates blog...!!

I read Nicole's blog posting talking about her second city, how she feels that she has a second city. I thought it was very interesting and exciting to see how she compares the facts between Mesa and Chicago. How Chicago is a fast paced city and Mesa is more slow. Where in Mesa the city dwellers tend to enjoy their day and talk to other people not worrying about the businesses of the day and in Chicago everyone is so busy going about their day that no one stops to just enjoy it. I would have to completely agree with Nicole. I have never been to Mesa, but I find it more interesting how she feels like these two cities that are totally far apart have so much in common.

I think her blog approaches the subject of cities because through the many different cities and comparing those same cities with the people who run around in them doing their daily activities we all can learn how cities have changed. By learning how cities have changed and what we can do to better them we can help improve the dynamic of the way cities are made.

Do I agree or disagree with Richard Florida's arguement as stated in Article 9?

I believe that Richard Florida has many good and valid points that he makes about the creative class. He mentions how, "the creative class wants to be in a place where there is diversity, lots to do, places to be and see while still being about to be who they are without depriving themselves of something in the process." I believe that to be true.

Though a city itself can strive for greatness, greatness does not always come to those who strive for it just because they want it bad enough. Persons especially those with power have to be willing to make changes. Like for example, instead of spending precious money on things that may not be wanted that much, like expensive stadiums for instance one can spend it on things to do in the area that will attract creative people to want to work and live in the area. Without those things no one is going to want to be with that job. A person is going to choose a job that is fun, with lots to do outside of work to be creative with. A person gets much of their creativity from their lives and their everyday activities. How will a person be able to use that creative genius if they live in a place with nothing much to offer?

The fact is that they won't be able to prosper. Cities that have been unable to get creative people to want to live in their city have done all the damage to themselves and their cities as a whole because they are unwilling to except what creative people want in their city. The political people in charge believe that people in the creative class want lots of things that deal with sports in their town, because of sports that will be the attraction that gets the creative class to come and stay when it fact it pushed persons father away says, Richard Florida.

I have to agree with most if not all of what he is saying. I am getting closer to graduation, probably within the next year in a half or so maybe less and I even have been thinking about where I want to work and live for my future. I can say this without a doubt I would not want to live in a city where there is no diversity, people being able to live how they want, where they want. I love the fact that cities that are good have lots to do and so much more to offer then just a place to live. Chicago does a great job in being a place where creative people can grow and prosper.

One interesting thing wrote, either poem or picture....Deals with city.

I love walking through the area seeing all the buildings.
There's so much to do, so many friends be hanging.
People conversate with multiple nationalities.
Going here and there and everywhere in small and big yellows moving mobiles.

There are police officials, teachers, students and home business owners.
Mothers, sisters, dads and children all walking side by side.
You can live high in the sky or low to the ground.

The night life is always alive, whether it be at the bar at the concert or in a ballfeild.
Everyone visits here at least once in their life.
Traffic always sucks.
Yes it's a city, It's my city.

Discussion of article "Gentrification", from internet readings for September 17.

Upon reading this article entitled "Gentrification", by Tom Slater I was sort of confused. I was a little like what is exactly going on and if I can figure out exactly what is Gentrification? I have an idea of what the article was talking about, which is basically how the business developers have found a way to push or move people from poor neighboring cities which have slummed a little bit to become better and bigger if the developers can just move the poor out of the way.

The article seems to imply that in order to make these cities better and improve them with business is to replace the old wit the new. Which means in a sense that one has to get rid of the bad, old and stuff that does not belong and replace it with new homes, businesses and ideas that would then bring more people and possibly a better class of persons into an area. In order to do this, those same persons who have not had a place to go before still will not have a place to go when Gentrification begins. The poor/lower middle class will be disbursed and left without possibly a place to live. With that said, if one does not have a place to live some could possibly loose their jobs because of Gentrification taking place in their area.

If one starts to think about the neighborhoods who have people who live there that are poorer, and Gentrification starts those same people might not want to leave and this can cause a fight/riots or disagreements. Persons starting these fights, riots and when that happens the police tend to get involved. That causes an increase in violence, criminals and brutality. When Gentrification happens more people tend to get arrested and put into the jail system. This causes a higher rate of people that could be unable to get a jobs because of felonies and the end result is that those same people will have no place to go. That number of people can rise substantially. The process just repeats itself in Gentrification. It may repeat itself in the same area in some way shape or form or it may move from one area to another. That is what I believe to be some what true when I think of how Gentrification can affect some one's lives.

Reflection on Article 5 of Textbook.

I must say that once I started to read this article I couldn't help but start asking questions about what happened and why they happened. I also couldn't help but ask questions like why does this happen and if this happens to people then this could be why it is happening. It was like I was trying to figure out a cause and effect type of situation.

