I changed my entire outfit in central park and nobody blinked an eye, I don't think anyone even noticed.  It was great.

 

But if you did get that dreaded lust glare (which not all women find offensive says the girl with her boobs hanging out of her shirt) in THAT situation, I certainly hope you would not have blamed the GUY ;)

 

Maybe it's just a matter of still being a "hick from Ohio."

 

Thanks for the future ammo!

The "community" is America, not "Black America."  Last time I checked, the US government (local, state, and federal) was in charge of welfare, public housing, education, etc.  I don't buy that "they can help themselves" mantra one bit.  It takes a village to help a child, it takes a city to help the poor, it takes a metropolitan area to help a city, it takes us all to help ourselves.

 

Behavioral/cultural change has to be wanted first; you can't force it on people.  Individuals need to take accountability for their own actions first.

 

It's interesting how black people are held accountable for the "black Community's problems", but white people are not held accountable for the "white community's problems", such as in Appalachia or the KKK or southern hate crimes.  I think it's important to realize that no black individual is any more responsible for the actions of others who may be bad apples than any individual white person.

 

Bingo.  It's community (re: American) problems.  "Inner-city," Appalachian, southern ignorance, etc are American problems we ALL have to tackle.  It is a HUGE pet peeve of mine when I hear (white) people say, "they need to fix their own problems...it starts at home!"  Well gee, where does the home mortgage being paid go to?  The magical Angela Davis CEO loan at the NAACP Bank?

 

 

and as it relates to this thread in general, Americans tend to "deal" with these problems by pretending they don't really exist and moving into enclaves with other people of like minded values so they don't have to worry about it. "Hey, I gave at the office."

Exactly.

I changed my entire outfit in central park and nobody blinked an eye, I don't think anyone even noticed. It was great.

 

But if you did get that dreaded lust glare (which not all women find offensive says the girl with her boobs hanging out of her shirt) in THAT situation, I certainly hope you would not have blamed the GUY ;)

 

Certainly wouldn't have blamed anyone for looking in that situation, of course.

 

The "community" is America, not "Black America."  Last time I checked, the US government (local, state, and federal) was in charge of welfare, public housing, education, etc.  I don't buy that "they can help themselves" mantra one bit.  It takes a village to help a child, it takes a city to help the poor, it takes a metropolitan area to help a city, it takes us all to help ourselves.

 

CDM--Totally true.

I'm just wondering about one thing.

We are talking strictly along racial lines (this has nothing to do with religion, sexual orientation, etc.)... and we are also talking about things that will certainly take a couple generations (if not more) into the future to resolve.

The racial make-up of America is, of course, changing day-by-day. At some point in the (somewhat) near future, non-Hispanic whites will be 49% of the population and dwindling therefrom. At some further point, there could conceivably be 4 racial/ethnic groups at about 25% each of the total population. (It will most likely not be exactly so...but you get what I'm trying to say).

This is going to influence all decisions in the future. We, living in 2010, can not even begin to imagine the possibilities for all involved, but also the compromises that will have to be met. No one living in America now has lived in such an America where there is no clear-cut majority group. How will this affect relations, etc. among all of us? Will there continue to be just one village or multiple villages?

I wonder.

I don't know how many people here attended integrated schools, but this sort of thing might be a reason people hold certain views about race--not necessarily wrong or racist, but different than if you did. The Painesville schools might be at the bottom of the list academically in Lake County, but gosh darn it, they're the most racially diverse (of course, the reason given by many for their poor performance is because of their diversity)! As proof, on a website I regularly visit, someone posted a picture of P'ville's multiracial nature as far back as 128 years, if only by one little African-American girl (although I find it interesting how she's standing a bit farther away from the none-too-attractive white girl next to her and the others in that row). But what I find most disturbing about this picture is what a bunch of street urchins and ragamuffins these kids look like! Surely half of them must be carrying concealed weapons. Then again, this was the Victorian era, so maybe looking "Dickensian" was the going fad—lol

 

It'll still be one village.  This country was founded by immigrants who had no common relationship except being white with black slaves.  Italians, Irish, Polish, etc had little in common with each other culturally/linguistically except...well...they were white.  Now throw in color and we now have a more visible minority country but it still the same core ideas (dare I say, "American values").

the naacp owns a bank?

