The Most Diverse Cities Are Often The Most Segregated

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think that's the "truth". It may be a debatable point, but don't think there's some consensus that African Americans living in delta Mississippi had it worse when the moved to Chicago or wherever.

Assuming that blacks in the great migration were rational actors like everyone else, why would they have flocked to Detroit, Chicago, and the like if conditions were so much worse?

I have never seen anyplace in the U.S. poorer or more desperate than the Delta South. Even today, it seems quite obvious why someone would want to get out of that environment. Back in the 1950's and 60's, the North had tons of high paying factory jobs, so it made lots of sense to move your family to the industrial belt. Detroit was a pretty good place for a working man back in 1960, even for a working man of color.

It is true that Northern cities (Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit) and even Border towns (St. Louis, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Washington DC) were a lot better than the rural South from about 1910-1970 (the period of the "Great Migration), but many Northerners seem to have created a fantasy in their head about the treatment of African-Americans in these cities. Most of these cities maintained restrictive covenants and redlining that prevented African-Americans from living in certain neighborhoods or even owning property in their own neighborhoods, essentially creating the ghettos that we have today. Also many African Americans were victims of mob violence, because many times they were bought in by big manufacturing companies just to break white union strikes. African Americans still received less pay and in most respects were still treated as 2nd class citizens.

Anybody who wants to know about the experience of African Americans in Northern and Western cities, read the book "The Warmth of Other Suns", which provides detailed accounts from people who lived it. Serena and Venus Williams father said in his autobiography that Chicago was no more than "Mississippi with skyscrapers" and in many ways was worse than the South when it came to police brutality and racism.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by goat314

Maybe not Detroit, but probably Kansas City. New York always struck me as hyper-diverse but also highly segregated. I think the density of the city gives people the illusion that its a well integrated city, because you will see people of all races riding subway cars, walking the streets, spending time in parks, but at the end of the day people are going back to very homogenous neighborhoods.

Do they though? At the neighbourhood level, most in NYC look pretty diverse to me. Now, at the census tract level you can find a number of tracts at the >95% single race level, but because they're so small in area they'll still be in a close proximity to all sorts of people of other ethnicities, generally still within the same neighbourhood. And between that proximity and the dense, urban nature of the city, those very things that you call illusions are exactly what makes it impossible for a place like New York to be truly segregated - wherever these people go home to sleep at night, they're still sharing space in public - whether at school, work, on transit, on the street, in a business or amenity, whatever - which I think is a far more meaningful reflection of diversity than residential diversity is. A low-density suburb may appear more integrated on paper, but what good is that if people aren't actually interacting?

Originally Posted by goat314

The worst mob violence Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. every experienced was in suburban Chicago. With that said there is definitely a palpable racial tension in Chicago and most of the Midwest (Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc.), that is just not felt in most of the urban South today.

I can see how a case for the urban South having less racism or segregation than the Midwest can be made, but I get the feeling that the rural south is still easily the most deeply racist, segregated place in America today. I mean, I just can't imagine something like this being an issue in suburban Detroit in 2014: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/living...ounty-georgia/


In any event, whether or not that is actually the case, this is not proven by a map. Geographic segregation does not in and of itself imply racism. Phenomenon like redlining and sundown towns absolutely do, but on the other hand, especially in more immigrant-dominated regions that generally don't have the same racial history of the South or Midwest (like the West or the Northeast), the more common type of "segregation" in the form of ethnic enclaves definitely does not.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

My point is that for my whole life I have heard the NE, West disparage the SE for being racist and backwards, but the truth is that the conditions in the North were as bad or worse than what African Americans left during the early 20th Century. That era lives on today in that map of Chicago.

The reason being is the south was highly scrutinized for Jim Crow and it's racist legacy while the north more or less got a pass. Having lived in both parts of the country, i found the north to be more open with is racism (in both directions) and far more segregated.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Yeah, I grew up in suburban Cincinnati, wherein the Ohio River is/was the literal Mason/Dixon line. Anyone who thinks racial disparity and prejudices ended on the Ohio side of the river, even within the last 20 years because of some arbitrary line between north and south, is fooling themselves.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Yeah, I grew up in suburban Cincinnati, wherein the Ohio River is/was the literal Mason/Dixon line. Anyone who thinks racial disparity and prejudices ended on the Ohio side of the river, even within the last 20 years because of some arbitrary line between north and south, is fooling themselves.