I first asked about race and class. If persons were trying to flee and police were not letting them flee from the flood in New Orleans, were the persons being turned away white or black? I think that from a Sociological standpoint it is important to ask those types of questions because with the answer being either yes or no it can give an impression on whether or not discrimination or social class could be an issue on why some were turned away. Then there was a mention on how, "Lawson placed a more important emphasis on property and not on a human life." This can tell a person without speaking that the police department believed at the time that the persons living in New Orleans were going to spread crime from their town to the town the evacuees were being taken too, which was Gretna. The police department didn't want to have the violence spread and escalate. Plus by this statement that describes Lawson, and how they wanted to place a price on property. Shows how much they discriminate from those who live in New Orleans thinking that persons who live there steal and pillage the area and are no good at all. With that kind of thinking, why would Gretna care about those who might be less fortunate then they are?

When I read how the persons living in Gretna which is where this all happened at, believe that the law enforcement agency was correct in the way they handled the situations of cutting people off and not letting people be helped by staying in the city. The reason why I thought this was particularly interesting is because both white and black persons believed that the law enforcement was correct in their actions. This was interesting, it makes one wonder why they both feel this way as well as how long black persons have been living in a predominately white area? Last but not least, have white persons had more of an affect on a black persons ways? Like for example, studies always show that when different persons come together to live in close proximity sometimes one person brings and takes on straights of the other person.

Next there was a mention on how persons were not allowed to enter without a vehicle. This is somewhat of a bias statement to make. What happens to those who lost their vehicle in the flood? What do they do because they do not have a car anymore, DIE? That is what it sounds like the city of Gretna wants to happen to those who are now less fortunate then themselves. Also if one wants to go a step deeper. What if one can not afford a car? Are the people of Gretna saying that they are better because they have a car, and are able to buy things for themselves? The persons of New Orleans are not because something bad happened to them? People have the raw tendency to look bad upon those who have had misfortunes. It is something that people have always done and can not usually be ignored.

Lastly, the one thing that started to make me think is though it sucks that some people got turned away if the police department did not turn some away would another city have been ruined. I say ruined because over population, violence, poverty, social economic stimulus or the bringing down of property prices could happen to an area when something tragic happens. Though this might be unlikely, it can still happen. I just think that the people who lost so much when the hurricane happened in New Orleans got really screwed. That the city and police from Lawson and Gretna should not have done what they did to the evacuees. They should have helped them more. Set up housing and food destinations. Not turned them away like they were a peice of trash.

My favorite time in the City!!

I remember my favorite time I was in the city. There is something so special about the way a person can feel going into the city with friends or meeting up with friends. I specifically remember a winter about three years ago maybe two years ago where one of my friends and I took the train into the city so that we can walk around and see the lights on building and the huge Christmas tree that gets put up every year.

The best part was that when we got there, there were vendors and little shops open all around this Christmas tree. It was really nice, awesome and really cool. There was not just one kind of person but rather there were persons from every minority and majority. Everyone here didn't mind who was who and where someone else came from it was like everyone was just happy to be there around friends and family and persons. It was a really nice experience to have.

The main reason why I hold that experience so close to my heart is not so much because something big happened on that day but rather the times I ever went into the city it was always like people were so busy trying to get where they were going and not caring about other people along the way. The loud noises, the car horns going off because someone has taken to long to turn right or left or has not gone through the green light yet. On that day, it seemed like none of that was going on. There was no one yelling at another person for some reason, no horns, no screaming, and so on. It was just a nice, relaxing day in the city. On days like that, I love the city.

Differences...why I think we choose Suburbia over Cities?

After getting out of class on last Tuesday, something stuck with me. Why do people choose to live in Suburbia over the City life? I heard in class by another student that possibly one reason why people choose Suburbia is because they want to be left alone. I started to think is that why my family lives in the Suburbs?

I started to dissect my life living in the area I live in verses living in a city. If my family was to live in a city then there would probably not be as much yard space and that is something my mom wanted to have for my brothers and I growing up. My mom also wanted the added advantage of possibly not having her kids go to schools that might be over crowed because of the amened population in the area. Yes though my neighborhood is a lot quieter then the city is, it is rather enjoy able non the less. I don't have to hear loud car horns late at night or person's slamming on their brakes or yelling for that matter. I can say, "I'm going to bed and have the added advantage of falling asleep and very rarely do I get woken up late at night by some noise." That I enjoy and so do my brothers and mother.

I also started to look around and think was is the violence down as much as one would think in the Suburbs? I don't hear about that much violence. There are always the kid who jumped someone else at school or outside of school. There are always going to be muggings no matter where one goes. On a gran scheme of things, I won't say that the Suburbs are violence free. Possibly not as much violence as a bigger city would have at any given moment. Not because I think that my area I live in is better, but simply because a student in class said this best, "when there are more people in an area then one would expect the violence rate to be higher or at least more noticeable." I believe that to be true. I know my area has violence but I also know that because my area does not have that many people then the violence is not going to be that high.

For me in conclusion, I love living in Suburbia. I love the trees and the garden in my backyard. I love being able to take a cup of coffee onto my back deck and listen to the birds and see the sun go down or come up. I can talk to my neighbors which I do frequently. I do know all of my neighbors, next to me and behind me. I like being able to have a fire in the back yard and not have to worry about getting caught and having to put it out. I enjoy the laid back way of living and that is what I get to have by living in the Suburbs. If one enjoys the City then that is great. I am not trying to make my area sound better. I am just trying to figure out some kind of differences of City life and existence over Suburb live, that is all.