The future: enclavism or the melting pot?

[RST500]

California’s Future of Pan-Enclavism:

https://robertstark.substack.com/p/c...-pan-enclavism

The initial dream of liberalism was the melting pot or one blended humanity but this seems to be where we are headed:

"These demographic trends are neither the strict segregation of the past nor the blended society that was the dream of liberalism but, rather, a quilt-like patchwork of many different enclaves. The LA Times has a diversity index for Los Angeles neighborhoods and, as with the Bay Area’s segregation map, we can see that the most diverse areas are, generally, either middle-income areas with a high concentration of new apartment construction or areas that are undergoing a transformation such as gentrification, or attracting a new demographic."

[liat91]

Regionally this seems to be working, but once it becomes more widespread and commonplace nationally, we will see if this great experiment works out.

Not everybody is a progressive and I don’t really like being part of an experiment the elites are conducting.

[RST500]

Originally Posted by liat91

Regionally this seems to be working, but once it becomes more widespread and commonplace nationally, we will see if this great experiment works out.

Not everybody is a progressive and I don’t really like being part of an experiment the elites are conducting.

Enclavism and fragmentation seems to be the trend as the maps in the article show rather than the liberal vision of one blended society. The left calls for racial equity based policies while the right calls for assimilation but the article makes the case that we should embrace enclavism rather than trying to resist these changes.

[eschaton]

A little of A, a little of B, as boring as it sounds.

Everything I have seen suggests that the most modern immigrant groups to the U.S. (Latinos and Asians) are falling into the same general pattern as past immigrant groups. To broadly simplify, the first-generation immigrants never learn English very well, second-generation are bilingual but prefer English, and third generation are monolingual English speakers. Similarly, second/third generation Latinos and Asians have very high out-marriage rates (around 50%) with most of them marrying white people.

As long as there is a steady flow of new immigrants, there will continue to be ethnic neighborhoods as first-generation individuals move to where they feel most "comfortable." But the kids who grow up there (particularly if they are from non-impoverished backgrounds) are likelier to move out and/or socialize beyond their own ethnic group, and either they or their kids will ultimately assimilate.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by eschaton

A little of A, a little of B, as boring as it sounds.

Everything I have seen suggests that the most modern immigrant groups to the U.S. (Latinos and Asians) are falling into the same general pattern as past immigrant groups. To broadly simplify, the first-generation immigrants never learn English very well, second-generation are bilingual but prefer English, and third generation are monolingual English speakers. Similarly, second/third generation Latinos and Asians have very high out-marriage rates (around 50%) with most of them marrying white people.

As long as there is a steady flow of new immigrants, there will continue to be ethnic neighborhoods as first-generation individuals move to where they feel most "comfortable." But the kids who grow up there (particularly if they are from non-impoverished backgrounds) are likelier to move out and/or socialize beyond their own ethnic group, and either they or their kids will ultimately assimilate.

Not exactly. The difference between the various European countries is much smaller than that of Punjabis and indigenous Guatemalans. Money is the only commonality, with Europeans it was shared Cartesian values.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by liat91

Not exactly. The difference between the various European countries is much smaller than that of Punjabis and indigenous Guatemalans. Money is the only commonality, with Europeans it was shared Cartesian values.

That's irrelevant, as by the 2nd or 3rd generation, the descendants of immigrants - be they Punjabi or Guatemalan or European - are still characterised by their shared North American culture moreso than that of their parents or grandparents.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by liat91

Not exactly. The difference between the various European countries is much smaller than that of Punjabis and indigenous Guatemalans. Money is the only commonality, with Europeans it was shared Cartesian values.

Cartesian values?

Regardless, the data does not back you up:









This is just for Hispanics...