Oy vey!

Well, to get back to the original topic of Whitopias, and how everyone seems to think they are a bad thing, what of "Blacktopias"? I know that Black people flock to Atlanta, Houston, DC, etc. all because they are places where there are lots of succesful black people, black businesses, restaurants, etc. It seems to be celebrated that these places are great places for black people to live and work, and cities cash in on this regularly. Why is it looked down upon when places are popular for white people to live? People routinely say that Minneapolis/Portland/Boston are "too white", and that is a bad thing.  If I was to be like "oh, I would never live in Oakland. It's too black for me. I'd rather live in San Francisco because it's whiter." that is of course seen as a racist statement.  Is this a double standard?

Jam40Jeff has hit the nail on the head.  I haven't lived in Cleveland since the 1980's so my observations are old.  Nevertheless I seem to remember that the black community was extremely bifurcated.  Educated, hard working, financially successful, middle class (compared to my family) church going blacks who escaped the inner city and lived in Warrensville heights which was almost exclusively black, and the "ghetto culture" left behind in the older inner city neighborhoods and East Cleveland.  I had friends (black) living there who were in no way "ghetto culture" and seemed to reject it.  I remember exceptionally well maintained lawns and homes.  I remember that my friend's dad got a ticket from the warrensville heights police because he parked his motor home in front in the street.  I also recollect that the blacks in warrensville Hts. had extreme disrespect for the people left behind in the city and I wont tell you what his family called them.  So what I am saying is that at least at that time, the black community was not a continuum from "ghetto" to "middle class" but was either one or the other.  The middle class seemed to be politically/socially invisible while the "ghetto" culture got all the media attention. 

 

Since then things may have changed but I attribute that more to the decline of the Cleveland economy, especially manufacturing (virtual collapsed since NAFTA) which hit black communities disproportionately leaving less of the black middle class and more of the "ghetto culture" which kind of took over.  It seems that we didn't have anywhere near as much of these "issues" when the economy was better.  No doubt people are bitter. 

Well, to get back to the original topic of Whitopias, and how everyone seems to think they are a bad thing, what of "Blacktopias"? I know that Black people flock to Atlanta, Houston, DC, etc. all because they are places where there are lots of succesful black people, black businesses, restaurants, etc. It seems to be celebrated that these places are great places for black people to live and work, and cities cash in on this regularly. Why is it looked down upon when places are popular for white people to live? People routinely say that Minneapolis/Portland/Boston are "too white", and that is a bad thing. If I was to be like "oh, I would never live in Oakland. It's too black for me. I'd rather live in San Francisco because it's whiter." that is of course seen as a racist statement. Is this a double standard?

 

The difference between Black "Mecca" cities like Atlanta and Charlotte vs. "Whitopias" are that blacks aren't moving to Atlanta because they don't want to be around whites but that they want to be around successful blacks.  Much like the Chinese movement to Vancouver or Latino movement to Houston.  The "Whitopia" is more about whites moving away from blacks and Latinos than to simply be around themselves.  It would be fine if many white yuppies move to Portland for outdoors, nice biketrails, etc but the author (not myself) is implying that th ey move to places to escape those "ghetto" cities they originally came from (re: Metro Detroit).

