Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its interesting the relationship between the above terms and how their context have different meanings depending on your point of view, background, or era when you were born etc. You hear in many of these forums that is such and such neighborhood diverse or "I want to move to a diverse neighborhood", but what is the real distinction between being diverse and simply being intergrated?
My general take on the distinction between the two (looking as it relates to race) is this:
An "intergrated" neighborhood is one where people of various races and backgrounds simply LIVE together. Most of the socializing by its residents is done outside of the neighborhood and people simply reside in the neighborhood. This does not mean that people are not friendly or hospitable towards one another but there is clearly and outward focus in terms of its residents. Other people are drawn to the neighborhood for other reasons such as location, its affordability, safety (which rallies this type of neighborhood..when there is a threat to it), housing style etc as the primary attractions. (examples that come to mind would be a new subdivision under contruction where the location and price points attract various types of homeowners; a gentrifying historic neighborhood in a city; or a neighborhood that was previously "all white" experienced some flight but many white families still remain)
A "diverse" neighborhood (again using race as the diversifying factor) is one that recognizes its diversity and celebrates it in one form or another by promoting inclusivity. The neighborhood is more inwardly focused, values and promotes interaction among residents as part of the culture of the neighborhood. This inward focus draws in other people with similiar interest and "likemindedness". Factors such as safety and affordability are also important but a "diverse" neighborhood values its diversity equally if not more than these two characteristics. (examples could be neighborhoods that host festivals, events, or activities, that draw neighbors out and people from outside the community in; makes an effort to involve engage all residents and values their contribution, have a unique ethnic heritage or culture that is celebrated and preserved by new residents..even if they are not of the same heritage or part of that culture.)
These two examples sit at the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum from one another. Most neighborhoods that fit these criteria would not necessarily fall into one or the other but could fall in at various locations along this continuum and move along it in either directions over time depending on its residents.
These are not judgements to say one is better than the other just thoughts on the differences....Any other theories or thoughts???????
Last edited by Woodlands; 05-12-2009 at 10:23 AM..
My interpretation of racially diverse and integrated neighborhoods.
Looking at the racial makeup of a neighborhood doesn't give a clear indication if the neighborhood is integrated but does show the racial diversity. If multiple races live in an area then I would consider the area diverse as far as race is concerned.
An integrated racial neighborhood would have everyone interacting so that the different aspects of the races are integrated. I don't think racial integration exist in most areas but racial diversification is common in America.
A diverse area should have a bunch of different races and not be dominated by a certain race. Requesting an area to have a dominant race is not asking for diversity.
How many races need to live in an area for it to be diverse? Can an area be considered diverse but exclude a race or races? What percentage of the races is considered true diversity? Even if an area is diverse does that really mean anything or does the area have to be integrated?
PS
Is racial diversity and integration beneficial to society?
Last edited by mrboltonman; 05-12-2009 at 11:57 AM..
Reason: addition
I think economic status plays into this also. Diversity or integration should include people of varied economic levels as much as race. In fact, I don't see race as that big of a factor in relation to class.
-Diverse is just a "salad bowl mixture" of people in a close proximity. But for the most part, the people stay to their own kind (or certain "acceptable" kinds) of people and sticks to its own culture to a tee. In this perspective of diversity (or what the OP would call integration), it doesn't do anything for race relations, and oftentimes, makes things worse.
-Integration has nothing to do with its diversity in numbers, but the treatment and social openness of the majority of its citizens (minorities invited to neighborhood socials and clubs, interracial relationships that no one bats an eye at, etc.). Think of it as this: If a city is 100% of a particular race but if a minority (with the same personality as the residents) suddenly moved there and the overall community has no strife about it and welcomes them w/ opening arms, it would be easier to "integrate" into that neighborhood (versus a diverse neighborhood where everyone sticks to their own groups and/or excludes the "scapegoat" race).
Sorry if I had a bad taste over the word "diversity," but at the university I attend here in this state, it's been used as a buzzword to attract people of different cultures, but in reality, it's just many people who quite frankly don't like each other. Palestinians hating Jews for some crap that happened 40 years ago, Jews hating Muslims over crap that happened over thousands of years ago, whites hating blacks over them "causing all of America's ills," blacks hating whites because "they're keeping them down," Asians hating blacks to impress the whites, and everyone hating Latinos because they can speak two languages, etc, etc, etc!
Diversity, IMO, concentrates on overemphasizing differences to the point of making people think they're too different to find common ground.
I've been to places that were less diverse but people shared common interests, backgrounds, goals, income, etc, hence the people (regardless of race, religion, or ethnic group) had more affable relations than many people in places that plugged "diversity" as their selling point.
An interesting discussion.
In writing my book, I use the word desegregation instead of integration which in Baltimore often was a passing phase between desegregation and resegregation.
Using terminology that was employed by earlier posters, I would describe the original Moshe Safdie-designed sections of Coldspring as being both racially integrated and diverse. People do things together. In fact, for more than a decade after we left Coldspring, we still got invited to a "deck party" on Angelica Terrace.
