"The White City"
A friend of mine emailed this article to me about so-called "progressive" cities. The ones labeled most progressive had one consistent feature: race. From New Geography:
Among the media, academia and within planning circles, there’s a generally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best, the most progressive and best role models for small and mid-sized cities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver. In particular, Portland is held up as a paradigm, with its urban growth boundary, extensive transit system, excellent cycling culture, and a pro-density policy. These cities are frequently contrasted with those of the Rust Belt and South, which are found wanting, often even by locals, as “cool” urban places. But look closely at these exemplars and a curious fact emerges. If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles you will find that the “progressive” cities aren’t red or blue, but another color entirely: white.
Then, the article calls out Portland specifically:
The progressive paragon of Portland is the whitest on the list, with an African American population less than half the national average. It is America's ultimate White City. The contrast with other, supposedly less advanced cities is stark.
and:
As the college educated flock to these progressive El Dorados, many factors are cited as reasons: transit systems, density, bike lanes, walkable communities, robust art and cultural scenes. But another way to look at it is simply as White Flight writ large. Why move to the suburbs of your stodgy Midwest city to escape African Americans and get criticized for it when you can move to Portland and actually be praised as progressive, urban and hip?
What drove me to post this is the line, " It's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics."
I love Portland, as does the friend who emailed this to me. What we want is to increase diversity in Portland, not continue to lose it. The only thing arguably missing here - besides more bike lanes - is more people of color. So how do we as a progressive people make it appealing for people of color to want to stay here? Discuss.
|
October 27, 2009 |
Karol Collymore | Comments (127 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Oct 27, 2009 8:47:36 PM
despite all our latte's and our microbrews and the Pearl District.
The Pearl district includes a lot of affordable housing. You don't necessarily see it, but that's kind of the point. It's an area with plenty of shortcomings, but failure to provide affordable and workforce housing just isn't one of them. It's a model of how we can build new neighborhoods while creating more places for working Oregonians to live.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 27, 2009 9:26:39 PM
Weird, trying to post similar data about other cities, showing Portland slightly (though not vastly) ahead of the average, in response to paul g.'s claim the data is not germane because it doesn't compare to other large MSAs and my post won't go through.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 27, 2009 9:26:57 PM
Posted by: paul g. | Oct 27, 2009 7:29:10 PMI don't know if this is true or not true, but I know that that data presented above is not germane to the question.
The whole country is becoming more diverse. Whether or not Portland is becoming MORE diverse at a VERY FAST rate implies some comparison.
Again from the census data over the past 20 years urban core city, vs. suburbs (the overall numbers is roughly an average of the two within each MSA):
Portland, OR (29th in size): just over 10% increase (10.3) in minority population, just under 10% (9.8) increase in the suburbsLouisville, KY (30th, aka the next closest in size to Portland): just under 9% increase (8.8) in minority population, less than 5% (4.5) increase in the suburbs
Oklahoma City, OK (31st in size): exactly 14% increase in minority population, exactly 9% increase in the suburbs
Other random cities elsewhere...
Minneapolis, MN: under 10% increase (9.9) in minority population, less than 7% (6.3) increase in the suburbsMobile, AL: under 5% increase (4.5) in minority population, an actual decrease of more than 2% (2.1) decrease in the suburbs (white flight)
Pittsburgh, PA: just over 7% increase (7.4) in minority population, less than 3% (2.5) increase in the suburbs
Muncie, IN: under 3% increase (2.8) in minority population, exactly 2 increase in the suburbs
Denver, CO: just over 10% increase (10.3) in minority population, less than 9% (8.3) increase in the suburbs
Austin, TX: just under 10% increase (9.8) in minority population, less than 6% (5.3) increase in the suburbs
The point is, that the underlying assumption that Karol bases this article on is simply not true. Portland is not losing minorities at all, but in fact increasing in its diversity. And yes, most large cities are also increasing in diversity, but Portland is a little above the curve, not not vastly so, but there it is. Again, the central premise of this article is simply not accurate.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 27, 2009 9:27:24 PM
Weird internet voodoo there.
Posted by: verasoie | Oct 27, 2009 10:14:58 PM
Several thoughts:
1) If it's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics, then why is Appalachia so backwards and non-Progressive in their policies?
2) Is PDX truly that "white" or is there not simply a Northwest racial makeup here that is different from that elsewhere, meaning the historical racial minority groups in the Northwest (and West) have been more Asian, Hispanic, and Native American than African-American? Perhaps it's because I live in NE PDX (Concordia), but I don't see my neighborhood as particularly "white."
