U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2013, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Live in NY State, work in CT
8,831 posts, read 14,234,561 times
Reputation: 3250

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92 View Post
My initial thought is that, despite income, crime, and other factors, most people tend to want to live around people that look like them. But that can't be the entire picture, because in places like Oak Park, IL & Shaker Heights, Ohio, people of different backgrounds live together fine (or at least seem to). There is no flight of any sort. What makes these areas stay diverse compared to other areas? There's no obvious "flight."
I have a theory regarding these 2 cities. Perhaps the fact that when these cities were "majority white" they were also "heavily Jewish"?

Now why would that make a difference, two factors:

1) Historically, Jews were probably the most oppressed, discriminated group of white people, so perhaps not as quick to apply the same back to other oppressed groups that moved in, even if it was people who didn't "look like them".

2) Compared to other white groups, Jews overall historically have been the most liberal politically, with a high history of "social justice" activism.

Now to be fair, arguing against it is I can find other once heavily Jewish "inner ring suburbs" where white flight very much did occur, two that come right to my mind are Mt. Vernon, NY and Southfield, MI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2013, 06:45 PM
 
3,700 posts, read 3,026,594 times
Reputation: 10007
American cities began as the caldron that allowed for the "melting pot" coming together of many different Euro cultures, but they were mostly caucasians. Today we see the evolution of that caldron finally including people of color. Yes, the whites still hightail it to the burbs when they can afford it, but the rate of urban return for young professional whites is definitely up. In a word, ignorance causes white flight. In the fifties, city living whites were people who were recent migrants from the world of rural agriculture, Dakotas, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, and points west. They weren't used to seeing black folks or Mexican's in large numbers, they were filled with fear, and many times responded to the inclusion of blacks in the neighborhood with violence.

Ray Suarez, the NPR commentator, has written about the old neighborhoods, now in the heart of our largest cities, as being a place where we go to enjoy the music, restaurants, parks, and sometimes just to remember. The new city citizens aren't the old guard of the Euro-migrant days of yesteryear but they are here to stay, he had this to say about that.

They now speak with an accent. Their plaster is shot. Their windows rattle in the sash. We eat in their restaurants, wondering if the car is safe. We listen to their symphonies and regret that long drive home. We remember a million years in ten million childhoods. We feel a mixture of sadness, nostalgia, and relief when we take that final turn and swing onto the freeway entrance ramp. We head home: to a place where we can choose our neighbors"

America really never lived up to it's myths, yeah, the BS history of our stellar public schools were fine for prepping the white kids for their rosy future in the great vanilla land of suburban homes and good paying jobs in the trades or the world of the Men in gray flannel suits, but, it wasn't a world open to all. Segregation is still a fact of American life, economic and social segregation was accomplished by the suburban buildout of the fifties and only the poorest of whites remained in the large cities until they too could get away from the blacks and the fear they felt. I recently attended a high school graduation ceremony in a moderately sized west coast city, the majority of the kids were white, and that's the way the suburban locals want it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2013, 07:24 PM
 
155 posts, read 259,994 times
Reputation: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber View Post
American cities began as the caldron that allowed for the "melting pot" coming together of many different Euro cultures, but they were mostly caucasians. Today we see the evolution of that caldron finally including people of color. Yes, the whites still hightail it to the burbs when they can afford it, but the rate of urban return for young professional whites is definitely up. In a word, ignorance causes white flight. In the fifties, city living whites were people who were recent migrants from the world of rural agriculture, Dakotas, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, and points west. They weren't used to seeing black folks or Mexican's in large numbers, they were filled with fear, and many times responded to the inclusion of blacks in the neighborhood with violence.

Ray Suarez, the NPR commentator, has written about the old neighborhoods, now in the heart of our largest cities, as being a place where we go to enjoy the music, restaurants, parks, and sometimes just to remember. The new city citizens aren't the old guard of the Euro-migrant days of yesteryear but they are here to stay, he had this to say about that.

