Do Chgo's patterns of racial segregation in the 20th C still affect us (Chicago: homes, neighborhoods)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I personally don't think our segregation is the sole result of the first half of the 20th century. That era certainly put into place, but we've done nothing since then to eradicate it. In fact, we continue to perpetuate it in numerous ways. Look at suburbs which have turned over in terms of racial composition over the past two decades. That shows that the "dead zones" are not just a static problem created by others that we just can't solve despite earnest effort. Today's Chicagoans are active participants.
Actually, I don't think that's a ludicrous suggestion at all. We have tolerated this for decades and continue to do so. There is nothing "past" about it. You wouldn't believe the cr-p, both blatant and snide, I took for living in Berwyn, because that's a "Mexican neighborhood." If liberals truly cared about the issue, they'd be moving into these areas and putting their money where their mouths are to help resurrect the dead zones you speak of, not into Oak Park and Evanston, with their pseudo "integration."
I was about to reply to the thread, saying "Yes, Chicagos patterns of segregation inthe 20th century absolutely affects Chicago today." but since others addressed this, I thought I would address your post.
Oak Park did not have "pseudo-integration". In the 70s and 80s there was the most deliberate effort at integration, while surrounding communities were undergoing white flight, and were flipped overnight from all white to all black. Sure, today, it may not be considered very impressive to move to Oak Park or Evanston but they are what they are, partly because of a deliberate effort to improve diversity.
The only thing today that is keeping Oak Park and Evanston from being more integrated is cost of living. These two towns are expensive. When I was in living in Oak Park, I remember speaking with African Americans that wanted to live in Oak Park, but as they wanted to buy a SFH, they couldn't afford it.
Besides, sometimes existing residents in disadvantaged neighborhoods do not necessarily welcome "liberals moving in". We've seen this with anti-gentrification voices in places like Pilsen and Humboldt Park. In Chicago, and many other cities there is a kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" with "white hipsters and yuppies" that acts as a barrier to integration.
Besides, sometimes existing residents in disadvantaged neighborhoods do not necessarily welcome "liberals moving in". We've seen this with anti-gentrification voices in places like Pilsen and Humboldt Park. In Chicago, and many other cities there is a kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" with "white hipsters and yuppies" that acts as a barrier to integration.
The size of that as an obstacle for liberals seems to be directly correlated to the prospect of gentrification. As the upside increases, the downside of that decreases. I also think that in light of the problems some of our challenged neighborhoods are facing, something like this should be the least of the worries on minds of concerned liberals looking to rectify the sins of the past. A few anti-gentrification voices is nothing compared to some of the horrors that the people in our most challenged neighborhoods must endure every day. If we "are cursed today with a geography of the past that does not reflect our values and attitudes today," as the OP indicates then, well, get in there and fix it already! What's the hold up?
The size of that as an obstacle for liberals seems to be directly correlated to the prospect of gentrification. As the upside increases, the downside of that decreases. I also think that in light of the problems some of our challenged neighborhoods are facing, something like this should be the least of the worries on minds of concerned liberals looking to rectify the sins of the past. A few anti-gentrification voices is nothing compared to some of the horrors that the people in our most challenged neighborhoods must endure every day. If we "are cursed today with a geography of the past that does not reflect our values and attitudes today," as the OP indicates then, well, get in there and fix it already! What's the hold up?
Sins of the past??
What if you're a white liberal and have a family background that truly did experience ethnic persecution? What if you have grandparents that were in Stalinist labor camps in WWII? (like my Polish-American family)
What if the old generation in your family that experienced those injustices and human rights abuses went on to create a great life for them and their families in the US? And therefore have grandchildren who grow up not understanding why historic persecution should hold back people from improving their lives in the late 20th/early 21st century.
Why should a white liberal, unless they have a proven inheritance that involved historic business practices that exploited minorities spend their lives trying to rectify the sins of the past?