Jam40Jeff has hit the nail on the head.  I haven't lived in Cleveland since the 1980's so my observations are old.  Nevertheless I seem to remember that the black community was extremely bifurcated.  Educated, hard working, financially successful, middle class (compared to my family) church going blacks who escaped the inner city and lived in Warrensville heights which was almost exclusively black, and the "ghetto culture" left behind in the older inner city neighborhoods and East Cleveland.  I had friends (black) living there who were in no way "ghetto culture" and seemed to reject it.  I remember exceptionally well maintained lawns and homes.  I remember that my friend's dad got a ticket from the warrensville heights police because he parked his motor home in front in the street.  I also recollect that the blacks in warrensville Hts. had extreme disrespect for the people left behind in the city and I wont tell you what his family called them.  So what I am saying is that at least at that time, the black community was not a continuum from "ghetto" to "middle class" but was either one or the other.  The middle class seemed to be politically/socially invisible while the "ghetto" culture got all the media attention.

 

I just happened to be reading "Leaving the Folk: A Journey out of a Cleveland childhood" in Harpers (oct 1995) by Phillip Richards. He writes how his family straddled the very divide you mention; his father was "folk", his mother was "educated" and upwardly mobile, and how they struggled to find a place in Cleveland. They made many moves around the east side...his father working as a janitor as the schools fell apart in the 1970s, his mom working as a government administrator, seeing the steep decline in Cleveland's poor black neighborhoods during that time.

 

It's a very interesting story. I've been reading a lot about Cleveland lately, and the Harper's archives have some very interesting stories, esp one about the Van Swearingen (sp?) brothers who built Shaker Heights and Terminal Tower. A common theme across all the stories, from one about Moses Cleaveland and the early settlement (panthers on Euclid, Indian settlements all around...), to later stories is that Cleveland is a beautiful, successful city that is well loved by Whites, Blacks, and the many European immigrants who settled there. I know it's a bit of hyperbole, but it's in such stark contrast to the dim mood hanging over the city today.

 

You can access those all with a Harper's subscription...

Well, to get back to the original topic of Whitopias, and how everyone seems to think they are a bad thing, what of "Blacktopias"? I know that Black people flock to Atlanta, Houston, DC, etc. all because they are places where there are lots of succesful black people, black businesses, restaurants, etc. It seems to be celebrated that these places are great places for black people to live and work, and cities cash in on this regularly. Why is it looked down upon when places are popular for white people to live? People routinely say that Minneapolis/Portland/Boston are "too white", and that is a bad thing. If I was to be like "oh, I would never live in Oakland. It's too black for me. I'd rather live in San Francisco because it's whiter." that is of course seen as a racist statement. Is this a double standard?

 

The difference between Black "Mecca" cities like Atlanta and Charlotte vs. "Whitopias" are that blacks aren't moving to Atlanta because they don't want to be around whites but that they want to be around successful blacks. Much like the Chinese movement to Vancouver or Latino movement to Houston. The "Whitopia" is more about whites moving away from blacks and Latinos than to simply be around themselves. It would be fine if many white yuppies move to Portland for outdoors, nice biketrails, etc but the author (not myself) is implying that th ey move to places to escape those "ghetto" cities they originally came from (re: Metro Detroit).

 

That makes sense, but I guess part of the reason people moving to these "whitopias" is that they are moving to areas where there are people of similar values (as said by the woman who moved to Utah from LA to be with more conservatives).  I see that as sort of similar to a Chinese person moving to the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California, or a Puerto Rican person moving to New York. People are generally more comfortable around people who live like them, and I don't think that is a bad thing. But for whatever reason, whites seem to get villified when they choose to do so.

 

(That said, I get the difference between moving "to" vs moving "from", and that does change things. I just kind of question how the author can assume to know people's motives.)

"Whites seem to get villified when they choose to do so."

 

Whites are the wealthiest ethic group in this country, and moving to another area is seen as protecting wealth.

 

  The best example is public schools. It costs more to educate a child that came from a lower income family than it does to educate one from an upper income family. On top of that, there is a coorelation between number of children per family based on income: lower income families have more kids. But, public schools don't charge tuition by number of kids; they charge it based on property taxes, which is a reflection of wealth. So, the wealthy see it as if they are subsidizing the education of other people's kids. The way to protect their wealth is to move to a district with fewer poor people. This is also the reason why zoning laws try to exclude poor people by prohibiting trailer parks, apartments, multi-family houses, and even smaller single-familty houses.

