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 don't understand the question and it would help if you defined your use of the term "white flight."
The number of renters went down because people were working, making good wages and had money to buy a house, so they did.
Before WWII there weren't a lot of AAs in Philly. The AA neighborhoods back then were mostly adjacent to Center City - which has had a high percentage of renters in units for 300 years or so. After WWII AA households started to move into homeownership . . . so upwardly mobile black families who were renting in places like Graduate Hospital moved out and bought a house in Point Breeze. The Italians and Jews in PB were moving to bigger, newer houses in Southwest Philly (or the suburbs). With the AA middle class moving on, the black people who were left behind in GH were increasingly poor and less mobile. The process repeats itself in PB with the middle-class families and, more importantly, the children of those households (as they grew up) moving to grander homes in West Philly and the people who are left behind are increasingly poor and/or elderly.
This is almost identical to the pattern in white neighborhoods like Port Richmond or Fishtown. There is no real difference between the reasons that white families moved to different neighborhoods and the reasons that black families do it. The only real difference is the 10-20 year gap between the beginning of the white exodus and the beginning of the black exodus in these neighborhoods . . . and that is at least partially explained by the large numbers of southern blacks who were still migrating north (and going to big cities) in the 1950s.
Even today if you look at the data on Philly, the black population of the city is stagnant and that's only because of African and West Indian immigration. The number of African-Americans in the city has been in decline since the 80s as the AA population get older/move to the suburbs/moves down south.
I'm talking about "White Flight" as it is generally viewed.
Also, Philly has always has always had an AA population around the national average or high since the beginning of the 20th century(it was 10% Black in 1900 and the US was 11.6% at the time). It may have been higher pre European immigration too.
I'm talking about "White Flight" as it is generally viewed.
That still doesn't mean anything. There are a few different, popular narratives. None of them are very accurate. Just say what you mean.
Quote:
Also, Philly has always has always had an AA population around the national average or high since the beginning of the 20th century(it was 10% Black in 1900 and the US was 11.6% at the time). It may have been higher pre European immigration too.
No - in 1900 the AA population of Philly was 4%. In 1920 it was 7.5%. In 1940 it was 13%.
Those are all a lot lower than 44%.
I don't particularly like dealing in % because, as they say, figures lie and liars figure. The AA population of Philly had been around ~15,000 since at least 1820 and remained more or less unchanged until after 1900. But by 1940 it had shot up to ~251,000.
That still doesn't mean anything. There are a few different, popular narratives. None of them are very accurate. Just say what you mean.
No - in 1900 the AA population of Philly was 4%. In 1920 it was 7.5%. In 1940 it was 13%.
Those are all a lot lower than 44%.
I don't particularly like dealing in % because, as they say, figures lie and liars figure. The AA population of Philly had been around ~15,000 since at least 1820 and remained more or less unchanged until after 1900. But by 1940 it had shot up to ~251,000.
Where did you get that 1900 percentage and the population figures? I got the number from an old text book at home. This is the book: Races and immigrants in America - John Rogers Commons - Google Books It is hard to believe that a metro with 2 HBCU's would be near a city that is around 4% Black. I can look again though. Update, it says 5%(page 163) or around 65,000 Black people in 1900, as the city had just under 1.3 million people.
Back to the topic, if the Blacks that essentially follow Whites to the same or similar neighborhoods are of similar economic means, then why would the latter leave? Why not stay in the neighborhood in order to keep it stable?
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 07-05-2014 at 08:36 AM..
Where did you get that 1900 percentage and the population figures? I got the number from an old text book at home. This is the book: Races and immigrants in America - John Rogers Commons - Google Books It is hard to believe that a metro with 2 HBCU's would be near a city that is around 4% Black. I can look again though. Update, it says 5%(page 163) or around 65,000 Black people in 1900, as the city had just under 1.3 million people.
The data is from census.gov . . . and you're right, it's around 65,000 (15k was a typo).