They now speak with an accent. Their plaster is shot. Their windows rattle in the sash. We eat in their restaurants, wondering if the car is safe. We listen to their symphonies and regret that long drive home. We remember a million years in ten million childhoods. We feel a mixture of sadness, nostalgia, and relief when we take that final turn and swing onto the freeway entrance ramp. We head home: to a place where we can choose our neighbors"

America really never lived up to it's myths, yeah, the BS history of our stellar public schools were fine for prepping the white kids for their rosy future in the great vanilla land of suburban homes and good paying jobs in the trades or the world of the Men in gray flannel suits, but, it wasn't a world open to all. Segregation is still a fact of American life, economic and social segregation was accomplished by the suburban buildout of the fifties and only the poorest of whites remained in the large cities until they too could get away from the blacks and the fear they felt. I recently attended a high school graduation ceremony in a moderately sized west coast city, the majority of the kids were white, and that's the way the suburban locals want it.
When you call whites ignorant for their fear of blacks as a reason for white flight, what about the 1960s riots, where blacks were burning their own neighborhoods? Riots after the Rodney King court case? Whites probably fear riots after a not guilty verdict in the Zimmerman trial. Why is Martin Luther King Parkway one of the more dangerous areas of the city, and it doesn't matter in which city the parkway is located? Are whites ignorant to fear what is real?

America is more like a mixed salad than a melting pot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 01:52 AM
 
2,798 posts, read 2,513,019 times
Reputation: 6165
The following was my answer to a Question someone posed "Why Do People Hate Immigrants/". I think it covers many of the same tangential issues of "White Flight" posed in your question. Simply insert whatever non white group for 'immigrant' and it should be comprehensible.



I wouldn't say there is 'hatred' toward immigrants. I believe there are few consistent variables and conditions which lead to wary approach to immigrants which the most ignorant use as focal point of disdain, and the elites (leaders) use for gain.

At most basic is anthropologically and socioculturally people like and feel most comfortable around others most like them. It is a basic acquired ancient human evolutionary survival trait.

The readiness and ability to assimilate. Some groups due to physical likeness could assimilate fairly easily by simply adjusting customs, speech etc... in a generation. Others due to visual physical difference from the majority were isolated simply because they could be readily isolated for scorn / derision due to obivous external differences (skin color, etc...)

Culturally, immigrants who maintain a strong native tribal tradition and ethnicity (food, music, differing customs, and etiquette from majority's norms, etc...) are again, easily isolated (whether intentially or voluntarily - again the anthro socio evolutionary survival wiring). In many cases, I would describe this as being analogous in horticulture to 'companion planting' concept. Some groups (tribes) based on their differing cultural values / standards and morals simply do not mix well .i.e a natural toxicity. The psychographic mindsets do not blend (too many disconcordant social data points if you graphed them on a spectragraph).

And lastly, the "Behavioral control" flash point: usury of "Immigrants" by elites. The ability to exploit immigrant's due to lack of knowledge of systems (legal rights, workers rights, language barriers, etc...) historically enabled the playing off of one group against another. Often, it enables pitting middle, lower working classes against immigrants for labor arbitrage. This distracts attention AWAY from what elites are doing in systemic ways to subjugate others (think financial system mechanisms which socialize risk and privatize the benefit to the few) and ensure hegemonic control. Some immigrant groups readily understood the system and used their numbers and knowledge to gain political power (Irish and Italians in NE and midwest urban centers for example).

Immigrants can also be used by elites as a tool to provide a permanent underclass by which to keep the majority, working and middle class, 'preoccupied' - while massive theft and deception is occurring by so called leaders.

Finally, when levels of immigration are kept managed, I believe their is less natural animosity toward them. The current problems are most evident due to ILLEGAL immigration. Whereby, vast numbers of non contributing ILLEGAL immigrants receive government benefits and programs which are being paid for by naturalized taxpaying citizens. This is another blatant attempt to divide and conquer while distracting masses from other issues.

There may be a few others I missed, but I believe these encompass the main reasons immigrants (in general and at different times and in different regions) are not received well.