 

    Alternatively, the wealthy can send their kids to private schools, but the distinction between private schools and public schools isn't that clear. A public school system that prohibits poor families from living in the district by the round about method of zoning might as well be a private school. The REALLY rich send their children to private schools; the moderatly rich or upper middle class send their children to exclusive public schools. The poor take whatever they can get.

 

    Over the course of a couple generations, this has led to the situation today.

 

    When black kids start showing up in exclusive public schools, a lot of white families move. They aren't necessarily afraid of blacks; they are afraid that their school district is going to go downhill, and their property values are going to go downhill with it. Numerous studies have shown that 8% black seems to be the tipping point, even though the population is 12% black. Some inner city schools are 80% black. The fact that wealthy white kids grow up without having any black friends reinforces all the stereotypes.

 

    If schools were not funded by property taxes, and if "free" education wasn't offered to everyone in public schools, all of this would be different. The system acts a certain way because that's the way the rules of the game were set up. In other countries, schools are handled differently, with a completely different result. I think the root cause of racial tensions is economics, not some inherit racist tendencies. The reason why the most tension occurs between blacks and whites as opposed to other ethic groups is because there is such a contrast in skin color and it is easiest to identify a person's ethnicity on sight.

Jewish-Americans are, as a group, the wealthiest ethnic group in America.

Indian Americans are a close second.

 

 

  True, but most Jews are white, or at least they get grouped as white most of the time. I don't hear folks talk about "non-Jew whites."

 

  No disrespect toward Indian-Americans, but their numbers are small, especially in Ohio, compared to the other groups, but yes, on an average basis you are correct.

"Whites seem to get villified when they choose to do so."

 

Whites are the wealthiest ethic group in this country, and moving to another area is seen as protecting wealth.

 

 

If they really wanted to protect their wealth, they wouldn't saddle themselves with the enormous costs of living in sprawl.

 

  ^---- That's the point. The perfect tax is one that someone else pays.

 

    The cost of sprawl is enormous, but a lot of the burden is placed on cities, not the people living in the sprawl. Most of the wealth comes from cities, but most of the benefit goes to people living in sprawl areas. Property tax, utility rates, schools, motorways, police protection, public transit, zoning, and so many other aspects of cities are set up to encourage sprawl. Can you blame people for optimizing their own situation based on the rules of the game?

 

    None of this was done intentionally. It is the consequence of millions of decisions over two centuries.

Jewish-Americans are, as a group, the wealthiest ethnic group in America.

Indian Americans are a close second.

 

 

I think I'd like to see a cite on that before you go throwing out the "jews have all the money" canard. Thank you very much.

Jewish-Americans are, as a group, the wealthiest ethnic group in America.

Indian Americans are a close second.

 

 

 

I think I'd like to see a cite on that before you go throwing out the "jews have all the money" canard. Thank you very much.

all this time I thought it was Connecticut WASP's!

It would be interesting to see the individual weath of urbanohioan's.

-$50,000+

Well, you could do a poll. Or if you want to set up a separate thread so you can brag about how much money you make, I guess you could do that too. :evil:

And what do you define as "wealth?"  Income? Savings? Income minus debts? etc.

And what do you define as "wealth?"  Income? Savings? Income minus debts? etc.

 

I should have said Net Worth.

And what do you define as "wealth?"  Income? Savings? Income minus debts? etc.

 

I should have said Net Worth.

 

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

 

Bringing this back to the topic at hand, I'd be curious to see the comparison of net worth of some of these whitopias. I'd If he's talking about Mayberryesque towns, my own observations would have me believe that these smaller communities are largely populated with middle class level net worth individuals (summer getaway locales notwithstanding), not the high NW individuals that you might think are driving the process.

 

 

And what do you define as "wealth?"  Income? Savings? Income minus debts? etc.