[edale]

In LA there has been a pretty strong push to protect and preserve the Black enclave of South LA/Crenshaw Corridor. There are whole groups formed to preserving those areas as black neighborhoods, as they feel their political power and visibility is decreasing as the neighborhood becomes more multi-ethnic. I definitely feel like society is regressing in this way, and people are getting more clannish and segregated.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by edale

In LA there has been a pretty strong push to protect and preserve the Black enclave of South LA/Crenshaw Corridor. There are whole groups formed to preserving those areas as black neighborhoods, as they feel their political power and visibility is decreasing as the neighborhood becomes more multi-ethnic. I definitely feel like society is regressing in this way, and people are getting more clannish and segregated.

It's interesting looking at race/income maps of the black corridor in South LA, because the still majority-black areas are significantly higher income than the Latino areas immediately adjacent. To me this seems to suggest LA has had preferential out-migration from working-class black people, with those left behind largely middle class.

[Docere]

In Toronto, the more homogeneous enclaves are generally more middle/higher income in the newer "905" suburbs with high, while the low income outer borough/inner suburb-type areas (i.e. its equivalents to Queens and much of Los Angeles) are less white, but quite racially mixed.

On paper these 905 suburbs are as diverse as the City of Toronto, but less of a mix on the ground level. Homeownership leads to more homogeneous environments, at least for first generation immigrants pursuing the Canadian/North American dream.

That stands in contrast to the US - due mainly to the history of segregation of Black communities. Toronto's Black population is about as segregated as that of Seattle or Minneapolis though - and they're not "segregated by choice" living in enclaves like much of the Chinese, Sikh or for that matter Jewish community (who are actually Toronto's most residentially "segregated" group).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

In Toronto, the more homogeneous enclaves are generally more middle/higher income in the newer "905" suburbs with high, while the low income outer borough/inner suburb-type areas (i.e. its equivalents to Queens and much of Los Angeles) are less white, but quite racially mixed.

On paper these 905 suburbs are as diverse as the City of Toronto, but less of a mix on the ground level. Homeownership leads to more homogeneous environments, at least for first generation immigrants pursuing the Canadian/North American dream.

That stands in contrast to the US - due mainly to the history of segregation of Black communities. Toronto's Black population is about as segregated as that of Seattle or Minneapolis though - and they're not "segregated by choice" living in enclaves like much of the Chinese, Sikh or for that matter Jewish community (who are actually Toronto's most residentially "segregated" group).

How unique is this situation to Toronto (in diverse cities in N. America or even elsewhere like London, European cities etc., though yes I know the history is different now than centuries ago, since Jewish populations are really small now in Europe)?

Even though I know stats for Jewish population are hard to compare due to censusing differences between countries/cities I have a hard time thinking about any American city where the Jewish population "segregated by choice" in a way that numerically compares to the segregation by Black, Hispanic etc. or other groups, let alone is the single one that leads on a residential statistical index.

(Yes, you have the Orthodox Jewish communities in many areas but they are only one part of the Jewish part of a given city and even taking that example, I'm not even sure they would take the title of most residentially segregated part of most cities that also have historically black neighborhoods, by any statistical index, unless maybe we take extremes like Kiryas Joel).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

How unique is this situation to Toronto (in diverse cities in N. America or even elsewhere like London, European cities etc., though yes I know the history is different now than centuries ago, since Jewish populations are really small now in Europe)?

Even though I know stats for Jewish population are hard to compare due to censusing differences between countries/cities I have a hard time thinking about any American city where the Jewish population "segregated by choice" in a way that numerically compares to the segregation by Black, Hispanic etc. or other groups, let alone is the single one that leads on a residential statistical index.

Really? I guess it's obscure now, but the legacy of Jewish exclusion/segregation was pretty blatant in most major U.S. cities, and created patterns still visible today. In Detroit, affluent Jews migrated north and west away from the city specifically because of exclusionary policies that discouraged them from going to affluent communities east of Detroit. Today, almost all of Metro Detroit's Jewish live in suburbs to the northwest of downtown Detroit.