Personal context: my parents were first generation "Americans" not "hyphenated Americans" who grew up in the great depression. Both lived in very 'ethnically diverse' inner city areas - gateway neighborhoods for the poorest entering the major metropolitan areas of the early 20th century - cultural differences were tolerated but tended to be similar. My fathers parents chose to move to a neighborhood further east that was mostly same ethnicity (east European) , my mothers parents stayed in the mixed neighborhood the rest of their lives as it transitioned.

Interestingly, after they married rather than moving to one of the many individual ethnically dominated areas, they chose, post WW2, to go to another diverse working class area, live frugally for three years and then before the first child was school age, moved subsequently further out to what is now an inner ring suburb which was primarily white working and middle class with a few higher socio economic class developments.

I don't know if they consciously made that move to suburb for 'white flight' purposes but rather because they wanted a larger house for growing family. The mindset I picked up from my parents as a child was, they didn't care as much what color someone was, but rather, that their behavior and cultural values were in common: they were respectful, civil, law abiding, inculcated a love for education and achievement in their children, and cared and maintained their property with personal pride of ownership, even if it didn't show signs of material wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 04:48 AM
 
305 posts, read 434,386 times
Reputation: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justhiremenow View Post
Simple: When an area becomes a Black or Hispanic Majority the quality of life for everyone (including the Blacks and Hispanics) go down hill.
I wouldn't say its that simple in an area where Blacks or Hispanics are very well-established and include people of different social classes. Some of the best suburban neighborhoods in the southwest are 80-90%+ Hispanic and a world away from the barrio. I think "Middle Class Flight" is a better term.

I would say that, in places like South Texas, where it is, overall about 90% Hispanic, the best neighborhoods are generally those that are around 15-20% non-Hispanic (including Asian or Black). The bad neighborhoods are 99.5% Hispanic. But that is more a function of income.

And, as most black residents in these communities are military retirees or active duty military officers or professionals in Homeland Security, ICE, Border Patrol - I have seen cases where one sees a neighborhood move up in socio-economic value with black arrivals.

Then again, I suppose someone will argue that south/west Texas and New Mexico is not the "real" U.S. But I think there is a similar phenomenon in some southern cities and around DC in places that are heavily black - there are black ghettos but also mostly black suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 04:49 AM
 
Location: Washington State
15,358 posts, read 8,025,596 times
Reputation: 13165
Below is taken from City data's stats on the cities:

Detroit - 82% black, Murders per 100,00 - 48
New Orleans - 60% black, murders/100,000 - 57
Gary, Indy - 84% black, murders/100,000 - 37
Baltimore - 64% black, murders/100,000 - 31
Plano, Tx - 7% black, murders/100,000 - 2
Bellevue, Wa - 2 % black, murders/100,000 - .8
Boise, Id - 1% black, murders/100,000 - .5

When you look at stats like that and performance of schools, you want to put your kids in a better situation. It's not discrimination causing white flight, it's not wanting to put your family in danger and giving them the best opportunity that you can. It's a shame that you can't point out truths without being attacked but I fully expect some angry emails and the political correctness machine to come down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 07:25 AM
 
5,799 posts, read 4,812,198 times
Reputation: 17499
How about taking "race" completely out of it?

It's population density. I think that as soon as any person gets enough money they move to a home where they can have more space and separation from their neighbors. Living in too close proximity with others causes stress, which causes fighting.

That's the reason why people of whatever color move away from the crowded core of cities and why there is urban sprawl.

Much of what was called "White Flight" in the 1960s was the children of immigrants having more money than their parents and so having the ability to choose to have more space around them.

Why do some people go back to the core? Because the sprawl has created its own problems - costs associated with transportation and land prices - and because there's now more space in the core.

Then add to this the thing previously discussed: "Like Likes Like". People just feel more comfortable among others who are like themselves.

The above two things would explain the wealthy primarily black suburban neighborhood OP described in the first post.

And I know that people are going to latch onto the post above this one, so I'll say it first: for the comparisons to be accurate one would have to compare cities of equal size with the same population density and economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 11:07 AM
 
155 posts, read 259,994 times
Reputation: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother View Post
How about taking "race" completely out of it?