3)I really don't believe that anyone considering moving to a suburb anywhere would instead decide to move to urban Portland, especially if they're "fleeing African-Americans." Those are not the people who embrace Portland's urban lifestyle.
4) How much of these statistics actually looks at the demographics of urban PDX, versus its lily white 'burbs? From what I've read, virtually all of the population growth in PDX is from minorities (especially Hispanics), whereas it's the suburbs that are seeing growth from white folks.
Posted by: jamieee | Oct 27, 2009 10:43:00 PM
"Plus, urban growth boundaries and other planning measures can be coupled with affordable housing."
As far as i can tell, they are mutually exclusive.
Is there any affordable housing program that actually works, to provide sufficient quantities of truly affordable houses (not little rat cages), instead of merely sounding good?
Posted by: Chuck | Oct 27, 2009 10:48:57 PM
Yes, Portland does have a smaller percentage of black people and also of other races that are not white. IMHO I don't see that as a particularly good or bad thing. i think it might be more important to see how those different ethnicities and cultures interact. Speaking from my own experience moving here from NYC and growing up in Tampa, FL as well as growing up in Houston, TX, one of the big issues is integration. I moved here to explore and experience the beautiful greenery and scenery I'd seen in pictures. My friend who I came out here for had convinced me that Portland was one of the nicest cities. I am a very gregarious person and have made many friends in those places I mentioned and also just traveling through the states in general. She was sure people would be talking to me on the streets and in the cafes and bars constantly as she said this was her experience.
The first day I went out on the town.I was surprised, shocked, and saddened many times when going into a bar or cafe and trying to start a conversation only to be ignored or treated rudely and coldly. That first day I walked SE Belmont, Hawthorne, Stark, and Burnside. I went downtown to see if it was different but to no avail. Went to NW and still no warmth from the people and also no black people in any of those establishments. I thought to myself, "Where are all the ethnic people? Where are the Latinos, Indians, Asians, Blacks?" All I saw in those places was white with a smattering of differences here and there.
So finally I ventured over to NE. I was walking that day because I really wanted to get a feel for the city. Once I got to NE then I thought, "Oh now I see where the black people are." I decided to query where the place with bars and cafes are. What a strange feeling I got when most of the black people I talked to seemed really slowed down and spaced out. All day the white people had been rude and aloof and now the black people just seemed spaced. Anyway, I was then directed to Alberta Street. I got there and did see black people walking on the sidewalks and generally around. It was strange though, because when I entered the establishments on Alberta, there was no integration. To this day, four years later whenever I go into Random Order, Fuel Cafe, By and By, Concordia Coffee, or any of the restaurants along Alberta there are never any black people in there besides myself. Only the bar called the Nest had an integrated crowd.
Please make no mistake I grew up in multicultural settings. I'm an artist. I love people. I love to get to know them and be friends hopefully forever. Growing up my friends were of literally every color and Nationality. Houston is actually diverse and integrated. As, of course, is NYC. I don't mind being surrounded by mostly white people. As long as those people are nice. I think that because of Portland and OR history there are still deep seated hatreds and resentment from all sides. The seperatist vibes have lingered. People are not really with each other here. I've been called the N-word unprovoked and, albeit, under the persons breath, in Portland more than anywhere I've ever been in the South. I think people pick up on these types of vibes and many are not willing to try and stay to change it so they leave or they stay in their respective parts of town.
If people treated each other with more love and respect the numbers wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Posted by: verasoie | Oct 27, 2009 11:07:50 PM
I'm glad to read that you decided to stay, Chuck, and "be the change that you were looking for."
As a resident of the Alberta neighborhood, where can I see your art?
Posted by: Mike | Oct 27, 2009 11:14:54 PM
I work in a major city that's praised for its "diversity" and see the racial tension, crime, and poverty on a daily basis. The blacks don't get along with the Hispanics. The Hispanics don't get along with the whites. The Asians don't seem to get along with anyone. Take it from someone who knows: diversity is overrated.
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 28, 2009 2:11:33 AM
Isn't the "It's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics" line prejudiced in its own way? Like there's something peculiar or different about Northern Europeans that would define "Scandinavian policies"?
Posted by: JerryB | Oct 28, 2009 4:06:37 AM
"Isn't the "It's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics" line prejudiced in its own way?"
Absolutely. Saying that we've got too many whites in this city is no better than saying we've got too many blacks. You don't have to be white to be racist.
I've learned something new today about Karol Collymore. hopefully she's learned something new about herself.