That's a weird area. Cincy seems like a southern town while Covington felt like an "anywhere" college party town.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I can see how a case for the urban South having less racism or segregation than the Midwest can be made, but I get the feeling that the rural south is still easily the most deeply racist, segregated place in America today. I mean, I just can't imagine something like this being an issue in suburban Detroit in 2014: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/living...ounty-georgia/


In any event, whether or not that is actually the case, this is not proven by a map. Geographic segregation does not in and of itself imply racism. Phenomenon like redlining and sundown towns absolutely do, but on the other hand, especially in more immigrant-dominated regions that generally don't have the same racial history of the South or Midwest (like the West or the Northeast), the more common type of "segregation" in the form of ethnic enclaves definitely does not.

I think it comes down to small towns in the South will still have the problem because they haven't been looked at yet while the larger cities like Atlanta, Birmingham and New Orleans have put in some significant effort. In the Midwest, cities have largely been ignored despite their much more violent history, with respect to rioting and what not.

Towns on the edge of the regions like Memphis, Cincinnati, Charleston and such likely have both sides of the problem going on. I understand, or have read, that Memphis is the one city in the South that most resembles a Midwest city in terms of its race problem.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Your defensiveness indicates that you find it a touchy subject, and one you'd perhaps rather not confront. However, the facts stand that some cities in the supposedly enlightened North and Midwest have very poor track records when it comes to race relations. Some of those cities to this day have very clearly drawn lines of demarcation between the races. I seem to recall seeing, probably on here, a color-coded map of where people of various races live in Detroit. I was struck by how 8 Mile Road is the line of demarcation between black and white. Almost no whites on the inside, almost no blacks on the outside.

Race relations nationwide suck, but the South serves as a scapegoat for the rest of the country to point a finger at while ignoring their own problems.

Black-white race relations do indeed seem to suck nationwide, to varying degrees, especially when it comes to policing. Relations between other combinations of groups (e.g. Asians and whites, Latinos and whites, etc.) aren't perfect, but aren't so fraught.

The whiny, tired old chestnut that everybody is ganging up on the little ol' South while pretending there aren't any racial issues elsewhere really has no grounding in 2015, given the universally-known and -acknowledged racial tensions over the past year in St. Louis, New York City and Baltimore. That these are not Southern cities is a fact lost on absolutely no one.

[Nineties Flava]

Segregation is not a particularly great measure of racism imo... A much better measure of racism is wealth distribution. San Francisco (though somewhat segregated) looks considerably better on paper in terms of integration than cities like Detroit that similarly were black migration destinations. However, in terms of income distribution the gap between blacks and whites in SF is much wider than it is in Detroit, Kansas City, etc, so much wider in fact that it's almost comical. A similar gap exists in Oakland as well but the main difference is that there is a wide gap between whites and every other group in Oakland, particularly nowadays as the largely white influx of San Franciscans/ SF transplants is making things more expensive for everybody. Non-white people in Oakland have much better relations than just about anywhere else I've seen in America, imo largely because for the most part they aren't directly competing with each other for jobs despite the fact that the wealth distribution between them in Oakland is pretty similar. San Francisco is much more cutthroat in every respect when it comes to money.

[Kenneth]

Detroit is now integrated

[jpdivola]

Interesting study, looks like the 2 basic take always:
1) Diverse places are more segregated.
2) Segregation is much lower among whites/Asians/Hispanics than whites vs blacks.

Two things I would be curious about learning more:
1) Looks like using census tracks to measure segregation might have a big city bias. Conceivably, census tracks in big cities are more homogeneous, due to clustering. This seems to make sense. In the small town I grew up in, the doctor's kids attended the same high school as the single mom's kids. In a bigger city, they would likely be segregated into affluent and poor school districts.

1) How cities ranked when it comes to segregation by various races, particularly African-Americans? It looks like Asians/White/Hispanics have higher rates of integration than Whites and Blacks. But, how do the relationships looks Asian vs Blacks, Hispanic vs Black, White vs Hispanic, White vs Asian, etc. I would imagine Asian/Hispanic segregation is largely about "immigrant enclaves." My guess is 2nd gen Asians and to a lesser extent Hispanics will be more integrated with Whites. I'm guessing Black segregation is a bit bifurcated (with middle income AAs increasingly integrated with Whites/Asians/Hispanics and a black underclass that remains highly segregated).

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by fflint

Black-white race relations do indeed seem to suck nationwide, to varying degrees, especially when it comes to policing. Relations between other combinations of groups (e.g. Asians and whites, Latinos and whites, etc.) aren't perfect, but aren't so fraught.

