But who would have guessed that Smart Growth spells Jim Crow? Only worse because say what you will about post-bellum southern racism, by and large the Jim Crow racists weren't screwing their own children.
The point being that the forces driving people to flee our 'great', 'progressive' and 'hip' blue metropolises today are more similar to those that drove the poor whites and blacks that fled the post-bellum south than we'd like to believe. My friend and best port side critic called me on it, saying:
"I like the first 2 phases best (referring to my tamer, more boring rhetoric) , and think articles like this could be persuasive… until you get to the over-the-top Jim Crow comparison stuff."
Ok, so he hates the hot stuff. That being said, he has a point that must be addressed. How could I possible compare the migrations driven by the brutally stupid, hate filled Southern States at the peak of their Jim Crow tyranny to the migration of people from some of the leading cities of the 21st century, cities known for their sophistication, compassion and progressivism? On one hand you have the huddled masses fleeing Uncle Tom's cabin across the ice while the slave hunters' dogs bay in the background (so to speak) while on the other hand you have really cool places where lots of the really cool people live and where, by the way, I love to visit. There can't be any comparison between the rates of migration from the south and these cities. It must have been orders of magnitude greater than from the large metropolitan areas of the United States.
So I investigated the migration literature and found Professor of History James N. Gregory of the University of Washington who is an acclaimed expert on southern migration who wrote a definitive book on the subject. I was able to get excerpts from this work that gave me estimates for the rate of out migration from the South to the rest of the nation in the 1900s, the teens and the 1940s. I was also able to retrieve the good professor's estimates of the racial breakdown of that out-migration which contrary to popular belief was largely white. Indeed, when I began analyzing the decadal census results by race, I noticed that the black populations in these states, while shrinking relative to the white (blacks were 33% of their populations in 1900, by 1950 they were down to 22%) had grown in absolute terms by 27% by 1950. This surprised me because like many people who took 'history' in the 70s I conceived of Jim Crow as sort of a southern fried holocaust without the killing or camps and expected the out-migration to approximate that of German Jews roughly 60% of whom fled Germany between Hitler's accession to power in 1933 and 1939 when the war started.
Actually, it turns out that the emigration from Southern States in 1901-1910, 1911-1920, and 1941-1950 were all lower per thousand residents than the current twenty first century emigrations from our best, most fashionable blue metropolises. Here's how it breaks down:
Southern Emigration Estimates**:
1901-1910: 6.16 people per thousand per year
1911-1920: 6.84
1941-1950: 10.40 (inflated by wartime migrations)
Overall annual emigration per thousand in the three periods: 7.5
Emigration rates for major US metropolitan areas 2000-2008***:
Los Angeles-Long Beach MSA: 12.2 people per thousand per year*
New York - New Jersey MSA: 12.0
San Francisco - Oakland MSA: 10.5
Detroit, Michigan MSA: 9.1
Cleveland, Ohio MSA: 7.5
Boston, Massachusetts MSA: 7.1
Chicago, Illinois MSA: 6.8
"Well" - my progressive interlocutor responds "that's the overall migration rate, I bet you the African American rate was way, way higher". Nope. As my impeccably leftist credentialed Vice President of the Labor and Working Class History Association wrote (a bolshier sounding group there can not be) the rates of migration were rather similar:
Estimated rate of African American emigration from the south**:
1901-1910: 6.1 people per thousand per year
1911-1920: 7.9
1941-1950: 11.5 (wartime migration)
Overall migration in the three periods: 8.5.
So what does this all mean? First of all I do not believe that those fleeing LA, New York or Boston today feel persecution the way that black southerners did. But I don't think the primary driver of black emigration was racial oppression. The scale of black emigration from the south - similar to that of their white neighbors - is consistent with a people seeking better economic opportunities, not a people being driven out like Germany's Jews were - Professor Gregory says that a significant proportion of blacks emigres actually returned to their southern homes. This isn't to minimize the moral crimes of that time and place but to put them into context: there was no place in America in those days where blacks were really welcome - there were places - all in the North or West that offered higher wages, more opportunities and better public services for those enterprising enough to seize them. And millions of black and white southerners derided by their hosts as "Niggers", "Hillbillies" and "Okies" made the jump.
But why weren't there opportunities in the south for blacks and whites back then? The standard explanation is that the South's enforced racist regime subordinated the rights of both blacks and whites to trade and live as they saw fit to a state diktat which impaired property rights as well as personal rights. This lack of secure property rights led investors to shun the south until the Federal government (or in some cases the state governments) acting to ensure equal protection under the law gave them the confidence to invest. The same phenomenon is occurring today in big progressive cities like NYC, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco. These cities have seen major investments that they used to get as a matter of course pass them by for places that offer.....more secure property rights and and more personal economic freedom. The progressive governance model is one that takes massive value from private property without compensation, either in terms of land use restrictions, massive delays, regulations or taxes and mandates which reduce returns to investors and drives up the cost of living leading millions of mostly younger residents to flee to where the jobs have fled and the cost of living is reasonable.