Posted by: RyanLeo | Oct 28, 2009 4:28:49 AM
The article that was the reason for the post concerns me. It concerns me on a number of levels:
1. In the graphs it uses, it sets up this false paradigm as African Americans and Foreign Born Populations as "People of Color"
2. It ignores the history of the Pacific NW.
The first, I have already tackled along with many others before and after me.
Second, African Americans unlike Georgia, South Carolina and the rest of the Southern States do not have a very long history of living in the Pacific NW. I know that World War 2 brought many African American servicemen and their families to what was known as Vanport. The Vanport Flood of May 30, 1948 displaced many of the African American servicemen and their families into NE Portland. At the most, you have 2 maybe 3 or 4 generations of African Americans living in the Pacific NW compared to those in the South.
In comparison to the Asians, African Americans really are newcomers. Where the Asians in the late 1800s to assist in building the transcontinental railroad system among other endeavors, the great influx of African Americans to the Pacific NW happened after the influx of African Americans to the Old Northwest (Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, etc.)
Portland may be "White" in a false paradigm that only recognizes African Americans and Foreign Born Populations as "people of color," but the rich history of Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos more than fills out this diverse tapestry that I came to love during my time in Portland, OR.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Oct 28, 2009 6:07:23 AM
I remain very puzzled by the various stats folks are using here. Back in January Betsy Hammond had a very straightforward piece in the Oregonian called In a changing world, Portland remains overwhelmingly white. The bottom line: "Among the nation's 40 largest metro areas, only four -- none of them in the West -- are whiter than Portland."
The charts she published included core, metro and suburban areas, and certainly square with my own experiences living here, in contrast to the half dozen or so other metro areas I've lived.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Oct 28, 2009 8:10:28 AM
jaimee at least deserves credit for perseverance. demonstrable & admitted ignorance do not deter from spouting off. knows nothing of Lew, Karol or Eddie but is sure none of them bother to reports, facts, etc. has no real knowledge of UGB but still is sure it is a menace to American Way of Life. very impressive display of bravado.
Posted by: Satchel | Oct 28, 2009 8:42:22 AM
Pretty sure I know something that's NOT going to help: a racist morning DJ on KUFO:
http://oregonmediacentral.com/2009/10/kufos-new-crew-kidd-chris-ditch-ricker-marconi-and-a-pair-of-balls
Posted by: Clarence | Oct 28, 2009 9:03:02 AM
What would be a hoot is if a bunch of black conservatives moved into PTown. Of course, then it would be OK to run them out...
Posted by: Michael B | Oct 28, 2009 9:38:40 AM
The line about Scandinavian policies being easy to implement when you have Scandinavian demographics is not racist. It is being considered here completely out of context. The book was making several points in the discussion the quote is lifted from:
1. When a society is homogeneous, politicians cannot divide citizens across racial lines, religions lines, etc. This allows society to focus on solving real problems for the people, and allows pragmatic public policies to be implemented.
2. Scandinavian cultural values include investing in community, and American cities that saw significant Scandinavian immigration long ago seem to have adopted community-spirited policies at a greater rate than other cities.
A correct application of the book's thesis to Portland would be to say that Portland's homogeneity (whiteness) and its Scandinavian heritage have both played a role in Portland's ability to implement community-spirited policies. Portland is not getting whiter because of our policies. Our good policy has been made possible partly because of our whiteness.
Posted by: Jenn | Oct 28, 2009 9:39:45 AM
Interesting conversation. When I moved back to Portland from DC in 1994 I had forgotten about how lacking in diversity it was. Now that I live in Oakland, I love the diversity -- 1/3 white, 1/3 African American, 1/3 Asian & Hispanic. But there is a lot of political tension, and maneuvering that keeps things interesting. When people say they are dreaming about leaving Oakland or Berkeley and moving to the utopia of Portland, I tell them it's not that diverse and they are shocked. People have no idea. Plus you can't really hail a cab in Portland, which is a pain.
Just a couple interesting points on diversity not necessarily meaning a significant African American population:
- San Francisco has about the same percentage of African Americans as Portland, but it's more than 30% Asian, and those Asians are mostly Chinese. And there are twice as many Hispanics as African Americans. I think SF is always considered a very diverse city.
- A couple years ago I was talking with an African American woman who was a commissioner for the Port of Oakland. She was relaying stories about going to Viet Nam and how lacking in diversity it was. That was news to me because I had always been told and thought that Viet Nam had one of the most diverse populations in Asia -- with tons of different Asian ethnicities: Chinese, Thai, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, etc. But to her, because she didn't see herself reflected there, it wasn't diverse. That was her perception, and a valid one, but just one way of looking at things.
Final thought -- diversity and integration are not the same. . .