I rather think the legislation coming out of places like Arizona proves that relations between Latinos and whites are plenty fraught.

The whiny, tired old chestnut that everybody is ganging up on the little ol' South while pretending there aren't any racial issues elsewhere really has no grounding in 2015, given the universally-known and -acknowledged racial tensions over the past year in St. Louis, New York City and Baltimore. That these are not Southern cities is a fact lost on absolutely no one.

And yet one of the very first reactions to the notion of poor race relations in Northern or Midwestern cities was hostility toward the idea by a Midwesterner. I also think that the fact that race relations have boiled over in Midwestern cities and New York makes a lot of people extremely uncomfortable. I hope the fact is indeed lost on no one because it shakes them out of comfortable scapegoating.

It's the same with gay-bashing, you'll note. If a gay couple is attacked in Texas, Georgia, or anywhere else where that sort of thing is "expected" you'll find online comment boards dripping with scorn for the South and going on endlessly about how that sort of thing is exactly what you should expect in the South, plus speculation as to why any persecuted class would ever be so stupid as to stay in the South. But when gays are attacked in Seattle, Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco...? Not a peep.

In my personal experience I notice the same phenomenon with racial discrimination. If a noteworthy story of such emerges from anyplace where that sort of thing is expected and plays to type for the national narrative, everyone piles on. If it comes from somewhere else, after the initial news frenzy... nothing. Everything quiets down, goes back to normal, and doesn't change a goddamn bit.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by fflint

Black-white race relations do indeed seem to suck nationwide, to varying degrees, especially when it comes to policing. Relations between other combinations of groups (e.g. Asians and whites, Latinos and whites, etc.) aren't perfect, but aren't so fraught.

Why is it always relationships with whites? What about inter-minority relationships? That's almost worse at times. Latinos aren't actually one race anyway, saying things like "Latinos and whites" makes you look really ignorant. Look up the demographics of Latin Americans countries.

That's the problem with the US, people make such a huge deal of race and don't really see themselves as American. I think this might be one of the world's most racist/race obsessed countries. I'm pretty white and get along with just about everyone... if you don't you're probably hanging around the wrong people.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

I rather think the legislation coming out of places like Arizona proves that relations between Latinos and whites are plenty fraught.

I stand by what I wrote. I acknowledged there are problems--and yes, Arizona is a good example of a state that has targeted its largest (and, really, only large) minority for 'special treatment'--but if there is a US city whose Latino population is teetering on the edge of exploding into rioting like we have seen among Black residents of Ferguson and Baltimore (and I suspect a few other cities) then I'm not aware of it. It seems to me tensions between Latinos and whites/Asians/Blacks isn't as fraught as tensions between Blacks and whites, especially when it comes to policing. But I could be wrong.

And yet one of the very first reactions to the notion of poor race relations in Northern or Midwestern cities was hostility toward the idea by a Midwesterner.

And another of the first reactions to the notion of poor race relations in the North and Midwest was a Southerner trotting out a long-practiced indignation about Southern persecution that didn't happen. A certain personality type apparently misses the comfort of waxing indignant enough to actually fabricate it when absent.

I also think that the fact that race relations have boiled over in Midwestern cities and New York makes a lot of people extremely uncomfortable. I hope the fact is indeed lost on no one because it shakes them out of comfortable scapegoating.

Absolutely the riots and large protests have made some people extremely uncomfortable, and with the tremendous media saturation on these issues I don't think anyone is unaware.

Originally Posted by Zapatan

What about inter-minority relationships?

That's a good question, and one I'm not qualified to answer.

Latinos aren't actually one race anyway, saying things like "Latinos and whites" makes you look really ignorant.

And you look like you don't know how to read, because I never described Latinos as a race. I referred to them as a group.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by fflint

And another of the first reactions to the notion of poor race relations in the North and Midwest was a Southerner trotting out a long-practiced indignation about Southern persecution that didn't happen. A certain personality type apparently misses the comfort of waxing indignant enough to actually fabricate it when absent.

From where is this defensiveness, in your insinuations about "a certain personality type" and in accusing Zapatan of not being able to read, coming?

I note that you did not address my parallel between racial tension and gay-bashing when it occurs in the "expected" locales versus when it does not. When racial tensions flare in the usual suspects, do people or do they not, chalk it up to the city or state living up to expectations? When racial tensions flare in self-congratulatory havens of racial harmony, do people or do they not react with the very same defensiveness and hostility you're showing, and which was initially shown by a Midwestern forumer?