It's interesting that while the underlying drivers and rates of emigration are similar in both eras, the 'official' explanation and positioning of what happened is so different. The south is rightly derided for its racist, authoritarian and anti-liberty and property policies which stunted investment and drove millions to seek a better life elsewhere. The big northern cities don't get beaten up for essentially reprising the South's failings. For example, there weren't hundreds if not thousands of 'puff pieces' in the establishment press and scholarly journals lauding Jim Crow and the South's economic stagnation the way that there are today praising the progressive cities and smart growth and their economic and social policies (while often avoiding talking about the underlying economic stagnation).
I also don't recall any history that has the leading lights of Richmond or New Orleans beaming and preening about how 'progressive' their race and economic policies were. Indeed they knew the 'respectable' world disapproved - they called it their 'peculiar' institution when it was slavery and then called it 'separate but equal' later - neither indicates pride. On the other hand everybody in the big blue city establishment (Mayor Bloomberg "New York is a luxury good") is proud and certain of the rightness of their policies even as real standards of living sink and emigration goes through the roof. Part of this lack of self awareness is attributable to the status of the big blue cities as cornerstones of the establishment and centers for the intelligentsia and media. They make so much noise, they can't hear anything but themselves so they miss the rot going on all around them. Helping them to avoid reality is the fact that big blue cities are able to replace their American emigres with foreign immigrants - NYC might look like a lousy deal to a Missourian like me but to a Gujarati, NYC is heaven. At least until he gets established and starts looking around.
So the shorthand of 'Jim Crow' which includes both racist policies and their impairment of property rights and liberties resulting in low investment, explains why southerners of both races emigrated in such large numbers. And the emigration from blue cities is remarkably similar to 'Jim Crow' without the hostility towards a minority (although it is increasingly being substituted for an anti-white focus in these cities). But I guess you can't really conflate 'smart growth' and the blue policy mix with Jim Crow. It's more Pinch Sulzberger. Yeah, that's the ticket: the Great Migration from the Pinch Sulzberger Northern and Western Cities.
The only question is how many of our erstwhile great metropolises will see past the cant and pull off the environmentally responsible bicycle lane before they Detroit themselves. It should be interesting.
*LA's out-migration rates may be inflated because the Inland Empire which abuts the LA MSA has immigration of 16.1 per thousand or the equivalent on an LA MSA scale of 5.4 per thousand which would net out the two areas at emigration of 7.0 per thousand. But Phoenix has even more immigration - most of it coming from Southern California so the truth is probably somewhere between 12.4 and 7.0.
**My estimates based upon the commentary in his book. I calculated the rates of southern migration based upon his decadal totals against the US Censuses for 1900, 10, 20, 40 and 50. I took the midpoint average of the two censuses to calculate the population denominator for any decade. You could make different assumptions and get slightly different numbers but it wouldn't change the overall conclusions. The fact is that it is hard to get definitive emigration numbers anytime from anywhere - people register when they cross into a new country, not when they move to a new town.
***Source: Praxis Consulting Group, Professor Joel Kotkin, Newgeography.com
So I investigated the migration literature and found Professor of History James N. Gregory of the University of Washington who is an acclaimed expert on southern migration who wrote a definitive book on the subject. I was able to get excerpts from this work that gave me estimates for the rate of out migration from the South to the rest of the nation in the 1900s, the teens and the 1940s. I was also able to retrieve the good professor's estimates of the racial breakdown of that out-migration which contrary to popular belief was largely white. Indeed, when I began analyzing the decadal census results by race, I noticed that the black populations in these states, while shrinking relative to the white (blacks were 33% of their populations in 1900, by 1950 they were down to 22%) had grown in absolute terms by 27% by 1950. This surprised me because like many people who took 'history' in the 70s I conceived of Jim Crow as sort of a southern fried holocaust without the killing or camps and expected the out-migration to approximate that of German Jews roughly 60% of whom fled Germany between Hitler's accession to power in 1933 and 1939 when the war started.
Actually, it turns out that the emigration from Southern States in 1901-1910, 1911-1920, and 1941-1950 were all lower per thousand residents than the current twenty first century emigrations from our best, most fashionable blue metropolises. Here's how it breaks down:
Southern Emigration Estimates**:
1901-1910: 6.16 people per thousand per year
1911-1920: 6.84
1941-1950: 10.40 (inflated by wartime migrations)
Overall annual emigration per thousand in the three periods: 7.5
Emigration rates for major US metropolitan areas 2000-2008***:
Los Angeles-Long Beach MSA: 12.2 people per thousand per year*
New York - New Jersey MSA: 12.0
San Francisco - Oakland MSA: 10.5
Detroit, Michigan MSA: 9.1
Cleveland, Ohio MSA: 7.5
Boston, Massachusetts MSA: 7.1
Chicago, Illinois MSA: 6.8
"Well" - my progressive interlocutor responds "that's the overall migration rate, I bet you the African American rate was way, way higher". Nope. As my impeccably leftist credentialed Vice President of the Labor and Working Class History Association wrote (a bolshier sounding group there can not be) the rates of migration were rather similar:
Estimated rate of African American emigration from the south**:
1901-1910: 6.1 people per thousand per year
1911-1920: 7.9
1941-1950: 11.5 (wartime migration)
Overall migration in the three periods: 8.5.