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 28, 2009 9:40:56 AM
JerryB, that line about Scandinavians wasn't Karol's, she just quoted it -- albeit approvingly. Do the writer (and Karol) believe that the Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes have a lock on progressive policies? It seems like I've heard something along those lines before, from various critics of progressive policies describing them as "not American" or "too European". "The progressives are the real racists!" Liberalism = fascism. And on and on. Maybe it was a bon mote, but given that the original article is at essence claiming that urban growth boundaries and streetcars hurt minority populations, it seems a mite difficult to swallow given that streetcars are hardly confined to Scandinavia.
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 28, 2009 9:52:57 AM
Michael B: The line about Scandinavian policies being easy to implement when you have Scandinavian demographics is not racist. ... Scandinavian cultural values include investing in community
Yes, other cultures could give a crap about investing in community.
Michael B: Our good policy has been made possible partly because of our whiteness.
Well, if the line about Scandinavian policies isn't racist I don't know what is.
Posted by: Michael B | Oct 28, 2009 10:14:27 AM
darrelplant
The book was not suggesting non-Scandinavian cultures do not care about community spirit. Sheesh.
It appears to me that you are screaming racism to silence the views of people who are engaging in honest exploration of important issues, without bothering to even try to understand the views in question.
Racism is serious and your ignorant accusations are extremely counterproductive to efforts to stop actual racism.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Oct 28, 2009 10:34:31 AM
"It's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics"
Well, as one of those Scandininavians -- and one whose mom was Portland's "Scandinavian of the Year" just a couple of years ago, let me weigh in a bit.
It's true that Oregon had a large influx of Scandinavian immigration - mostly around the turn of the century. There's a reason why PSU is the Vikings. Head to Astoria sometime, and if you're lucky, you'll hear Finnish and Norwegian spoken on the street by moms to their kids.
I had a professor in college who taught state politics. He often noted that Oregon and Washington shared many political characteristics with Minnesota and Wisconsin. He attributed our progressive, good-government style with a Scandinavian and Lutheran heritage. (Ever notice that Portland and Minneapolis are the two largest NPR audiences? Start making comparisons, and you'll find a lot of those odd data points.)
But there's nothing wrong with that. Progressive policies and (mostly) corruption-free government are a good thing.
But none of that is to suggest that we shouldn't seek to become more diverse. Of course we should. Or, more precisely, to create the sort of community where people of color would choose to come and stay here. I emphasize that because we can't actually choose to be more diverse; that's not a public policy. We can only do what we can to make ourselves more attractive to people of color.
And, frankly, I think the very policies that seem to be credited here to our Scandinavian heritage (rightly or wrongly) are ones that are attractive to people of color.
But we have a long way to go. There are very specific things we can and should be doing (and stop doing.) Oregon does have a history of racism. I encourage all of you to read Lew Frederick's recent report on perceptions of the PDC among communities of color. It is both unsurprising and shocking all at the same time.
As one commenter noted above, much of our transit system is designed to move suburban middle-class folks into the central city for high-income jobs (the "spoke and wheel" design) - rather than transport working people to industrial employment zones.
Karol is right: We have much work to do. But let's be a bit more precise about exactly what needs fixing - and what doesn't.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Oct 28, 2009 10:55:51 AM
Paul, my criticism of your comment did not key on the characterization of working class jobs. I was taken aback by this rather unreflective comment:
So yes, Greg, riding bikes, drinking overpriced coffee and specialty beer, and eating local are overwhelmingly upper middle class yuppie--and white--preoccupations.
You conflate a variety of things here. Coffee and specialty beer (I could go down the road of the characterization of them as "overpriced," too, which is similarly either uninformed or unreflective) are not "overwhelmingly upper middle class yuppie preoccupations." This is a silly generalization, and one that a stat on median incomes of Starbucks drinkers cannot dispel. Walk into a pub anywhere in the city. Look at people drinking specialty beer. Very few are upper-middle class.
My point is that it's easy to fall into stereotyping based on race and class. The behavior your excoriated in this comment are indeed mainly those of Portland whites. But of course, so is almost every other behavior in Portland. Your point, I think, is that the city has little to offer non-whites. This is much the same as my own comment. But you go beyond the point when you default to stereotypes and start mixing and matching variables. When we're talking about race--and especially when two white guys from Portland are talking about race--I think it's worth being cautious about our characterizations.
Posted by: paul g. | Oct 28, 2009 10:57:14 AM
Michael
I guess i think "becoming whiter" is implicitly relative as well. The claim about absolute change may have been made somewhere in the thread, but I'm pretty sure Karol's claim, and the coverage about the whiteness of Portland, was always on a relative scale. We are *relatively* the whitest large city in our comparison group, whiter than Salt Lake City (always the shocker). But all cities have become more diverse.