MICHIGAN: Grosse Pointe's Gross Points

Monday, Apr. 25, 1960

Detroit's oldest and richest suburban area is the five-community section east of the city collectively called Grosse Pointe (pop. 50,000). Set back from the winding, tree-shaded streets are fine, solid colonial or brick mansions, occupied by some of Detroit's oldest (pre-automobile age) upper class, and by others who made the grade in business and professional life. Grosse Pointe is representative of dozens of wealthy residential areas in the U.S. where privacy, unhurried tranquillity, and unsullied property values are respected. But last week, Grosse Pointe was in the throes of a rude, untranquil exposé of its methods of maintaining tranquillity.

Swarthy? The trouble burst with the public revelation, during a court squabble between one property owner and his neighbors, that the Grosse Pointe Property Owners Association (973 families) and local real estate brokers had set up a rigid system for screening families who want to buy or build homes in Grosse Pointe. Unlike similar communities, where neighborhood solidarity is based on an unwritten gentleman's agreement, Grosse Pointe's screening system is based on a "written questionnaire, filled out by a private investigator on behalf of Grosse Pointe's "owner-vigilantes."

The three-page questionnaire, scaled on the basis of "points" (highest score: 100), grades would-be home owners on such qualities as descent, way of life (American?), occupation (Typical of his own race?), swarthiness (Very? Medium? Slightly? Not at all?), accent (Pronounced? Medium? Slight? None?), name (Typically American?), repute, education, dress (Neat or slovenly? Conservative or flashy?), status of occupation (sufficient eminence may offset poor grades in other respects). Religion is not scored, but weighed in the balance by a three-man Grosse Pointe screening committee. All prospects are handicapped on an ethnic and racial basis: Jews, for example, must score a minimum of 85 points, Italians 75, Greeks 65, Poles 55; Negroes and Orientals do not count.

http://content.time.com/time/subscri...826273,00.html

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

How unique is this situation to Toronto (in diverse cities in N. America or even elsewhere like London, European cities etc., though yes I know the history is different now than centuries ago, since Jewish populations are really small now in Europe)?

Even though I know stats for Jewish population are hard to compare due to censusing differences between countries/cities I have a hard time thinking about any American city where the Jewish population "segregated by choice" in a way that numerically compares to the segregation by Black, Hispanic etc. or other groups, let alone is the single one that leads on a residential statistical index.

In London the Jewish population is heavily concentrated in a handful of North London constituencies.

Toronto and Montreal have very geographically concentrated Jewish communities as well.

In the US, Jews aren't counted in the Census so hard to know. It obviously varies greatly by city. In some older cities like Cleveland they're very concentrated in a few suburbs.

But Black communities are especially segregated in Northeastern, rust belt and older Southern cities. They often reach what is called hyper-segregation - i.e. dissimilarity index of over 70.

[Camelback]

I'm voting other until I figure out what enclavism is.

[10023]

The idea of a “melting pot” is almost dystopian. Everyone looking the same, dressing the same, dancing the same, eating the same. It might be a pretty good global fusion cuisine, but then as any restaurant that tried to do “Pan-Asian” food demonstrates, it probably wouldn’t be. The differences make life more interesting.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by 10023

The idea of a “melting pot” is almost dystopian. Everyone looking the same, dressing the same, dancing the same, eating the same. It might be a pretty good global fusion cuisine, but then as any restaurant that tried to do “Pan-Asian” food demonstrates, it probably wouldn’t be. The differences make life more interesting.

This is a bit of an aside, but it always irks me that in science-fiction shows (like say Star Trek) there is a future where interracial marriage is completely and totally accepted, and yet there are still a ton of visibly black/white/etc. people around, and very few people who actually look interracial.

There's been ample examples across human history that in any situation where you don't either have geographic segregation (my tribe over here, your tribe over there) or social segregation (a caste system, more or less) what you end up with is everyone intermixing until there's no real "diversity" to speak of because everyone has been averaged out.

