so that's what landlords mean by a progressive neighborhood
Aaron Renn offers this figure in new geography (via Althouse), noting how the so-called “progressive” cities of Austin, Denver, Minneapolis, and Portland are distinguished as much by their whiteness as by their progressiveness.
Mr. Renn's provocative punch line: "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."
As a Minnesotan, I could offer a few defensive counterarguments (e.g., aren't many of the whites moving to Minneapolis coming from even whiter places like Cando, ND?). As a sociologist, however, I recognize a creepy and disturbing kernel of truth to Renn's account.
posted by christopher uggen @ 6:56 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Lack of African-Americans doesn't equal white. Austin is majority-minority, because of a large and still-fast-growing Hispanic population. Many African-Americans, meanwhile, are relocating to the suburbs.
Another problem with this chart is that it conflates county with city. For example, according to the census, Minneapolis is 17.7% African American, roughly 150% the national population percentage.
The numbers for pretty much every city cited in the example are much higher if you look just at the center city than if you look at the entire county (at least according to the census).
Not to be too picky about the numbers, but if they're going to make an assertion about the character of cities, they need to use city data, not county data.
On top of that, I suspect a little bit of the ol' political race-baiting going on here as well, but that might just be my communistic paranoia...
I've posted a few defensive counterarguments of my own along the line of what greg and Woz have already suggested.
I agree with his underlying point: it is easy to come up with "progressive" policies when one does not have to work with racialized politics, particularly along an urban/suburban divide. But, with the exception of Portland and probably Seattle, his criticism that places like Minneapolis and Austin don't have to work with those types of politics are just wrong. And, the data that he uses to justify his point are deceptive.
What I would be more interested in knowing is a) how places like Minneapolis have been able to develop policies with a large African American population in the city, and b) whether places like Austin and Denver can continue to maintain "progressive" policies while not excluding the viewpoints of non-white residents or (as is occurring in some metros) pushing them to the suburbs.
Greg, Woz, and Mike are all making good points re: racialized politics, the black/white binary, and the appropriate unit of analysis (though I'm guessing the city-level race data are even more lopsided in comparing Minneapolis against, say, Cleveland or Cincinatti). But I wouldn't disagree with any of the comments.
Still, as a self-identified (semi-)progressive Minnesotan, I take Renn's argument seriously. It isn't just low population base rates -- so-called progressive cities like Madison and Minneapolis also have some of the largest racial gaps in a wide variety of positive (e.g., education) and negative (e.g., punishment) social outcomes. And there's a smug sense of self-satisfaction in my favorite cities -- who us? racist? are you kidding? -- that makes it extremely tough to get both the policy makers and the residents to take these gaps seriously.
Post a Comment
<< Home