If the population as a whole is becoming significantly more diverse (as it is), and has especially experienced a substantial increase in Hispanic immigration over the past 20 years (it has), then showing that Portland has become less white since 1990 really doesn't tell us anything about whether Portland's policies, culture, politics, or economy encourage or discourage diversity.
The appropriate standard is whether Portland became more or less Hispanic compared to some baseline. I suggest a good baseline would be similarly situated urban areas--Seattle, San Francisco, Salt Lake, Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, Austin, San Jose--these are all what I view as our competitors for the hip,urban, creative class population.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Oct 28, 2009 12:00:37 PM
Not trying to pile on to what Alworth's already written, but I'd like add that the local food portion of Paul's comment is also fairly unreflective:
So yes, Greg, riding bikes, drinking overpriced coffee and specialty beer, and eating local are overwhelmingly upper middle class yuppie--and white--preoccupations.
Here's a brief look at the work local non-profit Growing Gardens did last year working with low-income Portlanders to make sure they have the resources they need for successful urban gardening:
*Enrolled 62 new households.
*Continued support for 88 households in their 2nd & 3rd year of the program.
*Distributed over 3500 seed packets
*Distributed over 2000 plant starts at the annual Plant Distribution Day.
*Worked with 600 community volunteers who put in 2500 hours of service in the Home Garden Program.
*Built 44 composting systems for Home Gardeners.
*Continued 2 "Neighborhood Networks" of Home Gardeners to provide a resource to increase peer support and mentorship amongst neighbors.
*Connected 35 Volunteer Mentors to beginning gardeners.
My wife works there, and their organization's core mission is to ensure just the opposite of what Paul is saying: growing healthy local food need not be some elitist delicacy or limited to an upper middle class yuppie pursuit.
Posted by: gl | Oct 28, 2009 12:06:16 PM
ftw
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/21/12-non-profit-organizations/
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/24/23-microbreweries/
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/10/62-knowing-whats-best-for-poor-people/
Posted by: Dil Mirch | Oct 28, 2009 12:09:30 PM
Is this more evidence that you're not "the identity politics editor"?
You've not demonstrated any evidence that persons of color are avoiding Portland. Are SF and Seattle above the national average? Maybe our share went to those cities.
On the other hand there definitely are whites that settle here, because of a lack of blacks. BTW, why does that single Spanish lone word have to be translated or its an insult? Anyway, every Texan that relocates volunteers to me they're pleased at the racial make-up. For good or ill, we're getting positive cash flow from it.
And then there's you. The tone in your piece is that this was news to you. So, how is it that someone that would correct friends over dinner that their language isn't PC enough not notice what must be obvious barriers to persons of color relocating here? What do you find about Portland that puts you off? Recently, running or the HD, you kept saying how proud of Portland you are.
I don't mind identity politics. I wish you didn't go looking for fights to pick, though. How about using your colordar to explain why a black man, with the power of the Presidency, is still imprisoning civilians in Gitmo, still bombing civilians around the world, and putting people in chains, without due process of law, and flying them to third countries where they will be tortured or killed?
Posted by: oregonian37 | Oct 28, 2009 12:26:00 PM
The Pearl district includes a lot of affordable housing. You don't necessarily see it, but that's kind of the point.
Maybe that is part of the problem. Why SHOULD it be "kind of the point" not to see affordable housing, as if there is something unseemly or wrong about that? We are still back to the trying to attract the "right kind of people" as if lower income and working class folks are the WRONG kind of people. If there is affordable (and maybe we should define affordable here) housing in the Pearl, why not make a big deal about that as an opportunity to diversify (in many ways) the area, and not act as if having more working class folks move in would be a bad thing?
And to address this "people in N/NE should be happy their homes have increased in value" subject. At face value, of course they should-and I seriously doubt that you will find anyone who is unhappy about their homes being worth something-but the COST of that increase in value, along with the fact that it took White folks moving to the area to get most of that much applauded development to even happen (meaning developers and banks weren't preferring to do it before), is driving the working class out of the area. These areas weren't "blighted" and run-down because residents preferred it that way.
Finally, I've read a lot of judgemental and self-important things written on BlueO, but for anyone to feel they get to (i)decide(/i) that someone else shouldn't want to, or have the right to, live in one place for the length of their lives , is one of the most conceited, egotistical things I have ever heard anyone say.