 

I should have said Net Worth.

 

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

 

Sure.  Why not?!  You're handicapped by the ball & chain and rug rats!  LOL

And what do you define as "wealth?"  Income? Savings? Income minus debts? etc.

 

I should have said Net Worth.

 

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

 

Sure.  Why not?!  You're handicapped by the ball & chain and rug rats!  LOL

 

lol...yes, and student loans, and my own poor life choices pre-marriage... :lol:

And what do you define as "wealth?"  Income? Savings? Income minus debts? etc.

 

I should have said Net Worth.

 

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

 

Sure.  Why not?!  You're handicapped by the ball & chain and rug rats!  LOL

 

lol...yes, and student loans, and my own poor life choices pre-marriage... :D

You Poor thing!  LOL

 

  If you have ever been to a zoning public hearing or similar meeting, you might be surprised at the conflicts between people of different incomes. In one such meeting, a developer was proposing a new subdivision. The residents of the neighboring subdivision cried of school overcrowding, reduced property values, all the riff-raff moving in, etc. etc. Guess what the differnce in income was? The houses in the existing subdivision were $120,000 houses; the houses in the proposed subdivision were $110,000 houses.

 

  If you have ever been to a zoning public hearing or similar meeting, you might be surprised at the conflicts between people of different incomes. In one such meeting, a developer was proposing a new subdivision. The residents of the neighboring subdivision cried of school overcrowding, reduced property values, all the riff-raff moving in, etc. etc. Guess what the differnce in income was? The houses in the existing subdivision were $120,000 houses; the houses in the proposed subdivision were $110,000 houses.

 

Two tacky subdivisions fighting over nothing!  This is a reality show in the making!

"Whites seem to get villified when they choose to do so."

 

Whites are the wealthiest ethic group in this country, and moving to another area is seen as protecting wealth.

 

   The best example is public schools. It costs more to educate a child that came from a lower income family than it does to educate one from an upper income family. On top of that, there is a coorelation between number of children per family based on income: lower income families have more kids. But, public schools don't charge tuition by number of kids; they charge it based on property taxes, which is a reflection of wealth. So, the wealthy see it as if they are subsidizing the education of other people's kids. The way to protect their wealth is to move to a district with fewer poor people. This is also the reason why zoning laws try to exclude poor people by prohibiting trailer parks, apartments, multi-family houses, and even smaller single-familty houses.

 

    Alternatively, the wealthy can send their kids to private schools, but the distinction between private schools and public schools isn't that clear. A public school system that prohibits poor families from living in the district by the round about method of zoning might as well be a private school. The REALLY rich send their children to private schools; the moderatly rich or upper middle class send their children to exclusive public schools. The poor take whatever they can get.

 

    Over the course of a couple generations, this has led to the situation today.

 

    When black kids start showing up in exclusive public schools, a lot of white families move. They aren't necessarily afraid of blacks; they are afraid that their school district is going to go downhill, and their property values are going to go downhill with it. Numerous studies have shown that 8% black seems to be the tipping point, even though the population is 12% black. Some inner city schools are 80% black. The fact that wealthy white kids grow up without having any black friends reinforces all the stereotypes.

 

    If schools were not funded by property taxes, and if "free" education wasn't offered to everyone in public schools, all of this would be different. The system acts a certain way because that's the way the rules of the game were set up. In other countries, schools are handled differently, with a completely different result. I think the root cause of racial tensions is economics, not some inherit racist tendencies. The reason why the most tension occurs between blacks and whites as opposed to other ethic groups is because there is such a contrast in skin color and it is easiest to identify a person's ethnicity on sight.

 

I agree with a lot of what you said. However, I'm not sure that White families move to suburbs because it is cheaper to education kids there, or that educating "rich" kids is any cheaper than poor kids. Parents who care about their kids' educations will usually invest in it pretty freely if they can, either through property taxes, tuition, or extras like band instruments. If the family is rich, and they care, they'll spend.