It's population density. I think that as soon as any person gets enough money they move to a home where they can have more space and separation from their neighbors. Living in too close proximity with others causes stress, which causes fighting.

That's the reason why people of whatever color move away from the crowded core of cities and why there is urban sprawl.

Much of what was called "White Flight" in the 1960s was the children of immigrants having more money than their parents and so having the ability to choose to have more space around them.

Why do some people go back to the core? Because the sprawl has created its own problems - costs associated with transportation and land prices - and because there's now more space in the core.

Then add to this the thing previously discussed: "Like Likes Like". People just feel more comfortable among others who are like themselves.

The above two things would explain the wealthy primarily black suburban neighborhood OP described in the first post.

And I know that people are going to latch onto the post above this one, so I'll say it first: for the comparisons to be accurate one would have to compare cities of equal size with the same population density and economy.
You don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

It was mostly the WASPs who fled and started the suburbs for the reason of avoiding desegregation and busing with blacks.

Some second generation immigrants may have moved to the suburbs, but many did not want to leave the cities. The homes in the suburbs did not compare to the size and quality of the older homes in the cities. They still don't. Many second generation immigrants had businesses in the cities. And the older immigrants liked staying near their churches.

Home owners in inner cities simply objected to HUD and their housing projects, and they were accused of being racist. HUD and the Department of Education evoked fear in most white people. Their homes could be taken and bulldozed for schools or housing projects.

When blacks moved in to a city, they tended to be hired for city and county government jobs, such as Department of Sanitation, Department of Motor Vehicles, and the inner city school districts. Eventually, whites were discriminated against in hiring for these jobs, and that also pushed some of the remaining whites to "flee."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Florida
40 posts, read 54,146 times
Reputation: 62
Default Southern Experience

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92 View Post
I know this is a pretty controversial topic, but I think this is perhaps the best place to talk about a topic like this, due to the anonymity (which encourages uninhibited opinions for better or for worse). It probably wouldn't be a topic discussed amongst a diverse crowd.

This is something that has irked and interested me for a while. It seems as though once one race begins moving in, another race begins moving out after a "tipping point" of some sort. It doesn't seem to do with the income levels of people moving in, either. I will give a few examples I'm familiar with.

1. Prince Georges County, MD.
It is often referred to as "the richest county with an African-American majority," and the numbers don't lie. The median income for a family was over $80,000. Over a third make over $100,000/yr. Yet it is mainly black in many areas. People tend to say that "the only color that matters is green," but it appears despite the cliché Prince George's is mainly brown. Even in neighboring Charles County, a former majority white county next to PGC, whites are leaving/not coming anymore as more blacks move in. This is despite the fact that those moving to the area have very high incomes.

2. South suburban Cook County, IL (Where Chicago is located)
The south suburbs were mainly white during the 1960s/1970s/1980s, when white flight was all the rave. Then, something happened. As south side communities began having major issues, upwardly mobile blacks began moving to the south suburbs, in search of a better life for their families. The area was integrated for a while, but the overall result has been white flight. For example, Flossmoor, which was once considered one of the most exclusive south suburbs, has changed from ~65% white to 44% white, and the black population has increased from ~20% ~45% in ten years. There doesn't appear to be any stabilization, either. Income levels the same, crime rates the same, schools are still pretty solid, but the people living here are different. Why does this happen?

It's not just a white/black thing, either. In many parts of southern California, whites are moving from areas with large Hispanic populations. Many cite this due to the "dumbing down of schools" to cater to ESL students. I'm not too familiar with areas with upper-income Hispanic-dominated neighborhoods, but Miami & L.A. come to mind.

