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 was raised in Jax and lived there for many years, leaving for economic and safety reasons in the mid 90s. I recall the bussing era well. The teachers were swapped around during the 70-71 year and we got some really good black teachers. Was told the really crappy white teachers were sent to the 'ghettos' after not enough volunteers stepped forward.
White Flight started in earnest on the NW side of Jax (Ribault, Soutel, Lake Park, etc.) in 1967. Where we lived in Arlington it didn't start until the late 1980s. Thinking the area we lived in at Arlingwood is all black/hispanic now. Blacks were bussed in for the first time during the 71-72 school year.
While we had problems with the hostile blacks we had a bigger problem with the influx of whites-jews from the NE US who began showing up in large numbers beginning in 69-70. This latter group was composed with many bullies and people with chips on their shoulders looking for trouble where there was none. This group tended to 'be cool' with the blacks, often taking on their worst traits. Our high school reunions have always been sparsely attended for this reason.
I retired recently and find myself reminiscing about my Jax years. Unfortunately, my final years there were difficult financially and all too often encountered dysfunctional (understatement) 'neighbors' while having some excellent neighbors at the same time. I moved to the Carolinas and everything turned around almost immediately although this area is starting to undergo some hard times - glad I retired when I did.
Whenever I drive through Jacksonville now, which is not frequent, I try and seek out old neighborhoods. Well, I've actually only done it twice. Both times I drove away so disappointed in what happened to the neighborhoods. I didn't care that it had become predominantly minority based at all but what I did mind was how run down the areas were. Maybe my views from my youth were skewed but I remember nice, albeit small homes and tree lined streets. I will likely never know why most whites moved from these areas but it was apparent they did. Like I said in my previous post, we left to VA due to my parents jobs.
Honestly while white flight maybe motivated by purely bigoted racist mentalities in the past, I think nowadays it is primarily motivated by things like rising crime rates and failing schools which is also reasons why middle class people of other groups such as African Americans flee from certain cities/areas as well. For example in suburbs like Columbia (which is a wealthy suburb in Maryland located in between Washington DC and Baltimore) you don't really have issues with white flight even though there are large numbers of African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians (many of whom are middle/upper middle class as well) moving there because it still has one of the best school systems in the country, a healthy employment base nearby, and relatively low crime rates which means that the neighborhoods are still attractive. If you have an influx of say poor African Americans or Hispanics moving into an area, and the neighborhood is seeing things like rising crime rates and deteriorating schools with no other amenities to compensate for that loss unlike certain inner city neighborhoods, than anyone with money would probably think that it is better for them and their family to leave the area and seek housing elsewhere.
People might not be moving because of bigotry these days.......but they are moving from the aftermath that bigotry created. Racism, like economics, creates self fulfilling prophecies. If everyone thought the economy was going to tank next year they would hunker down and not make any major purchases, in other words, radically cut their discretionary spending in an attempt to save for hard times. Their collective thoughts would results in ACTIONS that would create the REACTION known in economics as "The paradox of thrift". In other words, they will create the hard times by their collective actions.
A similar situation manifested when the white population, who has historically controlled the bulk of income, wealth, capital, companies etc, feel negative about a certain race of people. The POWER of their collective beliefs leads to ACTIONS taken that result in the REACTION that actualizes their fears, stereotypes and beliefs. People do not understand or respect the power of collective beliefs and how they shape reality. If society believes it.....then it manifest it as a result of societies actions. The deeper thing is when the targeted group starts to share the beliefs of the larger group about itself. More than people know, black people see themselves negatively....unless deprogrammed not to.
I was classic white flight.
I lived in Seattle at the time when they were doing forced bussing. I was a good liberal, and thought that was a fair thing to do, and didn't think anything about the fact that she would be bussed into a rough school.
In first grade, my daughter had to be at the bus stop at 6:30 am to catch the bus. I could not attend teacher conferences nor volunteer. I asked my daughter what her reading book was like. She said she didn't have one. She said she was left alone in the classroom.