 

Wealthy districts tend to spend up to 2x per pupil that poor districts do. The reason rich families move out of central cities is the rate at which they're taxed, and the (perceived?) quality of education available to them.

 

Inner city districts have to tax at a higher rate because (1) the values are often much lower and (2) much center city land is institutional and often not taxed (churches, government buildings, universities). High value suburbs can tax at a lower rate and sometimes still raise much more depending on the property valuation.

 

Second, suburban schools often have fewer 'remedial' services, and focus on extracurriculars, AP or IB courses with the money that is not being used for the poor, thus slow kids. The 'rich' families sometimes work to get their kids labeled 'gifted' so they can participate in the high-end services offered by wealthy districts. Parents feel like their property tax money (which, with property values high in the suburbs, might mean they pay the same amount they would on a cheaper house in the city) is buying them services at the public school that their kids benefit from. They don't feel that way in the city, where fewer 'gifted' programs are offered.

 

I think there is a racial component here too; most Whites (and not a few Blacks) want their kids to be around rich Whites. Asians are fine, but I don't think many upper income White parents would feel that having their children going to school with poor Black and Hispanic kids would be the best educational choice for their own children. Many teachers who work in urban schools live in the suburbs so their kids don't have to attend city schools. I don't think it's purely racial, it's mostly class-based 'reputation' (where you're kids go to school says something about you too), the peer group's orientation to work and becoming the fitted-est in our hypercapitalist ecosystem.

Jewish-Americans are, as a group, the wealthiest ethnic group in America.

Indian Americans are a close second.

 

 

I think I'd like to see a cite on that before you go throwing out the "jews have all the money" canard. Thank you very much.

 

Really?  I think what he said is a pretty well known fact, just as if he said African-Americans and Hispanics as groups are the poorest in the United States.  He didn't say anything bad about Jewish people at all (nor Indian-Americans).

 

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/relgwlth.htm

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/148845

 

The one that shocked me the most is that Protestants don't have much wealth, although "Protestant" covers a MUCH wider array of people than "Connecticut WASP". :)

Jewish-Americans are, as a group, the wealthiest ethnic group in America.

Indian Americans are a close second.

 

 

I think I'd like to see a cite on that before you go throwing out the "jews have all the money" canard. Thank you very much.

 

Really? I think what he said is a pretty well known fact, just as if he said African-Americans and Hispanics as groups are the poorest in the United States. He didn't say anything bad about Jewish people at all (nor Indian-Americans).

 

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/relgwlth.htm

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/148845

 

The one that shocked me the most is that Protestants don't have much wealth, although "Protestant" covers a MUCH wider array of people than "Connecticut WASP". :)

 

I'll concede the point, although I have a lot of problems with some of the assumptions / conclusions in the OSU study. But this isn't the thread to discuss that. I just want to be careful with randomly throwing out statements like that without backing it up with something. Too easy to turn it into something negative.

I think "white flight" doesn't exist as a purely white phenomenon, especially today because of increased prosperity across the races.  That which creates flight is not the skin color, but the behavior of the individual.  Let's not act like "white people" all live in perfect homogenous communities or that all "black people" live in the ghetto.  There is plenty of white trash and plenty of exemplary black people.

 

To move this conversation along though, there should probably be some discussion of Renn's "The White City" and the implications for cities with large non-white populations.

I think "white flight" doesn't exist as a purely white phenomenon, especially today because of increased prosperity across the races.  That which creates flight is not the skin color, but the behavior of the individual.  Let's not act like "white people" all live in perfect homogenous communities or that all "black people" live in the ghetto.  There is plenty of white trash and plenty of exemplary black people.

To move this conversation along though, there should probably be some discussion of Renn's "The White City" and the implications for cities with large non-white populations.

 

Amen to that!

There is plenty of white trash and plenty of exemplary black people.

 

Columbus' west side has a lot of white trash. They say its always been like that because it's how far you can get on a tank of gas from West Virginia.

