http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/op...e.html?_r=1&hp
Printable View
A little more than one word and a blind link would be helpful.
Truth indeed.
Thomas Sugrue has an interesting Op-Ed piece in the Sunday NYTimes today with a photograph by local photographer Brian Widdis from the Can't Forget the Motor City photo project that he and DFP photographer Romain Blanquart have been working on for over two years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27Sugrue.html
http://www.cantforgetthemotorcity.com/
An opinion article by one who wrote a book covering the same topic. Seems like nothing more than peddling of his wares to try and increase sales. No story here.
I think he makes good points. I'm glad we're no longer the most segregated metro [[patting my generation on the back), but you don't see droves of Detroiters moving to Grosse Pointe, and I am very concerned about Southfield's long term viability.
As for this...
...I only knew about this because of the work of Jim Loewen and Tim Wise. I was shocked when I learned about the FHA's midcentury policies. Between this and the nineteenth-century Homestead Act, along with a host of other "freebies," certain folks lose a lot of moral ground when screaming about "entitlement programs [[!!!!)."Quote:
Whites, meanwhile, benefited from enormous homeownership subsidies through the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans Administration...
He's also a Detroit native.Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
If you want to avoid the nightmare that has become our suburban dystopia, move to the city's core. The racial animosity and angst that overwhelms me in the suburbs is greatly tempered in places like Midtown and downtown. Unlike the suburbs, people aren't trying to separate and segregate, they are trying to unite with one another around an area. My stress level over these things went down dramatically after I moved downtown and I realized that neither me nor my black neighbor wanted to get away from one another. We're just people living in a city we both love.
You should be. Hard to see any scenario except a quick end to regional population loss where it doesn't have severe problems.Quote:
I am very concerned about Southfield's long term viability.
There isn't any general objection to entitlements, just entitlements for other people.Quote:
Between this and the nineteenth-century Homestead Act, along with a host of other "freebies," certain folks lose a lot of moral ground when screaming about "entitlement programs [[!!!!)."
At least blacks weren't legally prevented from homesteading. The discrimination by the post-war housing and agriculture agencies was both ethically awful and practically damaging.
Not really; academic books of that type aren't written to get sales. They're either written as part of an academic career, in which case getting it published is important but sales are pretty much irrelevant, or they are written to bring attention to a viewpoint, in which case a NYT op-ed is its own reward.Quote:
An opinion article by one who wrote a book covering the same topic. Seems like nothing more than peddling of his wares to try and increase sales. No story here.
Totally agreed. Can't wait to join you guys in just over a month!Quote:
Originally Posted by BrushStart
Yes. I feel so sad for my older relatives. They talk about Detroit horribly, which makes sense for people who'd lived their for more than a half century and saw their property values erode. But when I point out some of the issues I've experienced in Southfield, they get quiet.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
The only thing that will help Southfield and the rest of the inner ring in the long run is right-sizing Detroit and public transportation.
:) Very true.Quote:
There isn't any general objection to entitlements, just entitlements for other people.
No, they weren't, and many took advantage of it. However, racial violence and intimidation undermined the viability of many individual homesteads and majority-black towns. I thought Jim Loewen's Sundown Towns would be about those notorious signs that existed in small-town America 50 or more years ago. Instead, it was about something much more frightening.Quote:
At least blacks weren't legally prevented from homesteading.
The phenomenon of all-white or 98-99% white townships, towns, and cities is relatively recent in American history:Quote:
Sundown towns arose during a crucial era of American history, 1890–1940, when, after the gains of the Civil War and Reconstruction eras, race relations systematically grew worse. Since the 1955 publication of C.Vann Woodward’s famous book,The Strange Career of Jim Crow, historians of the South have recognized that segregation became much stricter after 1890. No longer could African Americans vote; no longer could they use the restaurants and public parks that whites used; even streetcars and railroad waiting rooms now put up screens or signs to isolate blacks in separate sections.
African Americans were also beset by violence, as lynchings rose to their highest point. However, most Americans have no idea that race relations worsened between 1890 and the 1930s. As Edwin Yoder Jr. wrote in 2003 in the Washington Post, “Notwithstanding the brilliant revisionist works of the late C.Vann Woodward, few Americans even remotely grasp the earthquake of 1890–1901 that overthrew biracial voting in the South."
This backlash against African Americans was not limited to the South but was national. Neither the public nor most historians realize that the same earthquake struck the North, too. Woodward actually did; he wrote in the preface to the second edition of his classic that the only reason he did not treat the worsening of race relations in the North was because “my own competence does not extend that far.” Unfortunately, except for a handful of important monographs on individual states and locales, few historians have tried to fill the gap in the half century since. Thus they missed one of the most appalling and widespread racial practices of them all: sundown towns. While African Americans never lost the right to vote in the North [[although there were gestures in that direction), they did lose the right to live in town after town, county after county.
