Today the NYT ran a story reporting Harlem was no longer majority black.
This news is important enough to cover…and particularly interesting given the fact that New York City is no longer majority white. But the reality is that the Harlem we carry in our head? The Harlem viewed as being the capital of black America? It was more of a public relations construction than anything else. Compare the artistic output of the Black Arts Movement–spearheaded in cities like Newark, Chicago, and Detroit–to the Harlem Renaissance and Harlem’s art movement becomes some guys who wrote a couple of poems in comparison. Jazz, the blues, rhythm and blues, rap, hip-hop, techno, house, none of the musics we associate with blacks were birthed in Harlem. Harold Cruse spent the majority of his seminal book The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual deconstructing the cultural politics of Harlem as if Harlem could stand in for black America writ large…and his analysis was powerful. But Cruse made a critical mistake positing that Harlem was black America. Harlem was never the cultural site that Chicago or Detroit were. Further, politically it was always underdeveloped, particularly because it lacked the type of union-connected black class that Detroit and Chicago were able to use to great success. (This is the same reason why I have never held much love for Atlanta.) Finally, economically Harlem never had access to the type of wealth that other cities had. The year before Detroit’s Coleman Young was elected mayor, blacks had $25,000 in city contracts. The year AFTER he was elected? $125 MILLION.
Is there anything in Harlem’s history that compares here?
“Losing” Harlem to non-blacks may represent the passing of an age to some. But for me to the extent such a thing matters, we never really “had” Harlem to begin with.
Interesting Doc ,gentrification work ?Blacks can't afford to maintain there majority;political gains do they lead to empowerment?
“ompare the artistic output of the Black Arts Movement–spearheaded in cities like Newark, Chicago, and Detroit–to the Harlem Renaissance and Harlem’s art movement becomes some guys who wrote a couple of poems in comparison.”
1. I enjoy hyperbole as much as, if not infinitely more than, the next guy. Surely, though, you're not giving sufficient credit to the actual accomplishments of the Harlem Renaissance. However, I could be persuaded.
2. The so-called “Niggeratti” who I recall were the White patrons and matrons of the H.R. were, I'm inferring from your remarks above, the people responsible for the public relations construction you cite above. If not, then who? And what was their angle? White liberalism? Nurturists attempting to disprove Naturists? Or merely to prove their own power?
3. Please give some more detail about the Black Arts Movement and its output in the cities you name; I've come across similar claims in other quarters, but generally people haven't been specific.
Been meaning to get to this. To get a sense of what I’m talking about check out The Black Arts Movement by James Smethurst. The output of the BAM, with vibrant centers in Chicago, Detroit, Newark, and Los Angeles, among others, dwarfs the output of the HR. Not even close, really.
Biting article Les, but I wouldn't expect nothing less. You may have shorted Harlem just a tad though. I concur, Harlem was not Black America, but Harlem was extremely influential. Influential in the way Idlewild, Michigan was for Detroit. Arguably, its where many cut there teeth; artistically and politically.
From the Archives: Black Harlem, RIP? http://t.co/P9Beku5O