Posted by: Jiang Lee | Oct 28, 2009 12:27:47 PM
Charlie, the charge of elitism comes from the fact that there are big cases where it happens. Reed eliminated over 100 garden plots, used for over 80 years, to build on campus housing so that students didn't have to live across the street. There was no successful resistance to the move, because wealthy whites living in the neighborhood took over the campaign, told the poor that were using it to live to bugger off, and Reed decided that the elites were the only reason the garden existed.
I was growing 20% of my food on the balcony of my apartment. They decided to remodel and, over 6 months simply made arbitrary decisions when they needed to work there and dumped the plants. The wealthy either perceive it as a hobby or a way to promte health.
I am glad to hear about the org your wife works for and will check it out. I think a lot of co-op arrangements between folks with land and those with gardening experience is needed. Portland Parks definitely treat it as a hobby. I was present at a "get out the word", and heard their head honch, Leslie Pohl, turn down mega IT support for their website because she was "pretty set in her routine". It's a part of Parks. Dog parks get more attention with the City than people trying to get by by growing their own. I have put these concerns to the last three responsible for Parks. All could care less about this. Sam was the worst. The only one that wouldn't even answer correspondence on the subject.
Am*dam has a de facto housing policy, that if a building isn't being used you can squat in it. Then, you can't be evicted. Could we show that there is one iota of progressiveness in this country by having an anemic, watered down version for gardens? Why not say that any vacant lot can be used for gardening? Let the owner start building whenever and nuke your stuff.
I took the tour through the old county poor farm on its anniversary. I remember going through a similar place in the 1970s. Back then, I thought "those poor people". Last time I thought, "I wish I had it this good".
This, imho, is far more important than a happy resident that happens to be a person of color that suddenly discovers a number that tells her that blacks must not be happy here.
I have been commenting on garden angles on BO for 4 years and have never received a civil reply. Most people simply don't care about this, and that most includes "progressive" Dems.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Oct 28, 2009 12:30:13 PM
And again, I think lattes, lambics, and local food may well be emblematic of white culture (though I think local food is arguable--it's such a new phenomenon, I don't know that it's indicative of any racial or cultural group). My comment was mainly debunking these as solely rich pursuits.
Posted by: JerryB | Oct 28, 2009 12:35:11 PM
Michael B:
"It appears to me that you are screaming racism to silence the views of people who are engaging in honest exploration of important issues, without bothering to even try to understand the views in question."
No, I'm pointing out the racism that was literally in the title of the post.
Should we be tolerant enough to tolerate intolerance?
Posted by: Michael B | Oct 28, 2009 12:48:27 PM
oregonian37
You misread my comment. I do not wish to decide where anyone lives. My point is that improving a neighborhood is worth it, even if it means some residents get displaced. People do not have the right to have their neighborhood remain the same forever, especially if their neighbors wish for change.
As for your comment about attracting the right or wrong kind of people, I'd be interested to know what you think would be the benefits if we were to intentionally try to attract more poor people to Portland? Is it just that it would make you feel less guilty? I would say it is desirable to have greater racial diversity, but the idea that it is desirable to have more people of meager economic means, who are unable to invest in their community? Why?
Posted by: zull | Oct 28, 2009 12:52:36 PM
Some of it is inevitable. There aren't very many strong African American roots here. There aren't a whole lot of families that have been here for multiple generations. People like living near their family and friends they grew up with...they don't want to move to a town where they don't know anyone just because it's "hip".
You can say "working class jobs" and "low property costs" all you want, since that's how it was for Detroit, but ultimately people want to live near their families more than they don't. So they stay in cities that aren't all that nice because they can find jobs there and be near family. You can make your city the nicest one around, you can spend lots of money on "diversity festivals" and try to gloss things over or whatever, but ultimately, people want to live where they know people, and most people look at Portland and say "I don't know a lot of people there, and besides, it rains all the time". It's a self-fulfilling curse, kind of. If people don't know a lot of people somewhere, they probably won't move there. I know I've turned down a lot of jobs in a lot of towns over the years because I just didn't know any people there. I would have left Portland a couple of times if I could have had a job much closer to family and friends who live out of state.
Posted by: Connor Allen | Oct 28, 2009 2:36:57 PM
Carla was the only person who has mentioned Washington County, the most diverse county in Oregon, and one of the two big suburban counties. Last summer I stayed in Tigard and took the #12 bus into Portland and back every day for a month. Going from PDX into Tigard, mostly white ridership, with some Latinos. But leaving from Tigard into Portland every morning, the bus was full of people from East, Southeast, South, and Southwest Asia, African Americans and recent African immigrants, and Latinos.
The diversity of Washington County is one of the few things which tempt me to alter my plans to move back to Clackamas County, which, unfortunately, is not as diverse.
