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

[English]

"Carthago delenda est" -- attributed to Cato the Elder, one of the most chilling statements to come out of ancient civilization. Carthage must be destroyed. And the Romans destroyed it, in what today we'd consider a genocidal, manic fury. Legend says that they sowed the ground with salt so that nothing would grow in its spot, and the rest of that long-ago world would take note.

So I'm reading various articles and perspectives about the decline and destruction of the city of Detroit. We were reviled, but a real place when I was child. Today, we have become a national and international metaphor for the dark side of... something.

The right wing believe that Detroit was destroyed by socialism and the labor movement. [[See, for instance, http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...d_home_on.html)

The far right wing believes that Detroit is the new Hiroshima. [[See http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...f_hiroshi.html)

The left wing believes that Detroit was destroyed by the failure of laissez-faire capitalism and the loss of jobs. [[See http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/24/po...ties-like-det/)

The socialists believe that Detroit was destroyed by a capitalist-UAW conspiracy. [[See http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/ma...pers-m26.shtml)

Very few people seem to believe as many of us here at DYes do, that Detroit was ruined by a number of factors that fed off each other and formed the perfect storm. Then again, few people around here, let alone around the country or world, know as much about our city's history as we do.

There seems to be this persistent perception -- and our landscapes do much to add to this impression -- that Detroit was not only destroyed, but that this destruction was inevitable and done on purpose.

Detroit delenda est. Who felt that way [[or feels that way), and why?

[mwilbert]

None of the things you mention would have been deliberately destroying Detroit [[except maybe for the World Socialists); Detroit would have just been collateral damage of a wider plan or set of principles. There isn't much question in my mind that there is has been a concerted effort to weaken the power of labor over the past 60 years, but I don't think it was part of a plot against Detroit specifically. That was just a side effect.

The other thing to keep in mind is that if you look at manufacturing employment around the world, it is falling everywhere, even in China. Manufacturing productivity is high and rising everyplace. The model of large numbers of relatively low-skilled, high-paying jobs was always doomed, and Detroit was the apex of the low-skilled, high-paying job. The problem was that the high pay meant it was hard to shift labor out of auto jobs or to attract other employers. Detroit was hit harder than anywhere else. Again, I don't think any of that was intentional, but it proved a lethal mixture in combination with abysmal government, both within Detroit and in terms of regional planning.

[Jimaz]

That was an excellent thread starter, English.

First, Detroit hasn't yet been totally destroyed but it has been damaged enough to raise these questions. Don't give up hope!

Second, it wouldn't help to go searching for scapegoats if that search diverted resources away from rebuilding Detroit.

Third, if there actually were a deliberate plot to destroy Detroit [[or any city for that matter) it would be a tragedy to trivialize it by claiming their opponents are just scapegoating.

So who would benefit from destroying Detroit? I don't think anyone denies there's been a decades long war against labor in this country. Detroit is a labor stronghold. At this point I'm thinking Detroit's problems are mostly collateral damage in the war against labor. There are other factors, of course. That's the largest factor though, IMHO.

[English]

Thanks, you two. I am starting to think that it's not just labor; it's the water. I know there are other major cities located along the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Waterway. But what percentage of the nation's freshwater comes from the Lakes? Not only now, but in 50 years, when I am my grandmother's age?

I've spent my life thus far rolling my eyes at Detroit politicians and their machinations around "our water." I still don't think that highly of the city vs. suburbs water debate, but I can't help but wonder if metro Detroiters [[beyond our racial battles) are seen as the wrong kind of people to have all this water access. The Rust Belt rusted because there is so much water nearby -- this is the industrial heartland precisely because water was needed.

Imagine a near-future scenario and planet where our local squabbles over the water become national, or even international. While informally interviewing for a job in a Mountain West state, I think I made a huge mistake by asking during a casual conversation "Where does your water come from? Where are your lakes?" Little did I know I'd touched upon a sore point out there. As more population shifts to the South and West, and their cities grow larger and have more clout, I'm not sure that we'll have much say over the use of our natural resources.

Also, Detroit -- and Michigan -- are incredibly backwards places in some ways, but incredibly progressive in other ways. We were the first English-speaking government on the planet to abolish capital punishment. We are the cradle of the American labor movement, but I learned this fall at a that during the first 5-6 decades of the 20th century, Detroit also had one of the most progressive social services programs, predating the New Deal. We do not, as a rule, take kindly to aristocrats or people who are too high and mighty. Even our most prominent figures come from very humble beginnings [[think Henry Ford). Our city's colleges and universities aren't for the elite, but for the masses of first-generation college students, and have always been that way.

The nation and the world turn their heads away, but I can't help but think that Detroit has some huge and pivotal role to play during this century. If Detroit does come back, not to its former grand self, but becoming a functioning and vital smaller city, it will likely be without the aid of major corporations or federal benefactors. We'd have to do it all by ourselves.