I didn't believe her, so I took half a day off work to talk to her teacher. The teacher told me that during reading, she pulled out three kids, my daughter and the other two white kids, from the classroom and put them in another classroom where she wrote two sentences on the blackboard, and left the three students alone to go back to the rest of the kids in her classroom.
There was only one school for grades 1-3 and one school for grades 4 -6, instead of two schools for grades 1-6, which would have given us a closer school. I asked someone at the school why there were only grades 1 through 3, instead of 1 through 6, and I was told it was to prevent the sixth graders from beating up on the first graders.
I waited until the summer before I put my house up for sale and moved to Bellevue.
I was classic white flight.
I lived in Seattle at the time when they were doing forced bussing. I was a good liberal, and thought that was a fair thing to do, and didn't think anything about the fact that she would be bussed into a rough school.
I have a serious question (not trying to start an argument or insult anyone).
Did the above experience change your views at all? Did you change from being "a good liberal" (in your words) to something else? Did you consider yourself being a bad liberal for moving? Do you still consider yourself a good liberal? Are you more or less liberal than you once were?
BTW, both President Clinton and President Obama chose not to send their children to rough public schools. I presume the same will be true for President Trump.
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.
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: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113236377590902105.html
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!
I have always live in mixed neighborhoods. I've never said, "gee, I wish more white people lived here". It hasn't even been brought up in conversation, I've had a white neighbor wished all his neighbors were white. I guess it's how you view things. I don't think my neighbor was being a racist, I think it was more that he felt comfortable living with people he best associated with. I myself don't see color, in the sense of black and white. I look at people as people. We are all just a different shade of tan anyways.
I have always live in mixed neighborhoods. I've never said, "gee, I wish more white people lived here". It hasn't even been brought up in conversation, I've had a white neighbor wished all his neighbors were white. I guess it's how you view things. I don't think my neighbor was being a racist, I think it was more that he felt comfortable living with people he best associated with. I myself don't see color, in the sense of black and white. I look at people as people. We are all just a different shade of tan anyways.
Plenty of people who wish all their neighbors were the same race as them are often rather ignorant of facts, too. I live in a mostly white county. Most crimes here are committed by white people. Big shock, right? And yet, for some people it is, sadly.
I've known plenty of people who think it's purely a race thing. They'll whine about blacks moving into the neighborhood, and be utterly blind to the family of white trash just up the road where the parents are into drugs, the kids steal and destroy stuff, etc.
Race just becomes a substitute for thinking, sadly. Far easier to blame the people who are obviously different than to figure out what's really going on.
That being said, I don't blame anyone from "flying" from a crime-infested region, but they are idiots if they really move out just because of changing racial characteristics of the area vs. actual crime.
Nothing new nor unique to report in that situation.
Go and ask old timers of the Poconos, PA region how the arrival of masses of African Americans and Latino-Hispanics from New York has played out.
Yes, those groups moved out there to "escape" the crime and whatever of their old NYC neighborhoods, but in large measure have brought those same ills to their new homes.
I guarantee you the situation would not have changed if "masses" of whites arrived there too.
The problem is people, not race, and "masses" of anyone arriving in an area often brings troublemakers and crime since people bring the problems with them, and that's not unique to any race, nor are whites somehow above that rule.
People want to live in the suburbs. They want a little of big lawn. They don't want to live right on top of their neighbors. The race of their neighbors doesn't matter as long as they're not loud, obnoxious, or dirty. (If you live in an apartment building and your neighbor has cockroaches, you have them, too.)
Even millenials are moving out of cities now. Despite temporary ebbs and flows, the suburbanization of America is continuing as it has for the last 200 years.
I'd say it's an indication of socioeconomic class. Affluent people can afford freshly baked bread. Someone trying to stretch their EBT food dollars is going to buy mass market grocery store bread because it's far less expensive. Ditto things like fresh organic produce. It's expensive compared to canned/frozen vegetables. If you live in a poor area, you likely don't have access to artisanal bread and organic produce. You're in the food desert where bread comes from the 7-11 down the block.