I have been privileged. I've had an easy life. I can drive into a wealthy neighborhood and guaranteed not to be profiled by the police. I'm not doubting that. But given my own personal family background, I don't feel like I should have a philosophy that reaches out beyond "you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink."
For this reason, my favorite cities/metro areas in the US, already have a higher than average % of African American and Hispanics in the middle to upper middle classes as one of the many factors that go into my choice of which cities/metro areas to move to and which ones that suit me better.
Obviously, my sarcasm was lost here. I'm just tired of liberals blaming our "horrible" past for all of these injustices but not doing anything about it themselves in the present. If one feels there's this grave injustice of segregation, well, put your tender bits where your mouth is and move in there and un-segregate it. But no one is willing to do this, so the problem persists.
To go back to the OPs original point, I just don't see segregation as a past problem that'll be fixed with just the right tonic. I see it as a very current problem that's growing worse and worse each day. As one neighborhood gentrifies, another place nearby becomes more segregated. This issue exists everywhere but it seems much more pronounced in this City. And I don't just blame the middle and upper middle classes either. Most sane people wouldn't want to live in some of these neighborhoods for very legitimate reasons.
segregation is a national issue and I certainly never meant to say it has gone away….here or nationally. it is clear that we are a highly divided nation.
but i do feel that Chicago does not stand out in the nature of its segregation compared to most cities where in the first half of the 20th century, it clearly did.
Please keep in mind that this thread is not about how segregated Chicago is as much as its pattern of segregation that made for large stretches of the city to black zones….a condition that pretty well describes Chicago alone…..has created these dead zones resistant to being brought into the fabric of the society. in other cities, as i noted, there was more of tendency for the ghetto areas to be one particularly neighborhood, another one there, rather than these giant stretches of real estate in Chicago.
my post is about physical geography. what i'm asking is if this pattern of Chicago settlement did in fact create dead zones that cities were ghetto neighborhoods were spread out and not adjacent did not.
let me illustrate by the best example i can give: I realize that the city's near north side is prime real estate and that the pressure to rebuild and redevelop would be far greater than than most areas of the city. but if you look at Cabrini Green and you realize that it is small and neighborhood size, it is subject to redevelopment, the very redevelopment that has taken place.
contrast this with the west and, far more so, the south side, where the traditional ghetto area has been virtually impossible to bring back into the fabric of the city.
guys, i'm not saying i'm right or wrong…indeed i did state my premise as a question so i got a sense if there is anyone who agrees with this…..I'm merely asking if you think Chicago has been negatively affected by the patterns of large scale, city-sized ghetto regions.
but i do feel that Chicago does not stand out in the nature of its segregation compared to most cities
It does, though. Do a google search to see studies determining the most segregated cities in the US. Chicago is nearly always on the list and is often near the top.
one thought on Evanston and Oak Park. Obviously we are talking about two communities that are always compared due to their similarities. There is nothing like either of them, the ultimate city-in-the-suburbs, liberal, progressive, highly educated, socially conscious, diverse, etc. The two were even known for having identical Marshall Field's.
but let's keep in mind that they differ vastly in their story of race:
for Evanston, far removed from ghetto areas in Chicago, the black community had its roots as those who worked as servants on communities up and down the North Shore. west Evanston is old, historic, and is the product of a highly segregated city. Evanston was never really "integrated", nor was any attempt made to do so.
Oak Park, close to the ghetto areas in the city immediately to its east, worried that Chicago's black belt would cross Austin Blvd and Oak Park would change from black to white. for Oak Park, integration came with a plan, an attempt to truly integrate the community that involved steering white families to neighborhoods nearest to Austin Blvd., made more enticing by the way side streets ended in cul-de-sacs rather than connect through into the Austin neighborhood. Black families were steered the the west side of OP.