I know, lots of random thoughts... but this is what's going on in my mind after immersing myself in all these articles during a lazy Saturday.

[Richard]

IMHO I would agree that Detroit has not been destroyed totally,but it seems clear enough that there have been personal agendas that have contributed to the past demise,and the lack of public support to stand up.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

[mwilbert]

Ignoring the legal problems, including the international issues with Canada, it would be difficult to move a large amount of Great Lake water outside of the Midwest/Missisippi Valley/Northeast--there are mountains in the way, and pumping water over long distances uphill takes a lot of energy. Think of all the electricity you get from hydroelectric projects in the West; it would take at least that much electricity to get a comparable amount of water from here to there. Actually, it would take a lot more.

What is probably feasible [[technically, not politically) is transporting a lot of water south from Alaska and Western Canada. That would actually create electricity rather than consume it. This was proposed a long time ago but Canada wasn't interested. I can't find any reliable online references because this has become a pet project of the LaRouchies, but it preexisted them. It also preexisted modern environmental protection laws--the EIS would be a million pages long.

[Islandman]

If the "end of days" ever happen, we will have an influx of people from all parts of North America due to our water. I'm sure they'll be bringing their guns with them. I'd rather not be here for that.

[DetroitPlanner]

They are both wrong. The downfall of Detroit happened when men began to wear fewer fashionable hats. Compare the fedora, which was around in the 1930's and this city was thriving to today's baseball cap cocked to the side to cover bald spots.

The bottom line is the right sees what they want to see. The left sees wat they want to see. I see hats.

[canuck]

Very good question English!


I vote for an unfortunate set of circumstances including the usual suspects which I wont enumerate. But for the sake of argument, the race issue and the lack of regional planning compounded the divide and has seriously undermined community cohesion. The metro municipalities should have acted in tandem instead of competing at the expense of Detroit. But that would have meant accepting transit oriented planning and thus, issues of mobility between communities; a big no-no it seems.

If to the outside world, Detroit seems perplexing, the planning and transit issues are first and foremost finger pointed. Los Angeles was an unlikely candidate in the subway and light rail ticket for a long time, and yet managed to enable mobility for all classes of people once new equipment appeared. That and oher cities needed to create the offer because they recognized that they were competing for jobs, and the lifestyle that include a better set of civic equipment. Detroit's identity as the motor city equated an A-class lifestyle with car ownership; no need to stoop to a lower rung. Los Angeles has a very wealthy population, but also a huge turnaround of immigrants who were employed in the garment trade, landscaping, agriculture that needed to be served. Just need to look at The South Bronx's regeneration in the past twenty years at a time when Real Estate value in NYC was at a prime. The fact that transit exists in a very dense pattern all over the city enables the kind of renewal in a once reviled ghetto. The cheap mobility enables job seeking, educational opportunities and not least of all; mixing.

[DetroitDad]

English, very good!

The problems at Ford, Chrysler, GM and Delphi needs to be studied now more than ever. If each city state faces it's greatest challenge in it's hubris, then what will be their reaction? What will this mean for Detroit? While the algorithms and matrix of problems are limitless, the resulting scenarios are very few. The oracles and prophets prognosticate based on the proven odds of longterm cause and effect, not sorcery and witchcraft. We can assume history is almost always lost in the sands of time.

Except when it's not. For idealists quisnam es verus ut thyselfs, grex ovis est voluntas of suum ago. Our faces change, but we are cursed with a deeper tie in that usually sends us into the depths of Hell to bring back the sun and illuminate the darkest of corners.

It is true that Detroit has not been completely destroyed, but some will have you believe like a Lot lost if we turn back now.

Like Detroit, Carthage's soil salinity was a a compound problem. Rome may have played a part, but that ship was sunk before it ever set sail. What Rome didn't know was that the metaphorical protective armor and safety nets of Carthage were gone. Carthage had a inadequate drainage system, and salt had already been building up for some time. This was their Achilles heel. Rome had pushed them over the edge.

I see a very rocky and violent future for Detroit. But, maybe our leaders are not as crazy as we think they are, plowing the fields with a donkey and an ox, while secretly strip cropping the fields of Detroit.

[ferntruth]

They are both wrong. The downfall of Detroit happened when men began to wear fewer fashionable hats. Compare the fedora, which was around in the 1930's and this city was thriving to today's baseball cap cocked to the side to cover bald spots.

The bottom line is the right sees what they want to see. The left sees wat they want to see. I see hats.

Fantastic post!

[Vox]

Equidem defleo illorum demens apices

[Detroitnerd]

I believe that the powers that be have been trying to kill off unions for decades. That is one of the major reasons why Detroit has seen a decline in prosperity. But it's not the only reason. For instance, look at another one of the major union towns 60 years ago: San Francisco.

