Detroit delenda est -- was the destruction of the city deliberate?

[Huggybear]

Hermod,

I did not myself think much of the southern presence up here until I saw an ethnic map of metro Detroit that used to hang in the lobby of the International Institute. I believe it was 1980 [[since the city was majority African American), but the thing that jumped out at you was that in the suburbs, the preponderance of census tracts outside of the city was denoted "Southern White" [[which I understood to mean 51% or more so). There were very small ethnic white concentrations in the city, but it was a surprise at least to me. I expected for some reason to see the 'burbs broken out into Irish, Italian, etc. - since record-keeping at Ellis Island was a little better than where slave ships landed.

"Majority" might be an overstatement as to what proportion the city had in the 1950s, but 500,000 southern whites did move to Michigan [[and primarily Detroit) starting around the time that WWII started and ending in the oil crisis. It is not a surprise [[at least to me) that race relations reached new lows shortly after their arrival [[c.f., 1943). And I don't think that southerners were the last big group of white people to go. At least from what I saw, the Poles and Italians on the East Side were the last - by about 10 years. That too, is not very surprising when you look at Oakland and Macomb real estate deeds [[restricting some properties to "Aryan" whites) and things like the Pointe System. It seems that until 1964, white was often not white enough.

Aside from the actual issue of majority population, the idea of extrapolating from a Warren [[or Livonia) phone book doesn't exactly prove that Detroit was majority Polish, Latvian or Martian. If I extrapolated from the area immediately surrounding my own neighborhood on the west side of Detroit proper as it existed in the 1980s, I would have concluded that Detroit consisted of 45% upwardly mobile African Americans, 45% crusty old white people, and 10% super-low-class, scary white people.

But at least meet the thrust of the argument - for the mass of outgoing residents, what would have kept them in cities in the first place? Through history, cities have been centers of culture, social interaction, and commerce. Most people who came to the United States, whether by hook or crook, were poor farmers. Would their outlook have changed with a pass through industrialized jobs? Our cultural institutions [[and indeed, city) were built almost completely by industrialists who emulated the largess of their East Coast counterparts. I don't think that interest in the arts [[or knowledge in general) diffused very well into the middle class - as is evidenced by the current lack of support for libraries.

HB

Completely wrong. The majority were eastern and northern European second and third generation Americans. While white migration from the south did occur, they were some of the last whites to flee the city.

Take a look at the Warren telephone book during the 1960s. it seemed like that in order to live in Warren, you either had to have multi-syllables in your last name [[e.g. Zdrojewski) or, if your name was short, it had to be mostly consonants [[e.g. Mraz). Not too many Wsevlod Hnatczuks migrated here from the south.

[Huggybear]

English,

I appreciate the analogy, though it's hard to directly compare Cato's [[or the popular sentiment) to the present. Carthage was the USSR to the Romans, except that the Carthaginians were capable of penetrating the Roman territory itself and often did. Carthage indeed was a popular enemy, but I think it was more because they were a direct military threat [[Hannibal actually got to within about 100 miles from the walls of Rome). Salting the fields was a myth - but the Romans did re-establish in Utica [[ahem) and then rebuilt Delta City [[er... Carthage). Carthage later became a very important port for grain and a very important Roman city.

As to the "doomed" metaphor, I think you might be reaching for Book II of the Aeneid, where Aeneas has a vision in which he sees the gods themselves pulling down the city walls of Troy [[from the public domain Klein translation):

You do not hate the face of the Spartan daughter of Tyndareus [HB Note: Helen], nor is Paris to blame: the ruthlessness of the gods, of the gods,brought down this power, and toppled Troy from its heights. See [[for I’ll tear away all the mist that now, shrouding your sight, dims your mortal vision, and darkens everything with moisture: don’t be afraid of what your mother commands, or refuse to obey her wisdom): here, where you see shattered heaps of stone torn from stone, and smoke billowing mixed with dust, Neptune is shaking the walls, and the foundations, stirred by his mighty trident, and tearing the whole city up by it roots. There, Juno, the fiercest, is first to take the Scaean Gate, and, sword at her side, calls on her troops from the ships, in rage. Now, see, Tritonian Pallas, standing on the highest towers, sending lightning from the storm-cloud, and her grim Gorgon breastplate. Father Jupiter himself supplies the Greeks with courage, and fortunate strength, himself excites the gods against the Trojan army. Hurry your departure, son, and put an end to your efforts. I will not leave you, and I will place you safe at your father’s door.” She spoke, and hid herself in the dense shadows of night. Dreadful shapes appeared, and the vast powers of gods opposed to Troy.