Posted by: DanOregon | Oct 28, 2009 2:46:57 PM
While the history of Oregon's past as a state that was hostile to non-whites can't be understated, I also think the region's lack of large employers, military installations or transportation hubs make it less likely to see an influx of populations from outside the general area.
Multiply this by generations and it isn't surprising about the lack of diversity.
Posted by: Jessie | Oct 28, 2009 2:48:19 PM
As a white woman, I don't have any meaningful insight about what would make large groups of African Americans (or, really, any person who isn't me) move or not move, stay or not stay anywhere. But the more I think about the article as it is presented here, the more troubled I am.
"As the college educated flock to these progressive El Dorados"--so, "college educated" and black are exclusive categories in the mind of the author*? (*By which I mean, of course, the author of the original article, not the author of this post about the article.)
"Why move to the suburbs of your stodgy Midwest city to escape African Americans and get criticized for it when you can move to Portland and actually be praised as progressive, urban and hip?"--has anyone actually ever done this? Moved to Portland to be praised for being hip, I mean? I moved here to be closer to my niece and sister, and for a variety of other factors, but praise was not one of them. If I was supposed to have been praised for my move at some point, someone forgot.
And this is the weirdest: "It's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics"--please do not make me follow this line of illogic out to its natural conclusion. I just wonder what the author thinks about the kind of policies it's easy for, say, Atlanta to have, that's all. Ugh.
I'm with Karol, though: It's nice to live in a thriving city with a diverse population. How you get it is beyond me, although I'll posit that people in general like to live somewhere where they feel welcome and can make a living. Right now, Portland doesn't have enough jobs for its current residents. The high unemployment rate should scare people away, no matter what race they are or how much they enjoy microbrews.
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 28, 2009 3:17:20 PM
Racism is serious and your ignorant accusations are extremely counterproductive to efforts to stop actual racism.
I remember how serious it was from several years of living in that liberal bastion, Eugene, with a woman who grew up in Compton. So spare me your dudgeon.
Your assertion that "Our good policy has been made possible partly because of our whiteness" is a load of codswallop. In the '20s there were so few blacks in the state that the Klan had to devote their energies to the Catholics and other groups. My wife's family had a cross burned on their front yard back in the day. Anti-Popery ran so heavy and thick in Oregon that it generated a case that went to the Supreme Court, when -- in what seems almost mind-bogglingly bass-ackward from today -- the Klan-sponsored Oregon Compulsory School Act was passed by voters in 1922. The Act required children to go to public schools, essentially in attempt to shut down Catholic private schools.
I suppose that's what's meant by our grand legacy of Scandinavian policy and community-building. Or maybe it was shipping all those Japanese off during World War II. Sure, that was an executive decision (although Roosevelt is a Dutch name and the Netherlands are awfully close to Scandinavia!) but it was endorsed whole-heartedly by an awful lot of people here in the Northwest. I'm sure our overwhelmingly white makeup made sure everyone got their stuff back when they were released.
Do I think anything I do's going to "stop actual racism"? No, not really, but then again I know racism when I see it and I'm pretty sure you're not doing anything to stop it either.
Posted by: Tom S | Oct 28, 2009 3:35:16 PM
Darrel Plant-
Yeah the same part of the country that has good planning also had a lot of Klan activity several decades ago. So good planning, etc. must be racist.
Good God, is this how PC any discusion of race has to be? Does every city have to be above averagely black in order to have any of that cities' policies not condemned as racist because they are from that city?
Is this just another PC case of liberals finding reasons to find fault in each other rather than going after the conservatives?
Posted by: gl | Oct 28, 2009 3:46:14 PM
Darrell Plant:
you hit this one head on!
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 28, 2009 3:56:11 PM
Yeah the same part of the country that has good planning also had a lot of Klan activity several decades ago. So good planning, etc. must be racist.
Tom, that's not my assertion. That's the point of the article Karol's quoting from in the original post. That's the point Michael B. made when he wrote "Our good policy has been made possible partly because of our whiteness."
My own view is that -- for whatever reasons -- Oregon's relative progressivism has been despite a legacy of racism.
Posted by: Michael B | Oct 28, 2009 3:59:45 PM
darrelplant
I never made an assertion that good policy is the result of whiteness. I was trying to explain how to apply the thesis of the portion of the book Karol is lifted a quote from, to Portland. People here, including you, are misunderstanding the meaning and misapplying the thesis to Portland. The quote had a lot of context behind it that this thread is entirely ignorant of. I did find the book's thesis persuasive: that homogeneous societies are less prone to racial and religious divisions impacting/distracting their political debates, and therefore more able to enact pragmatic policies. However, I do not have the expertise to make the argument myself. At any rate, I assert that the book made interesting points and before anyone calls the author a racist, they should at least have a vague understanding of what the book had to say.