Even in some parts of Silicon Valley in northern California, whites are beginning to move from heavily Asian populated areas. This one really confounded me since, generally speaking, Asians are well integrated. They do well in school, have high incomes, etc. It's a recipe for a desirable neighborhood, but whites are leaving.
Article: The New White Flight - WSJ.com

My initial thought is that, despite income, crime, and other factors, most people tend to want to live around people that look like them. But that can't be the entire picture, because in places like Oak Park, IL & Shaker Heights, Ohio, people of different backgrounds live together fine (or at least seem to). There is no flight of any sort. What makes these areas stay diverse compared to other areas? There's no obvious "flight."

At the end of the day, we are stronger united than divided. I'm not singling out white flight. California is experiencing "black flight" as well, as hispanics move into formerly black areas such as South Central, and some of L.A.'s suburbs to the south. Again, I don't think that it's impossible to live together. I think we all want the same thing: the best for our family. We're united by that. I think the difference comes in HOW we get the best for our family. Do people of different races see "best" as seeing other successful individuals of your race? What if you see "best" for your family as knowing that in America, EVERYONE can succeed? Is this de facto segregation wrong, or is it justified? If de facto segregation is the norm, what happens when someone from a different race wants to move in, based on their definition of "best?" Is it accepted, why or why not?

I would love to hear from those that "flighted" and why. The good, the bad, the ugly. I am really looking forward to this debate!

Having lived in the south for 8 years I can state my experience.
Their is a difference in races, most likely because of the way we are raised, my husband and I are white and we deceided to attend a all black church, folks were very nice, but we had a hard time sitting thru the singing of the message, after the preacher just got thru preaching the message, they have natural rhythm, we don't, made us feel uncomfortable, and after a year we left the church, my conclusion is that their are differences between the races, and we tend to go were we are most comfortable with like kind, that is not prejudices just a fact. There is underlying sutle differences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2013, 06:05 PM
 
Location: 2 blocks from bay in L.I, NY
1,592 posts, read 1,276,254 times
Reputation: 2483
Default Interested to see Whites' answers...

This is something that has irked and interested me for a while. It seems as though once one race begins moving in, another race begins moving out after a "tipping point" of some sort. It doesn't seem to do with the income levels of people moving in, either.


Chicagoland,

I think Whites should be the primary people to consider answering your question because it seems that Whites are the ones who "flee (flight)" faster and more often than other races do when a different race moves in. Personally, I think it is because other groups are culturally different and no where does that difference show up more clearly than the home life of people. For examples: cultures that are known for having big families and intergenerational members in the home -- Blacks and Hispanics. Cultures that love to gather together a family member's home for "get-togethers" or cook-outs where they talk and laugh loud, play loud music, and numerous children are seen playing in the yards and street (portable basketball goal or touch football) -- Black and Hispanics. Cultures where the males (age range spans youth to elder adulthood) stand around in groups outside on porches, around a car/bike, on corners, or in front of a business in the neighborhood to "admire" and express their "approval or desire" verbally regarding the looks and shape of the women & girls who parade by and this is NOT considered sexual harassment -- Black and Hispanics.

Cultures that have a different view and take a softer stance on family members who've made bad life decisions: crime or criminally minded, jail, out-of-wedlock births, uneducated, chronically unemployed, illegal in the country, and the like -- Black and Hispanics. Cultures that look at lawlessness and theft differently and not necessarily in a bad way or may feel it is justified based on history -- Blacks. Cultures that have a different view on handling disagreements and or perceived disrespect and will engage in violent or verbal aggression at any perceived disrespect or offense -- Black and Hispanics (more so Puerto Ricans and Dominicans than Mexicans and Latin Americans nationals). Cultures that are more aggressive verbally and physically -- Blacks first and foremost. The other two Hispanic groups (P.R and Dominicans) are not too far behind in their behavior. I could go on and on but I think I've made my point.

Even though the first group of Black or Hispanics that move into a White neighborhood may not act in the manner I've described but remember they're EXTENDED-FAMILY oriented people. Ten times out of ten they have family members who will be visiting often who act in that manner described aka anti-social or low class behavior. Judging from the look of sheer terror or disgust on the face of Whites who witnessed this, I think I can say that the behaviors described is very oft-putting to Whites. They quickly start moving out.
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 > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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