Yes or no? And while you're at it, address the parallel between racial tension and gay-bashing.

And by the way...

Originally Posted by fflint

That's a good question, and one I'm not qualified to answer.

Since you're not qualified to answer, I'll provide you with the answer given to me by Black partner, based on his experiences growing up outside New York City, living in Ecuador, and then living in rural South Carolina before moving here: The short answer is that everyone hates everyone else, but Asians and several Latino contingents are united in their hatred of Blacks. I'm also basing that answer, you'll note, on the experiences of a friend of mine living with her Korean boyfriend and his family in Queens. She reports that the boyfriend's family is the most openly and nastily racist group of people she has ever met.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

I note that you did not address my parallel between racial tension and gay-bashing when it occurs in the "expected" locales versus when it does not. When racial tensions flare in the usual suspects, do people or do they not, chalk it up to the city or state living up to expectations? When racial tensions flare in self-congratulatory havens of racial harmony, do people or do they not react with the very same defensiveness and hostility you're showing, and which was initially shown by a Midwestern forumer?

Yes or no? And while you're at it, address the parallel between racial tension and gay-bashing.

Once again, you seem focused on perceived slights to the South, whether that be racial tensions or now a totally different topic, gay bashing, that have not actually been expressed in this thread. That's your hangup, not mine.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by fflint

Once again, you seem focused on perceived slights to the South, whether that be racial tensions or now a totally different topic, gay bashing, that have not actually been expressed in this thread. That's your hangup, not mine.

And once again, you're deflecting so as to not have to answer a direct and pertinent question -- although I commend you on doing so with less open hostility than you displayed before.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I wonder if diversity leading to segregation is as much of a thing in Canada. There seems to be a degree of it in Toronto in maps I've seen, but more blurriness from what I remember of American cities.

(Not trying to say Canada is better or anything in case anyone gets that impression. Just interested in how we compare to our bigger neighbour.)

It's something I've been looking into... in terms of black-white segregation, Toronto has relatively little by American standards, but there are American cities that are comparable.

Looking at other cities that have relatively small black populations, Boston and Pittsburgh are significantly more segregated, Sacramento, Seattle, the Bay Area and Austin are a bit more segregated, and Las Vegas and Inland Empire are about to same or maybe even a bit less segregated than Toronto.

I haven't done the numbers for LA, MSP, San Antonio or Denver yet, they also have pretty small black populations.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

Most racist begets most segregated.

Perhaps more racist is not the best description. Perhaps equally racist is a better description.

No I don't believe in war of northern aggression or even know what that mean s

No, economic disparity and migrations beget segregation. The reason black neighborhoods are more segregated in northern industrial cities is that they always have been, ever since blacks moved north for factory jobs en masse in the early 20th century. Black neighborhoods in the North in a way resemble longstanding immigrant enclaves, even if people have now been there for generations.

I would expect Southern cities to be less segregated, because these places urbanized later and with a surrounding population that has been mixed since Reconstruction.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by 10023

No, economic disparity and migrations beget segregation. The reason black neighborhoods are more segregated in northern industrial cities is that they always have been, ever since blacks moved north for factory jobs en masse in the early 20th century. Black neighborhoods in the North in a way resemble longstanding immigrant enclaves, even if people have now been there for generations.

I would expect Southern cities to be less segregated, because these places urbanized later and with a surrounding population that has been mixed since Reconstruction.

Well, Atlanta is the 2nd most segregated city in the U.S. based on this study so that kind of dismantles this argument.

Atlanta did have somewhat of an industrious past which may be a reason for segregation through the decades.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Well, Atlanta is the 2nd most segregated city in the U.S. based on this study so that kind of dismantles this argument.

Atlanta did have somewhat of an industrious past which may be a reason for segregation through the decades.

Atlanta is somewhat of an anomaly amongst the New South cities. It actually has very Northern racial segregation patterns despite being aesthetically Southern. I've also noticed that Atlanta also has the worst income inequality in the US too. Seems like a lot of people moved there with dreams of striking it rich only to find out that it wasn't all what it is cracked up to be, in many respects. With that said, I hope it finds a balance soon or else we could be looking at Detroit 2.0. Its almost inevitable that at least one of the New South cities will not fair well through the maturation process. If I had to guess, either Dallas or Houston will be the shining star, not so sure about Atlanta and income inequality in Miami is equally disturbing.