Our current neighborhood, Cheswolde, is desegregated. It has several black homowners who have been here since the 1970s. It is also increasingly Orthodox Jewish. But the believers don't socialize with one another -- different synagogue, I suspect. They have next to no contact with one another or with us, goyim. When a neighbor's daughter celebrfted her bat mitzvah, I was flabbergasted to realize that we were about the only people from the neighborhood.
As for my definitions, it's a bit more opposite:
Diversity, IMO, concentrates on overemphasizing differences to the point of making people think they're too different to find common ground.
Is there a problem with looking at our differences? Differences are what make the U.S. a great place to live. It would be boring if we all looked, dressed, acted and spoke the same. I do agree to often the word diversity is used in the wrong context.
I honestly believe there is a way to have diversity and integration, but the only way to have both is by having an open honest conversation about how we effect each other and taking responsibility for the group we belong to. There is much privelege to be had by certain groups over others and if that privelege is not recognized we cannot have true integration. We just have a bunch of folk that look different. Also diversity can relate to more than just race, but religion, sexual orientation, ability, age and ethnicity.
I applaud diversity and inclusion and have made it my life's work to assist in social justice issues to help all people people from different backgrounds. I don't want to level the playing field. I want the playing field to be higher for everyone.
_______
Putting Baltimore into the conversation...I love living in Baltimore and it really hurts to see the gentrification that is happening here.
I'm glad gentrification is happening in Baltimore. Gentrification is revitalizing areas through out the city and making it livable. Baltimore at this point could use a lot more gentrification to turn around some pretty run down areas.
I really hope the State Center Project gets approved and the McCulloh homes get replaced with something that benefits the city and its residents. I really think this project has the potential to revitalize a huge area of the city that isn't utilized or integrated to its full potential. From what I've heard it looks like the verdict should be out on May 15 if the project is going to go thru or not.
I'm glad gentrification is happening in Baltimore. Gentrification is revitalizing areas through out the city and making it livable. Baltimore at this point could use a lot more gentrification to turn around some pretty run down areas.
I really hope the State Center Project gets approved and the McCulloh homes get replaced with something that benefits the city and its residents. I really think this project has the potential to revitalize a huge area of the city that isn't utilized or integrated to its full potential. From what I've heard it looks like the verdict should be out on May 15 if the project is going to go thru or not.
Ok let me rephrase my original post. I am glad for the "revitalization", but not at the expense of those who have lived here being displaced. There are people who have been in their homes for 20 or 30 years physically being moved out of their homes.
And gettin back to the post about diversity. I honestly do not forsee the same demographic of people living in Baltimore in the next ten years and I really do not see intergration either.
Thanks for the feedback...and I can agree with what has been said here and some of you raised some good points...
Lets use Union Square and a portion of SW Baltimore as very unscientific examples..
I pass through the Union Square often and have visited the Square on several occasions. The area, I am guessing, was probably predominately white in the early to mid 1900s; then became predominately African American in the mid 1900s to late 90s; and now has probably seen an increase in middle and upper income, african americans, white, other ethnic groups since the stadiums and westside development has increased for its affordability and historic housing stock..though most of the surrounding neighborhood is still predominately African American and lower income. How intergrated and/or diverse is this neighborhood?
Further south of Union Square.. near Fulton, Monroe, Wilkens Ave area....or I guess what would be considered SW Baltimore.....I have noticed on the numerous times that I ventured through this area that the appears predominately African American though there is a considerable white population and some latinos. There was plenty of communal interaction going on (though in a few spots somewhat suspect) and for the most part the neighborhood appeared to have a culture of its own that everyone was part of.. How intergrated and/or diverse is this neighborhood??
Granted it takes more than a few or even many trips to a neighborhood, living, and meeting residents to determine these types of things and thats why i prefaced with "unscientific". Butl, everyone has opinions based on their definitions and experiences that they use to place meaning behind these these words.. so I am just curious.. since living in a diverse community is something widely marketed by most cities and communities
The Union Square neighborhood defies easy categorization. The square was created in the 1850s as an attraction to encourage speculative housing. A mechant class took residence around the square -- Stricker Street facing the square was known as the "Millionaires' Row." There were up and downs in those early days, including foreclosures. (There were major national economic depressions in the 1880s and 1890s).
In the 1910s and 1920s, the well-to-do population around the square was largely replaced by Lithuanians. Blacks lived in alleys. During WWII, many big rowhouses facing the square became rooming houses. Several attempts at revitalization followed in the 1960s. But while the square gentrified, much of the neighborhood did not. Blacks never accounted for a majority of residents.
Racial change along Fulton Avenue began in 1944. At that point, southwest Baltimore nearby was a mixture of old German butchers and hillbillies. With industries disappearing, a drastic change followed along Wilkens Avenue.
One has to differentiate between the square and the rest of the neighborhood. The square is a middle-class island in a sea of black and white poverty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