They don't write 'em like that anymore.

That said, I don't subscribe to the view that Detroit is ever necessarily doomed. I'd rather take this line from T.E. Lawrence:

"Nothing is written."

HB

Huggybear: no, my thesis is not flawed. Cato not only used the phrase while exhorting the Senate, but as you know, it was an obsession. My title was intended as an allusion, not a direct analogy.

More thoughts: the death of Detroit represents the death of low-skilled, high wage employment.

Detroit = organized labor. We now live in a city that defined labor in a post-labor world. We are reaching a point in human history where not only low skilled labor is nearly worthless, even educated, high skilled labor will be outsourced now, and performed by AI later. Not only are the "jobs not coming back" [[a popular catchphrase around here since at least the Clinton era) in manufacturing, smug white collar professionals from every field will soon live to see professions thought safe from offshoring under threat. Journalism, education, engineering, law... a thousand others... none of these guarantee employment after training or a living wage once one secures employment. The Millennial generation is graduating from college to compete in a brutal job market, the likes of which have not been seen since the Depression.

I know I sound like a 1970s era apocalyptic alarmist, but the issue is that there are too many people for our present national and global economies to sustain. When the public good has become our scapegoat, and multinational corporations are our secular saints, this present order of things is not sustainable. Not every city and every ghetto will take post-capitalism as quietly and calmly as Detroit has.

Perhaps Detroit's destruction wasn't deliberate. But some of the factors that were thrown into the poisoned soup absolutely were.

[English]

English,

I appreciate the analogy, though it's hard to directly compare Cato's [[or the popular sentiment) to the present. Carthage was the USSR to the Romans, except that the Carthaginians were capable of penetrating the Roman territory itself and often did. Carthage indeed was a popular enemy, but I think it was more because they were a direct military threat [[Hannibal actually got to within about 100 miles from the walls of Rome). Salting the fields was a myth - but the Romans did re-establish in Utica [[ahem) and then rebuilt Delta City [[er... Carthage). Carthage later became a very important port for grain and a very important Roman city.

As to the "doomed" metaphor, I think you might be reaching for Book II of the Aeneid, where Aeneas has a vision in which he sees the gods themselves pulling down the city walls of Troy [[from the public domain Klein translation):

You do not hate the face of the Spartan daughter of Tyndareus [HB Note: Helen], nor is Paris to blame: the ruthlessness of the gods, of the gods,brought down this power, and toppled Troy from its heights. See [[for I’ll tear away all the mist that now, shrouding your sight, dims your mortal vision, and darkens everything with moisture: don’t be afraid of what your mother commands, or refuse to obey her wisdom): here, where you see shattered heaps of stone torn from stone, and smoke billowing mixed with dust, Neptune is shaking the walls, and the foundations, stirred by his mighty trident, and tearing the whole city up by it roots. There, Juno, the fiercest, is first to take the Scaean Gate, and, sword at her side, calls on her troops from the ships, in rage. Now, see, Tritonian Pallas, standing on the highest towers, sending lightning from the storm-cloud, and her grim Gorgon breastplate. Father Jupiter himself supplies the Greeks with courage, and fortunate strength, himself excites the gods against the Trojan army. Hurry your departure, son, and put an end to your efforts. I will not leave you, and I will place you safe at your father’s door.” She spoke, and hid herself in the dense shadows of night. Dreadful shapes appeared, and the vast powers of gods opposed to Troy.

They don't write 'em like that anymore.