I graduated from ETHS in the 1960s. Of course, the school always had a good sized black enrollment. and at that time, OPRF had, if i am not mistaken, 0 black students. Oak Park was known at the time not only as "the world's largest village" (a title skokie was to take away), but as the home of Dr. Percy Lavon Julian, known as the "only black in Oak Park.
in regard to segregation, Evanston and Oak Park are vastly different.
one thought on Evanston and Oak Park. Obviously we are talking about two communities that are always compared due to their similarities. There is nothing like either of them, the ultimate city-in-the-suburbs, liberal, progressive, highly educated, socially conscious, diverse, etc. The two were even known for having identical Marshall Field's.
but let's keep in mind that they differ vastly in their story of race:
for Evanston, far removed from ghetto areas in Chicago, the black community had its roots as those who worked as servants on communities up and down the North Shore. west Evanston is old, historic, and is the product of a highly segregated city. Evanston was never really "integrated", nor was any attempt made to do so.
Oak Park, close to the ghetto areas in the city immediately to its east, worried that Chicago's black belt would cross Austin Blvd and Oak Park would change from black to white. for Oak Park, integration came with a plan, an attempt to truly integrate the community that involved steering white families to neighborhoods nearest to Austin Blvd., made more enticing by the way side streets ended in cul-de-sacs rather than connect through into the Austin neighborhood. Black families were steered the the west side of OP.
I graduated from ETHS in the 1960s. Of course, the school always had a good sized black enrollment. and at that time, OPRF had, if i am not mistaken, 0 black students. Oak Park was known at the time not only as "the world's largest village" (a title skokie was to take away), but as the home of Dr. Percy Lavon Julian, known as the "only black in Oak Park.
in regard to segregation, Evanston and Oak Park are vastly different.
Very true. I sometimes do forget this.
To your original point though, yes I do think there is nothing segregation-minded about any of Chicagos new residents any more than what you find in other cities.
I think Chicagos new residents are probably just as liberal/progressive/diversity valuing as what you find on the coasts. It is those whose roots go deep down in the neighborhood where you find cultural differences between there and elsewhere.
Basically, the way I see it: It is the cities that were known as highly Bohemian/beatnik/hippie cities in the 60s where artists/musicians flocked to during the postwar decades (Greenwich Village/East Village, Haight and North Beach in SF, Venice/Laurel Canyon/Sunset strip, etc. in LA) transformed these early cities early on, then they subsequently became too expensive for deeply rooted working class people to stay.
The fact that Chicago was less of a beatnik/hippie destination, and remained a relatively affordable/well kept secret meant that many of long time inhabitants with their old neighborhood mentality remain to this day. This makes Chicago IMO stand out from NYC/LA/SF.
Then of course you have Southern/Sunbelt cities that may lie in a politically and socially conservative state, don't have the old segregated city mentality precisely because those cities are so new, with transplants that have flocked there for affordable real estate and mild winters.
So yeah, Chicago is kind of unique and complex I guess.
Who are Chicago's wealthiest today? Are they originally from Chic? Are they self-made? Where do they choose to reside/work? To where do their kids choose to migrate for own careers?
Nrly all white/Jewish guys (not girls) originally from middle-income families from somewhere else?
Ask same of SiliconValley; BeverlyHills; Manhattan
Ask same of NBA/NFL billionaire owners vs millionaire players
Then ask what are those dynamics among wealthiest in Tokyo or Stuttgart or any other semi-affluent/economically relevant town on planet
Humans tend to self-select/self-segregate along various lines, no matter what central planners may like to legislate/argue abt virtues of "diversity" in some mythical utopia
Planners never made a dollar of own so don't understand dynamics of markets and human self-interest/upward mobility/natural selection
Can segregation be a good thing? Does it preserve certain cultures that came to America? I'm talking about people freely and willing to live in a community of similar culture and race.
If every race and culture lived together would our American culture become more homogenized?
I was talking to a guy from Chicago the other day and he said that all races and cultures mix in the Loop, but then they go home to a neighborhood of similar race and culture. Is this a bad thing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