If you're referring to Cheyney and Lincoln they're not so much "near Philadelphia" as they are 'in a free state but very close to the border of slave states'. Cheyney is but a few miles from the Delaware border and Lincoln is the same distance to Baltimore as it is to Philly.
Quote:
Back to the topic, if the Blacks that essentially follow Whites to the same or similar neighborhoods are of similar economic means, then why would the latter leave? Why not stay in the neighborhood in order to keep it stable?
Mostly because the white people who were initially leaving those neighborhoods in the 1940s and 1950s were the renters who were living in what, by today's standards, we would call seriously overcrowded. And when the children of the homeowners living there grew up and formed their own households they bought houses in new neighborhoods. Mostly because, if homeownership was on the rise in the neighborhood they grew up in, and household size was shrinking while the population was exploding (baby boom) then there really wouldn't have been enough room for everyone to stay without making the place even more crowded than it already was.
It's also important to consider the psyche of the time - more than a decade of really bad economic times, 4 years of war, 5 years of more tough time times in the transition back to a peace time economy - people wanted to new things and modern conveniences - and they wanted it in a new house.
I wasn't saying that everyone in these neighborhoods was of the same SES or that all of the black people moving in were the same as the white people moving out. I'm just saying that middle-class people left the neighborhoods for the same reasons regardless of whether they were mixed neighborhoods, majority AA, or majority white and that's generally because the housing stock was old, the schools were bad, and the better jobs were moving to the suburbs.
The data is from census.gov . . . and you're right, it's around 65,000 (15k was a typo).
If you're referring to Cheyney and Lincoln they're not so much "near Philadelphia" as they are 'in a free state but very close to the border of slave states'. Cheyney is but a few miles from the Delaware border and Lincoln is the same distance to Baltimore as it is to Philly.
Mostly because the white people who were initially leaving those neighborhoods in the 1940s and 1950s were the renters who were living in what, by today's standards, we would call seriously overcrowded. And when the children of the homeowners living there grew up and formed their own households they bought houses in new neighborhoods. Mostly because, if homeownership was on the rise in the neighborhood they grew up in, and household size was shrinking while the population was exploding (baby boom) then there really wouldn't have been enough room for everyone to stay without making the place even more crowded than it already was.
It's also important to consider the psyche of the time - more than a decade of really bad economic times, 4 years of war, 5 years of more tough time times in the transition back to a peace time economy - people wanted to new things and modern conveniences - and they wanted it in a new house.
I wasn't saying that everyone in these neighborhoods was of the same SES or that all of the black people moving in were the same as the white people moving out. I'm just saying that middle-class people left the neighborhoods for the same reasons regardless of whether they were mixed neighborhoods, majority AA, or majority white and that's generally because the housing stock was old, the schools were bad, and the better jobs were moving to the suburbs.
Ok, that makes sense and good point about Lincoln and Cheyney.
Personally, I think that what you and nei said is correct to some degree, proper neighborhood examples given or not. I think it may depend on the time period, location and in some cases, both may have occurred in the same neighborhood if enough attitudes towards newcomers were so that they leave and open the door to a demographic change. This can occur even if other longtime residents aren't leaving for the same reasons later on.
I have mostly southern italian ancestors, two irish and one russian. I've traced them back on the census and through immigration from the 1880s onward and all of them were always considered white . . . and so were all of their neighbors who were of the same background.
The only distinction ever made for Italians was whether they were from northern or southern italy. The census forms said "Race - White' 'nationality - southern italian' and that's only because, at that point, Italy had only been a country for 10 years, no one thought it was going to last, and most people's birth certificates and travel documents were issued by the Kingdom of Naples.
Redlining had to do with poverty and the quality of the housing stock. There was a big correlation between the two and, of course, back then a lot of people assumed that the correlation proved causality as in 'they're poor because they're italian'
Of course the reason they were poor is because they went to New York with nothing . . . which is mostly the same for any other immigrant group who comes to the US and mostly the same for African-Americans who left the south.