So what does this all mean? First of all I do not believe that those fleeing LA, New York or Boston today feel persecution the way that black southerners did. But I don't think the primary driver of black emigration was racial oppression. The scale of black emigration from the south - similar to that of their white neighbors - is consistent with a people seeking better economic opportunities, not a people being driven out like Germany's Jews were - Professor Gregory says that a significant proportion of blacks emigres actually returned to their southern homes. This isn't to minimize the moral crimes of that time and place but to put them into context: there was no place in America in those days where blacks were really welcome - there were places - all in the North or West that offered higher wages, more opportunities and better public services for those enterprising enough to seize them. And millions of black and white southerners derided by their hosts as "Niggers", "Hillbillies" and "Okies" made the jump.
But why weren't there opportunities in the south for blacks and whites back then? The standard explanation is that the South's enforced racist regime subordinated the rights of both blacks and whites to trade and live as they saw fit to a state diktat which impaired property rights as well as personal rights. This lack of secure property rights led investors to shun the south until the Federal government (or in some cases the state governments) acting to ensure equal protection under the law gave them the confidence to invest. The same phenomenon is occurring today in big progressive cities like NYC, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco. These cities have seen major investments that they used to get as a matter of course pass them by for places that offer.....more secure property rights and and more personal economic freedom. The progressive governance model is one that takes massive value from private property without compensation, either in terms of land use restrictions, massive delays, regulations or taxes and mandates which reduce returns to investors and drives up the cost of living leading millions of mostly younger residents to flee to where the jobs have fled and the cost of living is reasonable.
It's interesting that while the underlying drivers and rates of emigration are similar in both eras, the 'official' explanation and positioning of what happened is so different. The south is rightly derided for its racist, authoritarian and anti-liberty and property policies which stunted investment and drove millions to seek a better life elsewhere. The big northern cities don't get beaten up for essentially reprising the South's failings. For example, there weren't hundreds if not thousands of 'puff pieces' in the establishment press and scholarly journals lauding Jim Crow and the South's economic stagnation the way that there are today praising the progressive cities and smart growth and their economic and social policies (while often avoiding talking about the underlying economic stagnation).
I also don't recall any history that has the leading lights of Richmond or New Orleans beaming and preening about how 'progressive' their race and economic policies were. Indeed they knew the 'respectable' world disapproved - they called it their 'peculiar' institution when it was slavery and then called it 'separate but equal' later - neither indicates pride. On the other hand everybody in the big blue city establishment (Mayor Bloomberg "New York is a luxury good") is proud and certain of the rightness of their policies even as real standards of living sink and emigration goes through the roof. Part of this lack of self awareness is attributable to the status of the big blue cities as cornerstones of the establishment and centers for the intelligentsia and media. They make so much noise, they can't hear anything but themselves so they miss the rot going on all around them. Helping them to avoid reality is the fact that big blue cities are able to replace their American emigres with foreign immigrants - NYC might look like a lousy deal to a Missourian like me but to a Gujarati, NYC is heaven. At least until he gets established and starts looking around.
So the shorthand of 'Jim Crow' which includes both racist policies and their impairment of property rights and liberties resulting in low investment, explains why southerners of both races emigrated in such large numbers. And the emigration from blue cities is remarkably similar to 'Jim Crow' without the hostility towards a minority (although it is increasingly being substituted for an anti-white focus in these cities). But I guess you can't really conflate 'smart growth' and the blue policy mix with Jim Crow. It's more Pinch Sulzberger. Yeah, that's the ticket: the Great Migration from the Pinch Sulzberger Northern and Western Cities.
The only question is how many of our erstwhile great metropolises will see past the cant and pull off the environmentally responsible bicycle lane before they Detroit themselves. It should be interesting.
*LA's out-migration rates may be inflated because the Inland Empire which abuts the LA MSA has immigration of 16.1 per thousand or the equivalent on an LA MSA scale of 5.4 per thousand which would net out the two areas at emigration of 7.0 per thousand. But Phoenix has even more immigration - most of it coming from Southern California so the truth is probably somewhere between 12.4 and 7.0.
**My estimates based upon the commentary in his book. I calculated the rates of southern migration based upon his decadal totals against the US Censuses for 1900, 10, 20, 40 and 50. I took the midpoint average of the two censuses to calculate the population denominator for any decade. You could make different assumptions and get slightly different numbers but it wouldn't change the overall conclusions. The fact is that it is hard to get definitive emigration numbers anytime from anywhere - people register when they cross into a new country, not when they move to a new town.
***Source: Praxis Consulting Group, Professor Joel Kotkin, Newgeography.com
No comments:
Post a Comment