Quote:
In 1884, it was “a rare mark of distinction” for a town the size of Waverly to be all-white. A few years later, however, beginning around 1890 and lasting until at least 1968, towns throughout Ohio and most other states began to emulate the racial policy of places like Wyandotte and Waverly. Most independent sundown towns expelled their black residents, or agreed not to admit any, between 1890 and 1940. Sundown suburbs arose still later, between 1900 and 1968. By the middle of the twentieth century, it was no longer rare for towns the size of Waverly to be all-white. It was common, and usually it was on purpose.
So sundown towns are not only widespread, but also relatively recent. Except for a handful of places such as Wyandotte and Waverly, most towns did not go sundown during slavery, before the Civil War, or during Reconstruction. On the contrary, blacks moved everywhere in America between 1865 and 1890. African Americans reached every county of Montana. More than 400 lived in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. City neighborhoods across the country were fairly integrated, too, even if black inhabitants were often servants or gardeners for their white neighbors.
Between 1890 and the 1930s, however, all this changed. By 1930, although its white population had increased by 75%, the Upper Peninsula was home to only 331 African Americans, and 180 of them were inmates of the Marquette State Prison. Eleven Montana counties had no blacks at all. Across the country, city neighborhoods grew more and more segregated. Most astonishing, from California to Minnesota to Long Island to Florida, whites mounted little race riots against African Americans, expelling entire black communities or intimidating and keeping out would-be newcomers.
Sundown Towns then proceeds to document incident after incident of racial-ethnic cleansing between 1890 and 1960 all over the country. Jim Loewen, whom I met a few years ago, believes that his research reveals that the incidents in Rosewood, FL; Tulsa, OK; and Malaga Island, ME were not isolated events precipitated by a few lunatics. No, this stuff was as common as the proliferation of social media is now. Loewen thought he'd find a few dozen sundown towns when he began his research, and no more than 50. At the time the book was published, he'd documented well over 2000, with readers and researchers documenting more on his website: http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/sundowntowns.php
This is part of the hidden history of the United States that gets left out when discussing the 1967 riots [[or any other riot), or residential segregation, or wealth disparities between African Americans and other groups, or why blacks haven't done nearly as well for themselves as recent immigrants. After learning about what happened in the century between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1963 March on Washington, my strong belief is that Civil Rights came too late to save the black underclass. Maybe if equity had come right after WWII, they could have shared in the postwar prosperity, but by the time things got rectified, we were already in the midst of the post-industrial economy and laissez-faire economic policies. From slavery to sharecropping to slums, as a group, they never had a chance. Thus, you have the plight of the majority of Detroiters outside of the CBD today.
Origins of the Urban Crisis came out 15 years ago. If nothing else, this article updates his findings in light of the new census data.Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
Don't they just? Unless we find a more savory expression. It's a lot like momma's little helper for Valium, Librium et al. in the good old fifties...Quote:
Originally Posted by English
I havent read his book yet but will soon!Quote:
An opinion article by one who wrote a book covering the same topic. Seems like nothing more than peddling of his wares to try and increase sales. No story here.
brushstart = mindheart
English,
By merging the issues you raise in your last post and the thread on the dissolution of Detroit, I couldnt help myself. How convenient for latter day segregationists it is to illustrate the ineptness of Detroit's black ruling class in managing civic affairs. The same state of affairs was engineered by France and the US throughout Haiti's independance. One thing had to be avoided at all costs during that period up until now; the idea that Haiti could succeed as a nation. For the same reason, countries like Russia and China are opposed to an intervention in Lybia, and censoring internet info on Egyptian, Tunisian uprisings. They are afraid of the domino effect, as it were.
Hi Canuck: I think perhaps in the beginning, there was some malicious intent. Today, we're all trapped in a history that we don't understand.
I totally agree with you about the domino effect. If the problem of the 20th century was the problem of the color line, the problem of the 21st will be the problem of global socioeconomic class. In the 1960s, there was nearly an international revolution... I've heard lots of activists from that era talk about it.
I don't know enough about that history to understand what happened or how, but the first few decades after WWII were phenomenal in the amount of change that occurred. Yes, America enjoyed its highest standard of living and lowest distance between classes, but at the same time, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East were throwing off the shackles of colonialism. In Latin America, governments were being overthrown by the people. All over the globe, women, people of color, and poor and working class white men were standing up.
What a glorious time that must have been! And we live in interesting times now, too. We are all children of sad stories, but while we live, I believe we can write jubilant songs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
An opinion article by one who wrote a book covering the same topic. Seems like nothing more than peddling of his wares to try and increase sales. No story here.