Redlining also involved White ethnics this is a fact. The belief at the time was that heterogeneous neighborhoods were not stable.
Not sure if there's a point in continuing this, don't really want to say much more on this topic, though I don't care for the accusation of a "double standard".
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
OK, except that Canarsie is extremely atypical in that the population peak occurred in 2000. The number of people moving there (to what is, for all intents and purposes, an inner-ring suburb) in the 90s over the course of a decade is extreme and, AFAIK, unprecedented. I wasn't there in the 90s but I would imagine that the pressure to sell was nothing short of intense.
I assume the peak in 2000 came from an increase in household size. The black newcomers were probably families.
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but what I've gotten so far from your basic premise is something like white people started moving out of Canarsie faster in the 90s because black immigrants from the Caribbean were moving in. White people had been moving out all along but this accelerated once black people came on the scene. The point being that those white people were moving to get away from the new people because they were black.
Then you posted about how the phenomenon of accelerated departure of long-time residents also happens in other neighborhoods where the immigrants moving in are not black.
To which I repeat, yes, that's right, this sort of thing happens a lot and it happens regardless of the race of the people moving in and regardless of the race of the people moving out. It happened when the Irish took over German neighborhoods and when Italians took over Irish neighborhoods. When people you know and love have been moving out of your neighborhood for decades then people of a different culture or SES take over the commercial and cultural base of that neighborhood it becomes harder and harder to justify staying as most of your socio-cultural connections to that neighborhood have been severed.
Yes, that's my basic premise. As for the second paragraph (it happens a lot), yes that's a better explanation than just people were tired of old big city neighborhoods. That was one of my main points. However, I suspect the reaction to blacks was often at a different level than other newcomers. Blockbusting occurred mainly for blacks, blacks are more segregated than other groups. Note the difference:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby BK
Most of my family left Sheepshead Bay when the Russians came in. All of my family left Canarsie when the blacks came in. We received death threats from Italian neighbors in the early 90s for being seen with black people in our house, because the neighbors thought we might be the one to sell out to blockbusters.
I doubt the reaction to Russian immigrants was quite as hostile.
Quote:
So, yes, your double standard for the former white residents of Canarsie is a problem.
How on earth did I have a double standard? I stated "flight" can happen from other situations, but the focus of this thread is race. You posted numbers for Canarsie not Sheepshed Bay, and Canarsie did have people leaving because the newcomers were black not Russian (it's also a pain to measure flight for Sheepshed Bay since the race is the same). If you're going to make accusations at least try to back it up. I don't find "white flight" particularly loaded.
Not sure if there's a point in continuing this, don't really want to say much more on this topic, though I don't care for the accusation of a "double standard".
I can keep going. I ain't mad.
Quote:
I assume the peak in 2000 came from an increase in household size. The black newcomers were probably families.
Household size do go up through the 90s but household size in 1960 and 1970 was a good deal higher. So the growth was partly explained by household size but also by the addition of almost 3,000 units. Since Canarsie was already built out at that point it most likely means that houses were being divided.
Quote:
Yes, that's my basic premise. As for the second paragraph (it happens a lot), yes that's a better explanation than just people were tired of old big city neighborhoods. That was one of my main points.
You'll have to explain this better. Not sure which part you're quoting here.
Quote:
However, I suspect the reaction to blacks was often at a different level than other newcomers. Blockbusting occurred mainly for blacks, blacks are more segregated than other groups. Note the difference:
I doubt the reaction to Russian immigrants was quite as hostile.
OK, but this is an anecdote and as I said in the very beginning of this tangent, the presence of a few racist d-bags (or whatever their motivation) doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of a racist trend and as I already demonstrated with the data, the white population of Canarsie (as in most Brooklyn neighborhoods) had been in full decline for decades irrespective of the presence of black people.