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 28, 2009 4:08:08 PM
gl, David Brooks mapped out SWPL's ouevre long ago, and he was just as unfunny, but at least you could watch him chortle at his own attempts at humor and then lick his lips with his lizardy little tongue.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Oct 28, 2009 4:52:14 PM
You're doing good work Darrel, up there alone on the barricades.
I think you pretty much summed it all up with this though:
Do I think anything I do's going to "stop actual racism"? No, not really, but then again I know racism when I see it and I'm pretty sure you're not doing anything to stop it either.
Anytime anyone posts a Libruls are Racists Too Dog Whistle like this one, anxious and good hearted Libs try earnestly to either:
A) confess their guilt and vow to do better, or;
B) defend themselves as non-racist in a conciliatory and apologetic manner.
I blame Cornell West, but that's just me......
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 28, 2009 4:56:12 PM
I never made an assertion that good policy is the result of whiteness.
That's odd. Who wrote this then?
A correct application of the book's thesis to Portland would be to say that Portland's homogeneity (whiteness) and its Scandinavian heritage have both played a role in Portland's ability to implement community-spirited policies. Portland is not getting whiter because of our policies. Our good policy has been made possible partly because of our whiteness.
White, Scandinavian, community-spirited. A lot of undefined, unsupported terms thrown around.
According to the 1900 census, the countries with the largest numbers of first-generation immigrants into Portland were Canada (2,209), China (6,943), England (1,922), Germany (4,469), Ireland (1,741), Japan (1,191), and Sweden (1,711). None of the other Nordic countries even broke 1,000. Together, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland barely break 3,000. The figures for second-generation ancestry are even more lopsided. The whole Scandinavian heritage thing just doesn't hold up. That's not to say that there aren't Scandinavians -- I grew up looking forward to Junction City's Scandinavian Festival every year -- but they've never been a predominant ethnic group in either Portland or the state.
Posted by: darrelplant | Oct 28, 2009 5:07:03 PM
Thanks for the kind words, Pat.
It's hardly that I don't think liberals can be racists. I think we all can, just as we can all be prone to violence. I'm no exceptionalist.
Posted by: Michael B | Oct 28, 2009 5:12:26 PM
darrelplant
You think you have a problem with the thesis of a chapter of a book you haven't read more than one sentence of. I read the book, and I have tried earnestly to explain this thesis in the few seconds I can spare from a busy day, and in doing so I have "thrown around" a lot of "undefined unsupported terms". You got me. As long as you don't read the book, you can be certain you won.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Oct 28, 2009 7:51:32 PM
Some interesting ideas and cross currents here to be sure. As one who has lived all over the world, and chose southern Oregon as my adopted home 14 years ago I'd suggest some reasons:
1. The towns and cities of the south/midwest tend to have a higer concentration of family relatives that choose to stay close to each other. This is a variable that knows neither class nor racial limitations.
2. Western states were primarily settled by the Scandinavian immigrants of the time. The Irish and Italian immigrants tended to stay in the Northeast and upper great lakes, but the others moved on towards the Pacific Coast.
3. For a variety of reasons, the black population, newly fred chose to stay in the South, midwest and east. They rarely moved out West.
4. Seattle, Portland and San Francisco had a much higher percentage of minority Asian immigrants due to the gold rush and railroads than anything else. As other nationalities moved to the US they settled on the west coast and make up the diverse population that includes blacks, but is not dominated by blacks.
While an interesting commentary, the article seems more a problem seeking adventure than true social commentary.
Posted by: Jenson | Oct 28, 2009 8:29:36 PM
Sounds like we need more Scandinavians, or people of really pink color.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: RyanLeo | Oct 27, 2009 7:43:16 PM
Ummmm...I have my 20 foot pole out.
First, what does Karol mean by "people of color"?
From my first 2 readings of this post, I surmise that she is equivocating African Americans = people of color.
Myself, I have a Father who is 50% Filipino (making me 25% Filipino) and a Mother who is a lily White Okie.
I find it odd reading this post and the ensuing comments that people bring up Southern cities with historically large populations of African Americans as "diverse" cities.
Where do Latinos and Asians fit in as part of the "people of color" and overall diversity of a city? Do you ignore the 5 or so percent Asian population? Do you only count diversity as the African American population in proportion to the European American population?
Please, explain yourself because the article only references "African Americans" and "Foreign born population" as diversity.