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.
This link says that 7 of the top 10 most segregated cities in America are in the midwest, 2 are in the northeast and 1 in the west.
10. Los Angeles
9. Philadelphia
8. Cincinnati
7. St. Louis
6. Buffalo, N.Y.
5. Cleveland
4. Detroit
3. Chicago
2. New York
1. Milwaukee
Why isn't the south segregated? With all these black on white murders for no reason in the south such as the baby in Georgia in the wheelchair that got gunned down you would think it would be the most segregated
An explanation I have come across while studying with a few Sociologists, and it seems to be the best explanation I have, is that older cities tend to have predetermined residential patterns. For instance, Philadelphia has a Chinatown, where a large number of Asians congregate together. Of course this is just one example, but older cities tend to have neighborhoods known specifically for housing specific ethnicities/races/cultures/religions/etc. and while the new cities of the South tend to have less of these cultural and ethnic neighborhoods and are more new construction and don't have predetermined residential patterns.
This link says that 7 of the top 10 most segregated cities in America are in the midwest, 2 are in the northeast and 1 in the west.
10. Los Angeles
9. Philadelphia
8. Cincinnati
7. St. Louis
6. Buffalo, N.Y.
5. Cleveland
4. Detroit
3. Chicago
2. New York
1. Milwaukee
Why isn't the south segregated? With all these black on white murders for no reason in the south such as the baby in Georgia in the wheelchair that got gunned down you would think it would be the most segregated
There's no link in the OP, but is the article focusing on black/white segregation? If so, then it's just a function of the pattern of settlement. The South was largely rural and blacks in the South in the slavery era lived rurally, working the land, among the landowner whites and the sharecropper/small landowner whites. Post-emancipation, many stayed on as sharecroppers and/or small landowners, themselves. So if one is looking at the state as a whole, there appears to be spatial integration.
The northern migration of blacks post-emancipation was due largely to factory jobs in the northern cities. Blacks moved to cities in the north -- not to rural areas. So, again, if looking at the state as a whole, you don't see as much diversity outside of the great northern cities.
As for the cities in general, I know Birmingham, Alabama (like many cities) was developed with a racial zoning overlay. There were zoning lines in place that segregated housing. Even post-integration, many of those housing patterns remained the norm as relates to previously "black" areas. However, in simplistic terms, as blacks moved into the areas once restricted to them, with the assistance of better roads, a more established car culture, and the post-war boom of the "suburb", the whole era of white flight began. The end result is cities today that are, oddly enough, less diverse than they were during segregation.
The government lets other areas get away with a lot more than they do the south. Something to do with George Wallace, the University of Alabama, RFK, etc., etc. Just read one of the local southern city boards for more information on federal integration pressures in the south. Of course the north and west are just as segregated. Only the really "trendy" cities mix it up a little more (New York, SF, LA, etc.).
That is little to do with anything. I am currently in the deep south and though Black and White counties are literally right next to each other the place is as segregated as it can be. Black and White kids will attend the same schools but sit separately. The two rarely date each other either.
An explanation I have come across while studying with a few Sociologists, and it seems to be the best explanation I have, is that older cities tend to have predetermined residential patterns. For instance, Philadelphia has a Chinatown, where a large number of Asians congregate together. Of course this is just one example, but older cities tend to have neighborhoods known specifically for housing specific ethnicities/races/cultures/religions/etc. and while the new cities of the South tend to have less of these cultural and ethnic neighborhoods and are more new construction and don't have predetermined residential patterns.
Hope this explained it for you
Cities with really old neighborhoods like New York and Boston have had massive demographic changes over time. Harlem ring a bell?
When people say "much older cities and neighborhoods where people clustered together" what they actually mean is that these areas had a much longer history of redlining and using covert racial or ethnic discrimination to enforce de facto segregation on new migrants and box them into isolated, cultural enclaves generally in the less desirable parts of cities. Most places outside the South didn't need blatantly legal segregation to do this because, though they might have technically had more "diversity" they had a much smaller number of "diverse folks" compared to their white population. Even today this trend continues somewhat.
For example: Comparison of New York with Mississippi demographics for 2000 (% of total population)
White | Black | Native American/Alaskan | Asian | Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander
NY: 75.62 | 18.39 | 0.95 | 6.27 | 0.17
MS: 62.37 | 36.66 | 0.69 | 0.82 | 0.07
As these numbers show, in 2000 New York had more of an even distribution between its non-white demographics and shows a more multiracial character, but the combined non-white number for NY (25.78%) is still significantly lower than the non-white demographics for MS (37.63%)
These differences in the numerocal strength of the majority (white) make it easier to enforce de facto segregation whereas places like MS, which at some points in history actually had a white minority, "had to" legally separate the races because they couldn't be "contained" as easily. Of course, redlining and de facto also happens in the South, too, but it was less well established in the region and much harder to enforce (without segregation laws) because in a lot of places there is simply no choice but to live together because there are such large numbers of non-white folks. I also think the fact that the civil rights movement was more clustered in the South also made it particularly targeted for integration attempts while other regions were either left alone or objected so violently to stuff like bussing that eventually the government gave up on them.
This link says that 7 of the top 10 most segregated cities in America are in the midwest, 2 are in the northeast and 1 in the west.
10. Los Angeles
9. Philadelphia
8. Cincinnati
7. St. Louis
6. Buffalo, N.Y.
5. Cleveland
4. Detroit
3. Chicago
2. New York
1. Milwaukee
Why isn't the south segregated? With all these black on white murders for no reason in the south such as the baby in Georgia in the wheelchair that got gunned down you would think it would be the most segregated
There is no fact that states that black on white murder is higher in the South than anywhere else OR that these murders are a consequence of racial animosity.
The murder of the baby had NOTHING to do with race.Just evil people who apparently have no souls.
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.