[Mr. Houdini]

Detroiters killed Detroit. Nothing else; just the people who live there.

[ghettopalmetto]

Detroiters killed Detroit. Nothing else; just the people who live there.

So the residents of Detroit in 2011 are responsible for the loss of over 1 million in population in the past 60 years?

That's an interesting argument to make, don't you think?

[bartock]

Equidem defleo illorum demens apices

100% agree!!

[Danny]

If you all look at the segregation, xenophobia, white flight, suburban expansion, freeways, shopping malls and centers, liberal wrongdoings, too much union demands, The election of Coleman A. Young, black dominance of city services, black control in most Detroit neighborhoods after 1975, A ghostown like Downtown Detroit, poor Detroit Public School Districts, poor police services, ecomonic and regional flight, Kwame's parties, black middle class flight and a cookie Detroit city council. Then people will forget about Detroit, leave it rot and move on. Don't give up on Detroit because Detroit made America move to the next level and this city will prosper to the next century and beyond.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET!

Detroit will rise again.

Neda, I miss you so.

[j to the jeremy]

Awesome conversation starter, English. The problems I see in Detroit are the unique combination of a uniquely Michigan sedentary car culture, and the US government's "American Dream" policies of slum clearance, highway building, and FHA suburbs, as well as the collusion of oil companies and car companies to ensure their short-run profits always took precedent over the health of the region that allowed them to flourish. [[Buying up streetcars, building highways downtown, fueling a regional culture of entitlement and racial tension,etc.)

But the thing that always makes me think is the water, as well. I've always loved this state for its H2O, and never felt quite at home anywhere else. The sunbelt's aquifers are drying up, the housing bubble has burst, and I think in the next 50 years, a lot of people will be crawling back to the Great Lakes in shame. In Arizona you often don't get tap water at restaurants unless you ask for it. Sometimes you have to pay.

[English]

To those of you who mocked my thread -- :-P

In Arizona you often don't get tap water at restaurants unless you ask for it. Sometimes you have to pay.

That's criminal. A desert boomtown has some practical limitations. But thinking back to mwilbert's point about the legal and logistical obstacles to taking the water, if people get thirsty enough in politically powerful regions, they'll do whatever they have to do. We already are endangering our ecosystems to drill for oil and metals. Looking at what's happened to the Aral Sea, and the way many institutions we've taken for granted are imperiled because of sociopolitical ideologies that reek of rank selfishness, I am almost certain that preserving the Great Lakes is a fight we'll have to have in my lifetime.

[j to the jeremy]

It does help that Canada "owns" half of the Great Lakes. They have been much less open to selling our water then the states have

[Huggybear]

Nice use of the Roman history, by the way. But I think the thesis is wrong. Cato is not exhorting the Senate here. And do you really want to raise LBP to the status of an orator?

The only real agenda is a non-agenda. The people of this region don't want to have a major city, and they have acted accordingly. Bear in mind that when massive suburbanization started in the 1950s, the majority of then-adults were not even one generation away from the rural South. When they left for Vanilla Village, they left situations where families of 7 were routinely packed into 900-square-foot bungalows on 30-foot lots - and their trip was subsidized heavily by the feds. It is unfortunate - but not surprising - that successive generations have little more interest in urban life. Where they have some interest, it's a flirtation that ends at any "growing up" point [[employment, children, school-shopping). Where they have more interest, they just leave the state.

When you start changing social norms and make it more conventional for people with some degree of disposable income to live in cities, you will have cities. Until you can do that, all you will get is "tut-tut," dissembling discussions about how "Detroiters" destroyed what was given to them, and complete blindness to the fact that the ultimate way to squander assets is to abandon them.

[English]

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.

[Hermod]

Bear in mind that when massive suburbanization started in the 1950s, the majority of then-adults were not even one generation away from the rural South.

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.

[mwilbert]

I also submit to you that as the 21st century wears on, unless we completely restructure our economy, unemployment will not decrease. It will increase exponentially, and the face of the underemployed, unemployed, and even homeless will become whiter.

I'd say you are right about that. The dominant ideology in the US doesn't allow for a safety net adequate to sustain all the people who are going to be displaced by outsourcing and technology. Presumably as the problem affects more of the population, there will be some shift in attitudes but the reaction to the recent downturn hasn't been too encouraging.

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.

I agree with you here. The southern/Appalachian types stayed longer, probably partly because they were generally poorer.

[ordinary]

My brother who is 54 and I [[52) often talk about when we graduated high school that if you weren't afraid to get dirty, you could find a decent paying job in the area. But even then, the writing was on the wall that those days were soon to end and that if you didn't have some kind of training or post high school education, work was not going to be easy to find.
I don't think it was any concerted effort or plan to destroy Detroit and I am skeptical of all the articles posted especially the last one. Things change. Detroit is a mess but it's not alway going to be that way.