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.
The pattern of ethnic integration into the American mainstream has been occurring since immigrants first set foot onto this continent, long before the Ford foundation, long before Detroit. And it continues today in cities like Houston and Dallas. Maybe this is a 400-year-old conspiracy?
The difference is that the effort at "Americanization" was more than the regular pattern of enculturation and cultural formation--it was a deliberate, highly promoted policy. No conspiracy needed at all. The creation of a common "American" culture is in some ways a laudable thing--the problem arises when limits are established on who can be part of that "American" culture, and some of the population ends up outside the acceptable American cultural milieu.
Quote:
Moving to the suburbs wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you'd prefer not to live adjacent to a factory spewing out pollutants? Having to live inside the city because property is cheap wouldn't have anything to do with the property's proximity to things people don't want to live by? Property values aren't related to their proximity to industrial facilities?
I'm sure once people found out they could live somewhere where their house wasn't sporting a new coat of soot every morning they jumped at the chance.
"Having to live inside the city because property is cheap?" I suppose it depends on the city--in many cities, property is more expensive (on a per-acre basis) than the suburbs because of market demand for space at the city center for commercial and industrial use, in addition to residential uses. In fact, people moved to the suburbs in part because suburban land was cheaper than urban land. Wanting to get away from polluting factories was a factor--but, for the most part, that has changed, and factories are now as likely to be in the suburbs as the city, and for the most part they don't pollute the way they used to. Part of why people are returning to cities is because they aren't the smoky, polluted places they used to be--sanitary sewers, trash collection, running water, paved streets, and other government-enforced regulations (called for by progressive reformers) made cities survivable.
The difference is that the effort at "Americanization" was more than the regular pattern of enculturation and cultural formation--it was a deliberate, highly promoted policy. No conspiracy needed at all. The creation of a common "American" culture is in some ways a laudable thing--the problem arises when limits are established on who can be part of that "American" culture, and some of the population ends up outside the acceptable American cultural milieu.
There's a large segment of society that doesn't like 'Americanization', although they vocally mislead you into believing that they do, because it means changing American culture. Americanization has meant that in many states WASPS have virtually disappeared - Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. American food, religion, dress, art, and music have changed significantly over the past 100 years due to immigrants being Americanized. And those allegedly supporting Americanization are the ones that are most vocal against these seeping influences. African-Americans began being folded into the American mainstream in the 1940s-50s, most notably in the arts (music). And conservatives thought the world was coming to an end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
"Having to live inside the city because property is cheap?" I suppose it depends on the city--in many cities, property is more expensive (on a per-acre basis) than the suburbs because of market demand for space at the city center for commercial and industrial use, in addition to residential uses. In fact, people moved to the suburbs in part because suburban land was cheaper than urban land. Wanting to get away from polluting factories was a factor--but, for the most part, that has changed, and factories are now as likely to be in the suburbs as the city, and for the most part they don't pollute the way they used to. Part of why people are returning to cities is because they aren't the smoky, polluted places they used to be--sanitary sewers, trash collection, running water, paved streets, and other government-enforced regulations (called for by progressive reformers) made cities survivable.
I don't know much about the coastal cities, but something tells me that central city New York and LA were cheaper than the suburbs in the 1960s and 70s. I know this to be the case in Chicago. Now the North Side of Chicago is very expensive, yet the industrial pit of the South Side is still cheaper than many suburbs. And seeing all the plants, railroad yards and such flying into Midway I know why.
Cities in the NJ area are still just as bad, if not worse, then they were 30 years ago.
How can you call these ideas of the cities warped? My grandparents moved to the suburbs about 40 years ago from Paterson New Jersey. My Dad is 53. The house in the suburbs they afforded to buy on a truck drivers salary was in a very nice place to live. And it has been a nice place to live since they bought it 40 years ago.
In addition, the house appreciated to over $400,000. My dad and his 3 siblings all live within 10 miles of the town. The house they sold, 10 miles away, is complete trash nowadays. And has been for all of my life, and shows no signs of improvement. Its a complete ghetto neighborhood.
So how is the viewpoint warped? How is it somehow a negative? The neighborhood was clearly headed down the tubes, so why wouldnt you leave if you could?
Cities in the NJ area are still just as bad, if not worse, then they were 30 years ago.
How can you call these ideas of the cities warped? My grandparents moved to the suburbs about 40 years ago from Paterson New Jersey. My Dad is 53. The house in the suburbs they afforded to buy on a truck drivers salary was in a very nice place to live. And it has been a nice place to live since they bought it 40 years ago.
In addition, the house appreciated to over $400,000. My dad and his 3 siblings all live within 10 miles of the town. The house they sold, 10 miles away, is complete trash nowadays. And has been for all of my life, and shows no signs of improvement. Its a complete ghetto neighborhood.
So how is the viewpoint warped? How is it somehow a negative? The neighborhood was clearly headed down the tubes, so why wouldnt you leave if you could?
Sure, there are neighborhoods today that really are bad, and much worse than they were 40 years ago, and there are neighborhoods that have made a complete 180 from where they were 40 years ago. But, the stereotype that cities are nothing but cesspools--which is what this thread is about--is not true. I guess one could argue that it wasn't true 40 years ago. I wasn't around 40 years ago, so I don't know if it was more or less true then.
Whether leaving a neighborhood was right or not, is sort of like the old "chicken and egg" question. The way I see it, the neighborhood probably wouldn't have declined much, if more people stood their ground, and didn't move out at the first evidence of a problem. But others take the viewpoint that, if the neighborhood didn't begin to decline, they wouldn't have left.
quote: "Americanization has meant that in many states WASPS have virtually disappeared - Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania."