[10023]

Originally Posted by eschaton

This is a bit of an aside, but it always irks me that in science-fiction shows (like say Star Trek) there is a future where interracial marriage is completely and totally accepted, and yet there are still a ton of visibly black/white/etc. people around, and very few people who actually look interracial.

There's been ample examples across human history that in any situation where you don't either have geographic segregation (my tribe over here, your tribe over there) or social segregation (a caste system, more or less) what you end up with is everyone intermixing until there's no real "diversity" to speak of because everyone has been averaged out.

True. And those people are often quite attractive on average, like the Spanish (in Spain) being a mix of Celtic, Latin, German and Arab features.

[RST500]

Originally Posted by eschaton

This is a bit of an aside, but it always irks me that in science-fiction shows (like say Star Trek) there is a future where interracial marriage is completely and totally accepted, and yet there are still a ton of visibly black/white/etc. people around, and very few people who actually look interracial.

There's been ample examples across human history that in any situation where you don't either have geographic segregation (my tribe over here, your tribe over there) or social segregation (a caste system, more or less) what you end up with is everyone intermixing until there's no real "diversity" to speak of because everyone has been averaged out.

That was the dream of liberalism from the 60s, only boomer liberals in California still hold onto it, but it is not the reality of current trends.

"In response to greater demographic fragmentation, the woke left has pushed for policies geared towards racial equity such as a UC Berkeley study offering solutions to diversify Bay Area neighborhoods. The only counter position is from conservatives, who are marginal in California, with calls for assimilation like the English Only Movement. Both the equity agenda of woke liberalism and conservative’s assimilationist model would not work in a place as immensely diverse as California. Both sides are stuck in the past (the logic of the 60s Civil Rights Movement for liberals or a desire to return to the America of an earlier point, for conservatives) and offer a false paradigm that resists the inevitable trend of enclavism as part and parcel of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic future."

https://robertstark.substack.com/p/c...-pan-enclavism

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by RST500

That was the dream of liberalism from the 60s, only boomer liberals in California still hold onto it, but it is not the reality of current trends.

"In response to greater demographic fragmentation, the woke left has pushed for policies geared towards racial equity such as a UC Berkeley study offering solutions to diversify Bay Area neighborhoods. The only counter position is from conservatives, who are marginal in California, with calls for assimilation like the English Only Movement. Both the equity agenda of woke liberalism and conservative’s assimilationist model would not work in a place as immensely diverse as California. Both sides are stuck in the past (the logic of the 60s Civil Rights Movement for liberals or a desire to return to the America of an earlier point, for conservatives) and offer a false paradigm that resists the inevitable trend of enclavism as part and parcel of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic future."

https://robertstark.substack.com/p/c...-pan-enclavism

You mentioned the same substack in your OP. I don't know who the writer is, but he appears to have particular ideological axes to grind - and a lot of what he says is more-or-less unsupported assertions (not much data to back it up).

It's not surprising that Cali has developed more ethic enclaves as time goes on, since it's become less white and continues to attract large numbers of new immigrants (who are much more likely to settle down into ethnic neighborhoods). But I see no reason to presume the majority of Whites born in Santa Monica, blacks from Inglewood, Chinese from Diamond Bar, or Latinos from Boyle Heights will still be in those neighborhoods 30 years from now.

[RST500]

Originally Posted by eschaton

You mentioned the same substack in your OP. I don't know who the writer is, but he appears to have particular ideological axes to grind - and a lot of what he says is more-or-less unsupported assertions (not much data to back it up).

It's not surprising that Cali has developed more ethic enclaves as time goes on, since it's become less white and continues to attract large numbers of new immigrants (who are much more likely to settle down into ethnic neighborhoods). But I see no reason to presume the majority of Whites born in Santa Monica, blacks from Inglewood, Chinese from Diamond Bar, or Latinos from Boyle Heights will still be in those neighborhoods 30 years from now.

The article acknowledges that has been the reality and implies it is a problem.