HAHAHA.  Granny does not approve!

I think "white flight" doesn't exist as a purely white phenomenon, especially today because of increased prosperity across the races. That which creates flight is not the skin color, but the behavior of the individual. Let's not act like "white people" all live in perfect homogenous communities or that all "black people" live in the ghetto. There is plenty of white trash and plenty of exemplary black people.

 

To move this conversation along though, there should probably be some discussion of Renn's "The White City" and the implications for cities with large non-white populations.

 

I agree with you to an extent.  However, people are not perfect judges of behavior and sometimes jump to conclusions.  Skin color is one factor many use to come to these conclusions.

I think "white flight" doesn't exist as a purely white phenomenon, especially today because of increased prosperity across the races.  That which creates flight is not the skin color, but the behavior of the individual.  Let's not act like "white people" all live in perfect homogenous communities or that all "black people" live in the ghetto.  There is plenty of white trash and plenty of exemplary black people.

 

To move this conversation along though, there should probably be some discussion of Renn's "The White City" and the implications for cities with large non-white populations.

 

I agree with you to an extent.  However, people are not perfect judges of behavior and sometimes jump to conclusions.  Skin color is one factor many use to come to these conclusions.

Exactly.  And some people say some really dumb things about a persons "color".

Skin color is one factor many use to come to these conclusions.

 

*knock knock* "Hello, anybody home, McFly?!" Duh  :roll:

 

BREAKING NEWS: Humans have an innate ability and tendency to categorize things.

 

...more at 11.

Skin color is one factor many use to come to these conclusions.

 

*knock knock* "Hello, anybody home, McFly?!" Duh :roll:

 

BREAKING NEWS: Humans have an innate ability and tendency to categorize things.

 

...more at 11.

 

First of all, you quoted wrong.  Second of all, I thought it needed to be said since Seth didn't seem to take that into account with his description of the reasons for white flight.

 

I can't wait to read more great posts at 11!

Skin color is one factor many use to come to these conclusions.

 

*knock knock* "Hello, anybody home, McFly?!" Duh  ::)

 

BREAKING NEWS: Humans have an innate ability and tendency to categorize things.

 

...more at 11.

 

To move this conversation along though, there should probably be some discussion of Renn's "The White City" and the implications for cities with large non-white populations.

 

 

Places like Portland and Seattle aren’t the whitopias Benjamin is talking about.  They attract people because they are hip, funky, have a great natural setting,  fairly healthy economies, and reportedly a high quality of life.  In short they have a buzz.  People move there for those reasons, not because these cities are white.  The whiteness is incidental.  They are Ecotopia, not Whitopia.

 

The people in Benjamins book wouldn’t move to places like Portland or Seattle.  Their whitopias are rural and small town. 

 

Since Portland and Seattle didn’t attract a lot of blacks this means there wasn’t a big pool of minority population subject to socio-economic exclusion.  If these places had a big black in-migration you’d see an urban underclass form and black ghettos dominate entire ends of town just like you see here in Ohio. 

 

(though I've read Portland did have a little black ghetto at one time, the Albina district)

 

To move this conversation along though, there should probably be some discussion of Renn's "The White City" and the implications for cities with large non-white populations.

 

 

Places like Portland and Seattle aren’t the whitopias Benjamin is talking about.  They attract people because they are hip, funky, have a great natural setting,  fairly healthy economies, and reportedly a high quality of life.  In short they have a buzz.  People move there for those reasons, not because these cities are white.  The whiteness is incidental.  They are Ecotopia, not Whitopia.

 

The people in Benjamins book wouldn’t move to places like Portland or Seattle.  Their whitopias are rural and small town. 

 

Since Portland and Seattle didn’t attract a lot of blacks this means there wasn’t a big pool of minority population subject to socio-economic exclusion.  If these places had a big black in-migration you’d see an urban underclass form and black ghettos dominate entire ends of town just like you see here in Ohio. 