I think the Wasps in RI would be surprised to hear that they no longer exist.
The novel "Bonfire of the Vanities" by Tom Wolfe, set in N.Y. City, has a line about the main character being a patient of one of the few WASP doctors left practicing there. It also has the character commenting that whenever he reads about a New Yorker with a British-origin last name, he assumes the person must be African-American, because there are virtually no WASPs in N.Y.C.
This pattern started in the 1930's when foundation and federal money started to pour into the cities for social engineering disguised as urban renewal. Where in the past local people and local government decided on projects, this changed as federal money now mandated that every city have a housing office. Invariably this office was controlled by a person with no ethnic or personal connection to the local population and did the bidding of the ruling class.
Not every city was a dirty place filled with soot and blight. this was not 18th century industrial revolution England. The real driver was social engineering disguised as integration which was really an vehicle for ethnic cleansing.
Cities remain the best place to live from a social, physical and environmental point of view. There is no magical migration of people moving out of these cities. There are beautiful cities throughout Europe from Munich to Vienna to Milan to Barcelona etc that remain as healthy as they where hundreds if not thousands of years ago. It is only the northeast/midwest American cities that came under social engineering attack that where slaughtered in the 20th century.
American suburbs are dying. Like the social engineering in the cities the social engineers that designed the suburbs failed. People in the suburbs are more depressed, more isolated and more likely to commit suicide that people that grow up in the city. In addition to the poor social conditions the suburbs are very inefficient and require vast energy resources to power all of the cars and distribute power over vast distances.
The closeness of cities means efficiency. The Romans knew this 2000 years ago; the American robber barons in the petrol and auto industries were not thinking with reason -they were driven by greed-when they dispatched their social engineers with the task of designing the community that could generate the most profit. The suburb they came up with has been a depressing place for people and has lead to environmental disasters such as Valdez and the Gulf spill of 2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyev
The pattern of ethnic integration into the American mainstream has been occurring since immigrants first set foot onto this continent, long before the Ford foundation, long before Detroit. And it continues today in cities like Houston and Dallas. Maybe this is a 400-year-old conspiracy?
Moving to the suburbs wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you'd prefer not to live adjacent to a factory spewing out pollutants? Having to live inside the city because property is cheap wouldn't have anything to do with the property's proximity to things people don't want to live by? Property values aren't related to their proximity to industrial facilities?
I'm sure once people found out they could live somewhere where their house wasn't sporting a new coat of soot every morning they jumped at the chance.
I have noticed that from talking to several people that left cities for good in the 50-60s, even from Chicago and New York that they have these very warped ideas of what the city is like now. I have heard all these bad stories of it and they view it so weird, which is completely WRONG of how they are now.
But I think this whole period, mostly of boomers had these weird ideas, opposed to cities (STILL) and love the suburban living.
Case in point are both my parents and my gfs parents... My dad was in Chicago in the 60s. My gfs mom was in Manhattan in the 60s, her dad was in Chicago, New York, St Louis and a few others as he was a business man. They all have the same mostly negative view of modern day cities, like they are exactly the same as it was back in that era. They all left respectively for sunny california and florida burbs.
Thoughts? Has anybody else experienced difficulties trying to explain life there to this older generation?
It's pretty simple really.
Anyone with eyes can see that areas that go black go bad. So when the psychological tipping point of an individual is reached, if they can, they leave. One study I read claimed that non-blacks feel an area has reached that point at just the 3-5% level of blacks in the population.
So, OK blacks are leaving the cities for suburbs these days. Expect non-blacks (not just "whites") to eventually vacate the areas where they settle next.
And of course, once someone crosses and area off on their list, as a matter of mental convenience, they pretty much just write it off for good.
So sure, there's no doubt that folks that left the cities in earlier migrations still have them written off.
Expect the same to happen to areas the "tip" currently as well.
As long as people can verifiably see that the influx of blacks precedes a general decline of an area this will be a continuing phenomenon.
For it to change, the black community has to change that perception, by changing that reality. If, of course, they want to.
Don't waste your efforts trying to convince people they aren't seeing what they are seeing, it generally doesn't work.
Anyone with eyes can see that areas that go black go bad. So when the psychological tipping point of an individual is reached, if they can, they leave. One study I read claimed that non-blacks feel an area has reached that point at just the 3-5% level of blacks in the population.
So, OK blacks are leaving the cities for suburbs these days. Expect non-blacks (not just "whites") to eventually vacate the areas where they settle next.
And of course, once someone crosses and area off on their list, as a matter of mental convenience, they pretty much just write it off for good.
So sure, there's no doubt that folks that left the cities in earlier migrations still have them written off.
Expect the same to happen to areas the "tip" currently as well.
As long as people can verifiably see that the influx of blacks precedes a general decline of an area this will be a continuing phenomenon.
For it to change, the black community has to change that perception, by changing that reality. If, of course, they want to.
Don't waste your efforts trying to convince people they aren't seeing what they are seeing, it generally doesn't work.
Regardless of race, if large groups of people leave a neighborhood because someone they perceive as undesirable moves in, that neighborhood is doomed to failure. So who is really to blame when neighborhoods suffer from white flight?
Yep;many of the big cities were popualted not by chioce but by needing to be near industry that had to be located near power and rail . The real change came in the 50's as massive national roadway system started to be built. It now more of a case og how you going to keep in the city rather than the farm really.Most cities are now concentrating on now to make transit into the cites to keep business from moving out. Just the bommers retiring will mean that the exit will get faster in coming years especialy from big cities.
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.
not a 400 year old pattern