That said, I don't subscribe to the view that Detroit is ever necessarily doomed. I'd rather take this line from T.E. Lawrence:

"Nothing is written."

HB

Extra bonus points for quoting from the Aeneid, which I admit I've haven't read since Renaissance HS, and then, only in excerpts. Another summer project... the quest to continue one's education is never ending.

No matter what happened in the past, Detroit will be fine as long as brilliant people like you continue to support her.

[Guideboat]

Either way: "Speramus Meliora; Resurget Cineribus"

[michiganessay]

I think suburban excellence is an often overlooked cause of Detroit's decline. Detroiters have been the leaders and inventors in the four key areas that define the modern American landscape:

• cars [[Ford, Durante, Sloan, Chrysler, Kettering, etc)
• freeways [[MDOT's Frank Rogers 1905-1929)
• shopping malls [[Taubman)
• subdivisions [[Pulte)

Living at the epicenter of the creation of these "suburban technologies" we adopted them in the early 1900s as quickly and thoroughly as San Franciscans adopted Twitter, Yelp and Google in this century.

The decline of Detroit was an unintended consequence.

I wrote an overly long, rambling blog post about my theory here:

http://www.michiganessay.com/2010/09...d-detroit.html

[DetroitDad]

It may be said that the Romans sowed the soil of Carthage with salt. However, Carthage was poisoning their own soil through poor hydrological drainage techniques. Poor drainage allowed the build up of salinity in the soil, which left them open to further problems which they otherwise would have been able to recover from.

It may all be myth, but is still a powerful metaphor.

[atl_runner]

Sorry to be so simplistic, but there is but one reason for Detroit's decline. This is consistent and evidenced all over the world, and in all of history.

Failed leadership. That's it, nothing else. Failed leadership brings down major corporations, cities, countries.. all the time. Once failed leadership takes hold, it takes drastic measures to reverse. Wars, major restructuring, etc. Detroit is no different. It had bad leadership from the 60's through Archer, then the Kilpatrick debacle, and the book has yet to be written on Bing. 45+ years of poor leadership and bad decisions, has taken an obviously drastic toll. Things could be different in Detroit today. Fate is never predetermined in this regard. You can argue union, left vs right, etc. These arguments exist everywhere.. from the local HOA, to the Highest office in the land. It's how these things are met, that determines the outcome. Case in point, New York City. It was in obvious decline until strong leadership stepped in and halted, then reversed the trend. Detroit needs strong leadership, that makes decisions, not based on the comfort of a few, but for the overall good of the masses. Strong leadership prevails in every case. Schneider is a blessing for the State of Michigan. A case of strong leadership making tough changes that must be made to make the State appealing to all.. not just a few. I think Granholm was strong as well, but she was in office during very difficult times.

You have heard the phrase.. it's often the easiest answer that solves the problem... or some variation of that. That's the case with Detroit. It is THAT easy. It's not some complex situation that's unique to Detroit. It's a series of mismanagement that destroyed it from within. Remember this.. the Auto industry moved out, because the city and it's labor force was no longer appealing. That's the ONLY reason.

The only people that spread salt over Detroit's land, were it's elected leaders.

[DetroitDad]

Sorry to be so simplistic, but there is but one reason for Detroit's decline. This is consistent and evidenced all over the world, and in all of history.

Failed leadership. That's it, nothing else. Failed leadership brings down major corporations, cities, countries.. all the time. Once failed leadership takes hold, it takes drastic measures to reverse. Wars, major restructuring, etc. Detroit is no different. It had bad leadership from the 60's through Archer, then the Kilpatrick debacle, and the book has yet to be written on Bing. 45+ years of poor leadership and bad decisions, has taken an obviously drastic toll. Things could be different in Detroit today. Fate is never predetermined in this regard. You can argue union, left vs right, etc. These arguments exist everywhere.. from the local HOA, to the Highest office in the land. It's how these things are met, that determines the outcome. Case in point, New York City. It was in obvious decline until strong leadership stepped in and halted, then reversed the trend. Detroit needs strong leadership, that makes decisions, not based on the comfort of a few, but for the overall good of the masses. Strong leadership prevails in every case. Schneider is a blessing for the State of Michigan. A case of strong leadership making tough changes that must be made to make the State appealing to all.. not just a few. I think Granholm was strong as well, but she was in office during very difficult times.