 

(though I've read Portland did have a little black ghetto at one time, the Albina district)

 

 

I agree, but wonder if it matters that the public face of the environmental movement in the US is, like many complain the gay rights movement is, overrepresented by Whites? I agree that Portland and Seattle are most generally thought of as part of Ecotopia, but does that also signal some form of Whiteness? I'm trying to think of other "environmentally-friendly" cities, and wonder if the same holds...

To move this conversation along though, there should probably be some discussion of Renn's "The White City" and the implications for cities with large non-white populations.

Places like Portland and Seattle aren’t the whitopias Benjamin is talking about.  They attract people because they are hip, funky, have a great natural setting,  fairly healthy economies, and reportedly a high quality of life.  In short they have a buzz.  People move there for those reasons, not because these cities are white.  The whiteness is incidental.  They are Ecotopia, not Whitopia.

...

Since Portland and Seattle didn’t attract a lot of blacks this means there wasn’t a big pool of minority population subject to socio-economic exclusion.  If these places had a big black in-migration you’d see an urban underclass form and black ghettos dominate entire ends of town just like you see here in Ohio. 

I understand that Benjamin was listing places that were whiter than the national average.  It seems to follow Renn's logic, at least partly.  People who value civil society flee entropy and chaos and crime if they can.  If you can settle in a nice city with a nice quality of life and low crime, then most people do.

 

But how did Portland get that buzz?  Would it have been able to become the city it is with the reputation it has if it had the obstacles of a city like, say, Dayton: an urban underclass and black ghettos that dominate entire ends of town?  I thought that was the point of Renn's argument?  It's easy to become hip and trendy when you're working with a mostly blank state and fewer of the issues associated with the urban underclass (white, black, Hispanic, whatever).

 

What you say is interesting because I read the cartoon in the first post of the thread to indicate that people came back to the urban core when they found that the people there were mostly white.  So, in cities with significant black populations, as Renn points out, progressive "ecotopia" urban communities never dominate.  The assumption is the progressive havens became that way because they didn't have to contend with the issues associated with majority minority cities or as you say, cities with an urban underclass where black ghettos dominate entire ends of town (ie Ohio).

 

I'm not sure what to make of cities Renn doesn't talk about: cities like those in Ohio, those that are not "White Cities." My opinions aren't set in stone on this matter at all; I want to learn more especially anything that will benefit urban Ohio.

 

 

So basically, non-white cities see more sprawl because they don't have the fertile ground for urban regeneration like Portland, Austin, etc.

 

  I think you are reading into it too far. Portland and Seattle have fewer blacks because they are farther from Africa. They have more Asians because they are closer to Asia. These show regional migration patterns rather than intracity migration patterns.

 

 

But how did Portland get that buzz?  Would it have been able to become the city it is with the reputation it has if it had the obstacles of a city like, say, Dayton: an urban underclass and black ghettos that dominate entire ends of town?  I thought that was the point of Renn's argument?

 

You wouldnt have had the us & them thing you have in Dayton, which means the Portland remained an viable place to live for whites, since there was no minorities driving white flight.

 

It's easy to become hip and trendy when you're working with a mostly blank state and fewer of the issues associated with the urban underclass (white, black, Hispanic, whatever)

 

Then there is the counterexample of Chicago, hip, trendy, and with big ghettos. Regionally, there is  Louisville, which has the problems associated with an urban underclass, yet city living remains desirable and the urban housing market remains strong in certain neighborhoods.

 

I'm not sure what Renns point was, really.  Maybe that places like Portland are not relevant models for the urban Midwest due to the peculiar demographics of those places. 

 

 

 

 

So basically, non-white cities see more sprawl because they don't have the fertile ground for urban regeneration like Portland, Austin, etc.

 

Austin has a quite a bit of sprawl, and that is an issue there .  Go watch the documentary "The Unforseen" for an interpretation of this.  Portland is limited by the growth boundary, which was driven by ag interests.