U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which is more significant
Great Migration 8 47.06%
1950-now migration 6 35.29%
both roughly equal 3 17.65%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-28-2012, 06:36 PM
 
9,382 posts, read 9,539,690 times
Reputation: 5786

Advertisements

Often People refer to ~1880-1930 the "great Migration" era, in which many black southerners made the trip north to be treated (more) equally.
but between 1950-present) there was a larger Migration, both to the south and to the suburbs.
In 1950 Detroit was about 18x Larger than Phoenix, now Phoenix is 2x the size as Detroit. LA is now larger than Chicago and Philly, Dallas now larger than Bostn ect.
So which one do you think changed the demographic structure of America more, the Great Migration (1880-1930) or the AC revolution (1950-present)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-28-2012, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
37 posts, read 73,348 times
Reputation: 33
the 1950-present migration. Look at how rapidly seats in the House of Representatives declined in states like New York from 1950 to present. In 1950, New York State had 43 representatives. Now, NYS has 27 representatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 06:52 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,565,147 times
Reputation: 5662
Great Migration was far more important. People were moving because they were oppressed, raped and killed by their local governments and citizens with no hope for a future. The migration from 1950-present is just moving for some better weather. There would have been no blues/soul come out of Chicago. There would have been no Harlem Renaissance. There would have been no Motown. I think we can do without the great culture that has come out of Orlando, Vegas, Tampa, Phoenix, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 07:08 PM
 
5,265 posts, read 14,902,974 times
Reputation: 4238
the "ac revolution" is ridiculously overstated. It makes it sound like everyone from the pre-WWII regions in the northeast/midwest moved south and that it's all abandoned and now everyone lives in the sunbelt. Yeah, not quite. The real 1950s-present migration was from the core cities to suburbs. Sunbelt cities are largely suburban inside city limits....Pre-war cities have their suburban areas outside of city limits. The city of Boston might be smaller than it was in the 1950s and might have less than half the population of Phoenix....but the Greater Boston metro area is still larger than Phoenix's...and larger than it was in the 1950's. Yes there has been migration from the north to the south/west; but a lot of the growth in those areas is because they are closer to the boarder and therefor have way more immigration from Latin America.

Another interesting tidbit and slightly ironic when considering the comparison in this thread; is the fact that a great deal of the migration from the northeast to the southeast is from blacks who are descended from the real great migration. Northern blacks move south at more than twice the rate of northern whites.

The west and south are growing very rapidly ( or at least they were before the Great Recession...time has yet to tell how much of a shift that will cause in long-term migration patterns in the US) and becoming more "relevant"..but that doesn't have to mean that the north/midwest is somehow becoming "less relevant"....the country overall has grown a lot in the last 50 years especially from immigration; it just happens to be that the south and west have grown more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 12:20 AM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
6,520 posts, read 7,461,791 times
Reputation: 10925
I left the midwest for the south. I am decended from people who had moved north during Michigans auto boom decades ago. What is happening is a reversal of history, many people are leaving midwest states for the south to find better weather or jobs. A great many of those are like me, the grandchildren of the same people who moved north two generations ago. When people talk about the "great migration" they are talking about black people moving north. What no one talks about is the fact that at least as many white people moved north too during the same time for similar reasons, to find work in those big auto plants, steel mills etc. The northeast and midwest were the boom states of the early 20th century, just like the Carolinas or Georgia today. The state I used to reside in, Michigan was the biggest of these boom states thanks to Henry Ford. Its population more than doubled, and Detroit became the third biggest city in America. Most of those moving there came from the upper south, Kentucky, Tennesee, North Carolina, Missouri and Arkansas. Those states are now top choices for those moving from Michigan to the south. Amazing how history has reversed in less than 100 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 08:23 AM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,931 posts, read 11,801,641 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Great Migration was far more important. People were moving because they were oppressed, raped and killed by their local governments and citizens with no hope for a future. The migration from 1950-present is just moving for some better weather. There would have been no blues/soul come out of Chicago. There would have been no Harlem Renaissance. There would have been no Motown. I think we can do without the great culture that has come out of Orlando, Vegas, Tampa, Phoenix, etc.
The earliest forms of black music began in the south. There would be no Motown, Chicago soul, or hip-hop, had it not been for cities like New Orleans and Memphis. The north only borrowed from the culture that was already prevalent in the south.

The majority of our population and the roots of Black American culture remains in the Southern US. It's pretty much always been that way and will likely never change. The New Migration is just seeing a lot black folks return "home".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 09:50 AM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,541,980 times
Reputation: 746
It's really a misnomer to speak of a post-1950 "migration" to the South. All of the Northern and Western metropolitan areas have larger populations now than they did in 1950. That includes economically struggling places like Detroit and Cleveland. What happened was that the Sunbelt cities by and large grew faster than the other ones. So the Sunbelt share of the country's population certainly grew.

There was some direct migration--for example, there's an interesting book called To The Golden Cities (Deborah Dash Moore) about Jewish migration to Los Angeles and Miami. It talks about some of the political issues they encountered, like racial segregation in Miami. But a lot more of the growth in the Sunbelt cities was from the children and grandchildren of these original migrants, from returning soldiers who chose to settle in Western cities they'd seen, and from international migration,especially after 1965 (and their children and grandchildren).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 10:10 AM
 
Location: NC
1,177 posts, read 2,216,248 times
Reputation: 787
Without the Great Migration there would be no significant migration back to the south for African Americans. African Americans are moving back south in huge numbers only because that's where the roots and culture was started and is strongly. So I say the Great Migration was more significant. The Harlem Renaissance was born from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 10:34 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,565,147 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi View Post
The earliest forms of black music began in the south. There would be no Motown, Chicago soul, or hip-hop, had it not been for cities like New Orleans and Memphis. The north only borrowed from the culture that was already prevalent in the south.

The majority of our population and the roots of Black American culture remains in the Southern US. It's pretty much always been that way and will likely never change. The New Migration is just seeing a lot black folks return "home".
The earliest forms became of black music is from Africa, they were already songs they brought over with them.
And there would be no african americans in the u.s. if it wasn't for the slave trade.
The back to africa movement was strong at the same time as the great migration, 10's of thousands went back to Africa, Liberia especially.
One key factor, either way they were leaving the south because they were facing mass oppression, then once they got north they weren't oppressed but still faced economic strife, many still went back to africa after the prominence of Marcus Garvey.
Not sure why the south needs to be brought into this and having it's horn tooted, the blacks in the south did what they did *despite* their environment...The south certainly did not nurture them. I was talking about what happened after the great migration. You can't discount what happened somewhere else, just because something happened before it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 10:50 AM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,931 posts, read 11,801,641 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
The earliest forms became of black music is from Africa, they were already songs they brought over with them.
And there would be no african americans in the u.s. if it wasn't for the slave trade.
The back to africa movement was strong at the same time as the great migration, 10's of thousands went back to Africa, Liberia especially.
One key factor, either way they were leaving the south because they were facing mass oppression, then once they got north they weren't oppressed but still faced economic strife, many still went back to africa after the prominence of Marcus Garvey.
Not sure why the south needs to be brought into this and having it's horn tooted, the blacks in the south did what they did *despite* their environment...The south certainly did not nurture them. I was talking about what happened after the great migration. You can't discount what happened somewhere else, just because something happened before it.
I was doing no such thing. You were the one who seemed to be disregarding the south's contributions to black culture and suggesting that the region's only draw was "better weather".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top