Sure, there's a close link between education and socioeconomic class but it's largely about the money.
Right now, we have two competing demographic models. The single people and couples who don't reproduce all want to live in urban areas. It's easy to get to work. There is tons going on. Any city with a world class university and a bunch of good professional jobs is seeing gentrification. The other model is the one we've known for the last 70 years. Families with children move to the suburbs.
I think the primary motivation for moving to the leafy suburbs is a mix of public school quality and the quality of your children's peer group. Everybody clamors to live in the expensive towns that are mostly college educated professionals. They're engaged parents who insist their children perform in schools. They care about the peer group their children are around. Since public schools in the US are largely organized by what town you live in, it drives this trend. Anyone living in those places is going to defend that system to the death. I don't think it's a school funding thing. Where I live, the failed urban schools spend more per pupil than the leafy suburbs. It's engaged parents that matter, not how much money is spent. There are lots of related things about quality of life that also matter. Public safety. Upscale shopping and dining. Community amenities. I think most parents would give most of that up to have the better school system and better peer group for their children.
To me, the interesting public policy issue is what to do about the cities and towns that don't have those educated, engaged parents driving their children to excel in their education? The way you break the cycle of poverty and the permanent underclass is through education. Obama certainly made that point many times. It's kind of elitist and draconian but I think the state needs to step in and make up for the lousy parenting. 9 hour school day. 48 week school year. Start school at age 4. Completely revamp how schools work to focus on imparting the values the engaged, educated parents impart to their children. 20 years of that and you might be able to break the cycle.
This.
In my area of Southern California, the areas that are experiencing gentrification are mainly northeast, central, and west LA, south Long Beach, and northwest Pasadena. All have major colleges and universities (UCLA, USC, Cal State Long Beach, Pacific Oaks) and strong urban cores (downtown LA and Long Beach, Old Town Pasadena, South Lake Avenue). Many more cities in the area are also rebuilding their downtowns (Azusa, El Monte, Baldwin Park, Pomona), but have not made the progress that has happened in the cities, mainly because they don't have universities and good jobs (El Monte and Baldwin Park), or have the universities but no good jobs AND a worse location (Azusa and Pomona). Those cities are either staying Hispanic or are gaining Asians (El Monte north of Ramona is getting more Asians, though they're poor immigrants like the ones in nearby Rosemead, northeastern Monterey Park, and southern San Gabriel, as the more upscale Asians are moving to Arcadia, San Marino, Walnut, Diamond Bar, Rowland Heights, etc.). As for the suburbs? I think that has to do with ideology, as the classmates from my home town (Glendora) who are conservative are still moving to suburbs, while the single liberals I know are in more urban areas, even in other countries.
As for your suggestions on schooling? 48 weeks a year would mean that kids would go to school all year, and that wouldn't allow them to be, you know, kids. And age 4? Some kids don't even have good speaking skills at 4 years old! 9 hour school days would mean that kids would be getting home close to sunset if school started at 8 AM, and then doing homework would once again, not allow them to be kids. Having a 4 year old go through a 9 hour schedule 5 days a week all year is just WAY too harsh. Parents need incentives for raising kids the right way, and having the kids gone all day all year would make them content to have the schools, which are controlled by the elites, raise them, which is a BAD idea and would likely lead to more brainwashing and indoctrination). Something like tax cuts or tax credits for their children's good grades and good behavior would likely be more effective than ruining the kids' childhood by having them in school all the time. They're not supposed to have the schedules that adults have (and I even think that's wrong in a sense, known as wage slavery. People shouldn't have to go through rigorous schedules like that for 40+ years just to survive, which is why we need Universal Basic Income), especially at ages when they're still learning basic life skills.
When schools go down...people move. Even amongst lower income groups will move to another town in search of better schools.
Crime: self explanatory.
For some it's crime first then schools. It really is that simple, not racism.
Last edited by Milwaukee City; 10-15-2017 at 04:48 PM..
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.