I agree^ and the following paragraph from the article encapsulates those findings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustiner
Two or three years back I polled this forum on its choice for best Detroit book. Sugrue's "Origins of the Urban Crisis" won hands down. His book lays down, chapter, line and verse, a racist legacy that created a destructive racial divide that still plagues our metropolis.Quote:
What, then, accounts for blacks’ move to the suburbs in the last decade? Like whites, blacks have long looked for alternatives to Detroit, with its high crime, poor services and scarce job opportunities. But it was not until the economy of the entire metropolitan area slumped, thanks to the faltering auto industry and the foreclosure crisis, that black buyers finally found whites willing — desperate, in fact — to sell their suburban houses, especially in the working-class and lower-middle-class towns bordering the city.
The distance between the classes part is correct. The highest standard of living part probably isn't, although it is impossible to say for sure because "standard of living" isn't well-defined. But if you think about what people's lives were like in 1960 or even 1980, I would say they are better off now.Quote:
Yes, America enjoyed its highest standard of living and lowest distance between classes [in the decades after WWII]
What is not better is people's sense of progress--economic progress for average people has been very slow since 1973--and of course American's sense of their position in the world. We used to be really rich compared to everybody else, and now we a quite rich but there are lots of other rich people and lots more catching up pretty fast. The US is a much less self-confident country than it was 40 or 50 years ago, but that is despite its people being better off, not because they aren't.
"Today, we're all trapped in a history that we don't understand."
Very well said.
True, people are a lot better off nowadays in terms of opportunity and mobility across the US and Canada for that matter. There are many things that were swept under the rug in the fifties, and the relative spike in wealth can easily hide that fact. Just think of the thousands of people that ended up cloistered in mental institutions, orphanages and forgotten, hidden. Children of Native communities in Canada were taken from their families and cut off from their culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Then as you say, there are those up and coming countries we used to think would always be mired in misery, but are now making great strides. On one hand we want them to access the comforts we have and yet the whole cycle of fighting for worker's rights, health and welfare issues versus industrial development is starting where ours seems to be ending. Are we to give up on what generations fought for or be more demanding both for our rights and others in less fortunate places? I think unions need to be more forthcoming and bring new ideas if they want their memberships to believe in the common good, not just entitlements.
While much of Sugrue's article does not break new ground, I do think the end of the article raises an interesting question that will be crucial for southeast Michigan in the decades ahead: what will come of the "second-hand" suburbs [[as Sugrue calls them)?
Will middle-class blacks who have recently moved to these areas try to keep out lower-income people from Detroit? Will the suburbs stabilize racially, or will there be dramatic transitions, as occurred in the city in prior decades? Will the economy improve, making it harder for future generations moving from the city to make it to the suburbs?
I just hope this decline stops in Detroit and doesn't spread across the whole U.S. of A.
Troll warning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Houdini
Change "standard of living" to "quality of life," then. People today have more stuff and live longer thanks to advances in medical research and technology. I doubt that people are happier or live better lives today.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Again, I think that we have more stuff that we don't need. We've lost a sense of community, social purpose, and any sort of notion of the common good. We weren't just materially rich 40-50 years ago, we didn't have a government or a society with the mantra of every man/woman/child for himself or herself.Quote:
What is not better is people's sense of progress--economic progress for average people has been very slow since 1973--and of course American's sense of their position in the world. We used to be really rich compared to everybody else, and now we a quite rich but there are lots of other rich people and lots more catching up pretty fast. The US is a much less self-confident country than it was 40 or 50 years ago, but that is despite its people being better off, not because they aren't.
Demographers are predicting that the exurbs are in trouble nationwide. They may hold on a while longer in SE Michigan [[perhaps another 10-15 years, as we have upper middle class Baby Boomers who are empty nesters), but by midcentury, unless we discover an energy source that will replace oil, that area will be largely rural again.Quote:
Originally Posted by cman710
At a time when over 50% of Americans are unmarried, and people delay marriage and childbirth longer than they have in human history, the model that built the suburbs will eventually have difficulty sustaining itself.
I am pretty sure that as of the last census, the exurbs were among the fastest growing areas, so I would be interested to learn what this latest census shows.Quote:
Originally Posted by English
One thing that will keep suburbs alive to some extent is cost. Urban living in most places comes with a price, so I think there will always be people who move to suburbs for bigger houses, more room, etc. Suburbs will always coexist with cities, but I suppose the question remains what the ultimate equilibrium will be, if any.
In this sense, Washington, D.C. is an interesting study, as the city has become more and more white during the past decade and minorities have increasingly moved to the suburbs.