You're reaching to draw that conclusion based on a few data points when the big picture says, at the very least, that it's not so clear.
In reading that quote I get the impression that the speakers family was leaving Canarsie to get away from the threats from Italians and not because they might have black neighbors. How many households were being terrorized in a similar fashion? 10? 50? 500?
Also, blockbusting didn't so much happen for black people as it happened to white people. But the idea that this practice was ever widespread (as opposed to a few high profile cases) is unfounded and the notion that it was widespread in Canarsie in the 1990s (or anywhere for that matter) is highly unlikely.
Quote:
How on earth did I have a double standard? I stated "flight" can happen from other situations, but the focus of this thread is race. You posted numbers for Canarsie not Sheepshed Bay, and Canarsie did have people leaving because the newcomers were black not Russian (it's also a pain to measure flight for Sheepshed Bay since the race is the same).
This tangent started because someone (you?) made mention of Canarsie. We can't nail down Sheepshead Bay but we can get a pretty good idea, especially because it happened more recently. I'll have a crack at it later.
I don't doubt the presence of some racists in Canarsie who didn't want black neighbors. As I already pointed out, more than half of the white people in Canarsie in the 90s were going to move or die anyway and the loss of the white population was exaggerated because most of the white families with school aged kids left; ie, white households declined less slowly than the white pop. Crime was on the rise, there was racial violence among youths, and the neighborhood was in upheaval from a social perspective and here's where the double standard comes in (but I already said this and posted examples) . . .
When 300 white people move into a mostly black neighborhood of 6,000 (5%) over the course of a decade (mostly into new construction) and black people start moving out at a faster rate we talk about "gentrification" and how black people are being "forced out" but when 35,000 black people move into a mostly white neighborhood of 45,000 (78%) over the course of a decade (mostly into existing housing) people want to talk about "white flight."
Quote:
If you're going to make accusations at least try to back it up.
I've backed up my assertions with data. Repeatedly. I'm not sure what else you're expecting.
Quote:
I don't find "white flight" particularly loaded.
The popular narrative of "white flight" (which happens to be the one that you're using) is that white people left urban neighborhoods in the 1960s and 70s because black people were moving into them. People point to specific instances in Chicago and try to make tenuous connections to places like Canarsie or the Lower Northeast in Philly to say: "See, see, I told you!" But that's really all there is.
The white, middle class had been moving out of inner city neighborhoods since at least the 1920s, took a brief pause during the 1930s then got right back to it in the 1940s and they kept doing it at similar rates regardless of the presence or absence of black people. Those are the facts, backed up by census data, over and over, in neighborhoods all over the country.
So, yeah, "white flight" comes loaded with all kinds of accusations and judgements. That would be fine if it accurately summed up what happened to American cities in the 60s and 70s but it doesn't.
I think there should be some new info and a new narrative. The new info, which isn't really new, is the emergence of CCRs. These restrictions were noted in the reports, and they're general restrictions limiting the sale of properties to white people. (As defined at the time.)
In Los Angeles, these racist developments emerged in the 1910s, selling not only to the wealthy but also to the working class. While reading a history of a multicultral area called Boyle Heights, it noted that in the 1910s, Mexican families started to move into the neighborhood, which was mainly white, but not entirely.
By the 1930s, the Boyle Heights area was deeply multicultural, including white ethnics.
My sense was that people were moving out to different areas because new housing was being built. It was going to be white people moving, because these developments sold only to certain white people.
For the same reasons, minorities, with fewer options for residences, ended up living in either very old areas that were Mexican, or in the turn-of-the-century areas that were mixed.
These CCRs were in effect until the 1950s.
So, chances are, while there was "white flight" of white people moving because of "push factors" of nonwhites moving in, but also because there were "pull factors" of whites-only developments with new housing, and favorable lending terms that favored these racist developments.
It's not really fair to focus on the individual racism of residents who moved, when the entire system, both the government and private market, and most of society at large, were racist.
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.