You have heard the phrase.. it's often the easiest answer that solves the problem... or some variation of that. That's the case with Detroit. It is THAT easy. It's not some complex situation that's unique to Detroit. It's a series of mismanagement that destroyed it from within. Remember this.. the Auto industry moved out, because the city and it's labor force was no longer appealing. That's the ONLY reason.

The only people that spread salt over Detroit's land, were it's elected leaders.

Why do we have a system that promotes failed leadership?

[NorthEndere]

I call BS. Detroit is far from the only city with consistently bad leadership, however one can even begin to define that in the first place. Hell, there are a bunch of cities in the fast-growing sunbelt that have had lacking leadership for decades, too. Places generally find away in spite of poor civic leadership. Hell, sunny, successful San Diego had a near decade-long pension scandal over the 00's, that make Detroit's pensions inconsistencies look benign in comparison. Operation Big Rig, a corruption operation, swept New Jersey in 2009 bringing down 29 public officials.

At the end of the day, business happens where it wants to, and so long as the government gets out of their way/doesn't extort them too much, they couldn't care less who a mayor is boinking or what kind of illegal activities a city councilperson is doing on the side. Political leadership as a source of economic instability is way overblown. Business happens in 'clean' cities and corrupt ones. Detroit has been in the wrong place at the wrong time[[s). Every major city on Lake Erie crashed over the decade.

[mwilbert]

Actually, you would have a hard time finding another city with leadership as consistently bad as Detroit's. It is kind of like the Lions--other cities may be worse at a given time, but year-in, year-out Detroit is in contention for the bottom. However, the idea that it is all leadership is ridiculous too. Detroit has a particular set of handicaps [[low educational levels, cold weather, declining major industry) that even stellar leadership would not have been able to overcome.

[NorthEndere]

How would you characterize, say, New Orleans leadership [[from the top all the way down) over the last, oh, half century? I'm genuinely curious. I see a lot of opinions [[particularly from those too emtionally invested to make valid ones) that Coleman A. Young, for instance, was the worst. mayor. in. history., but generally, when I look at who controlled the similar offices in the likes of Chicago, Philadelphia, etc...the trend seems to be that business makes a way in places where businesses needs to be done. Detroit has only had, what, six mayors prior the end of Kilpatrick's term during which the city's population decline, right? How does one objectively judge what a "good" term and "bad" term are? I'm not being facetious, really.

[coljoh]

i grew up in Detroit and lived there from 1960 - 1978. It was a great place to live and grow up during that time. I feel that the former city government became greedy and started looking at their position as a way to make money steeling from the city and it's people and they they re-elect them. They didn't do anything to bring businesses into the city or offer incentives for the one's that were there to stay. Detroit can be rebuilt, but it won't be done quickly. It took decades to knock her down; it could take decades to build her back up. It's sad to see so many beautiful buildings, not just buildings, but beautiful pieces of art rotting away and having to be demolished...the train station, Redford High School to name a few.

[mwilbert]

How would you characterize, say, New Orleans leadership [[from the top all the way down) over the last, oh, half century?

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about New Orleans, but my memories are that Moon Landrieu and the Morials were pretty decent mayors. I might also want to make an allowance for the fact that New Orleans is a city in the political cesspool of Louisiana. Certainly New Orleans had better results with urban development, but that is the probably the difference between a town in a booming industry [[oil/gas) and a town without one. Certainly Katrina was not handled very well, although how much of that is due to the administration of the city I think is hard to tell.

[Detroitnerd]

I would say that Southern whites moved out of the city more readily than Poles. Polish and Eastern European communities invested staggering amounts of money in their own social centers, churches, schools and other assets. They were loath to leave. In fact, behind African-Americans and Latinos, Poles are still a distant third when it comes to ethnicities in Detroit.