We all know the story of how cities like Detroit, Gary, and Baltimore became predominantly black.
First the businesses fled, then whites with the ability to move to the suburbs.
But the black middle class also took flight, and around 1990 or so there was a second exodus.
Most left to take advantage of the amenities offered in the suburbs–better public schools loom large here. But they also left because, like their white counterparts, they express a great deal of disdain and disgust towards behaviors associated with the black poor, and in many cases towards the black poor themselves.
When many of us talk about or write about "black politics" we usually focus on RACIAL politics, examining the differences between black and white attitudes, or on the way resources are withheld from black people in general. As a result we ignore intra-racial politics.
However, we do this to our peril. Empirically speaking, ignoring this leaves us unable to explain growing black conservatism. It also leaves us unable to explain the relative LACK of black concern about a variety of pressing problems that tend to affect poor and working class blacks. Politically speaking, ignoring this leaves us unable to organize. It's hard to contest the neoliberal turn when the people you hate the most are presented as its primary victims.
Yesterday the Associated Press released an article that examined how the opportunities provided by the burst housing bubble creates significant intra-racial tension. Although the article is titled "Foreclosure helping change color of some suburbs" this isn't about color as much as it's about class. Read it, then think about this question. It's in the "black community's" interest to build wealth and to develop social capital. It's also in the "black community's" interest to support the freedom and liberty for individuals to live how they see fit, regardless of their race/class/religion. These interests cannot co-exist in this case. Which should win out? The Associated Press: Foreclosures helping change color of some suburbs.
Why don’t the “Ole Black Community” community simply come to realization on three facts. One, your assimialted to the highest degree of all minorities EVER in U.S history. Two, with that sort of assimilated indoctrine you Negroes have the same socio-economic stratus as whites;meaning redneck,hillbilly,wanna be, middle class, upper class, etc..Thus, the “Ole Black Comunity” just aint what it used to be.lol Therefore, we are no different than the white folks except color of skin, opportunity, and ocassional ideologies!!
Wake-up, but dont go back to sleep like ya’ll negroes normally do! lol
This part’s not quite true. It is not in anyone’s interest to support the freedom and liberty to live any how they see fit. No one can expect to eat, drink and be merry in a nice house of their own choosing just because they want it, without effort or discipline or compromise. Of course, not. Civilization requires civilized behavior. Manners are not expensive. Regard for property; also not expensive. Teaching children not to wear out their welcome; time consuming and difficult, but again, not expensive. Why then might these behaviors be synonymous with poverty? Good question. However, the fact that one is suddenly able to step across a threshold into a neighborhood that was once off-limits should not require saintly tolerance of ‘any how they see fit’ behavior from established residents. Obnoxious people should be required to pay, change, or move on regardless of income level or race. Tired of paying fines? Move back to a neighborhood where nobody cares.
This is a bit closer, but this isn’t quite true either. Decisions about who is obnoxious, about who has manners, about who is civilized, these decisions are driven by class considerations. Now they aren’t SOLELY driven by class considerations, but they are partially driven by class considerations. Making decisions solely based on what’s “civilized” under these circumstances, will ALWAYS ended up silencing people who at the very least have the right to speak.
Not really. I have a right to speak, but if I am disturbing the collective peace with my rights I will be fined. If I am blasting my radio in my car at odd hours I will be fined. If my neighbors complain about me or my children making too much noise, I will be embarrassed and/or fined. If I do not want to deal with these requirements, I can move.
Manners are relative. Here, in a neighborhood full of college students, Friday and Saturday nights get to be quite obnoxious. St Patrick’s Day was obnoxious starting a nine am. Still, it was collectively obnoxious. No one complained. If, however, a few stragglers do not take the hint that the party is over and it’s time to go inside and lay down somewhere, sirens happen, police show up.
Again, why would self-awareness and respect for others be less of a requirement for people who happen to be black or poor? Certainly we are not thinking that poor blacks are incapable of self-restraint. Why then should there be less of an expectation that you get what you pay for? If the social and economic requirements of an area are too much for you, then move on. So great, you got a deal on a nice neighborhood. Presumably you moved there because it was nice. Trouble is, you’ll have to change to keep it nice. That’s life. If you don’t change, one way or another, you lose. We all have to change to get what we want. Every single one of us. We don’t get anything just because we want it.
I’m not suggesting that poor blacks are incapable of self-restraint. I am suggesting they behave differently than their non-poor counterparts. These behaviors themselves generate derision among people who aren’t poor…but not solely because these behaviors are “uncivilized” or “lack manners”. Rather, they generate derision because poor people engage in them.
Now as soon as poor people move into the neighborhood, THEY become part of the collective. They have a role then, in defining “the collective peace.” If manners are relative, what say should they have in determining the new collective peace? Any? Should they be forced to integrate to the collective norms without having the opportunity to change them?
If a poor white person came into sudden money or a great deal on a house in a middle-class white neighborhood, would the established neighbors be inclined to allow their quality of life and property values to erode in order to avoid hurting the cultural sensibilities of their new neighbor because ‘he’s white like us’? Why are blacks somehow responsible for, even labeled by the behavior of all blacks. Why does an upwardly mobile black family risk being accused of abandoning poor blacks by choosing not to live this way? Why are poor blacks all labeled this way? Why should anyone, poor, black or otherwise, who has worked hard and made choices for themselves and their families be denied the life they’ve worked for because it might be culturally insensitive to expect others in the community to grow up? Seriously, I think this bias has hurt us. And I still say this bias has nothing, in essence, to do with being black or poor. If it did, none of us would have survived, and even thrived through centuries of repression.
There’s three different things going on here. I’ll try to parse out the different pieces.
I’m not sure that all freedoms we believe whites experience are freedoms worth having. The freedom to discriminate based on class, for example, is something we should view with suspicion. Comparing the situation I pose to a situation involving all whites works analytically…except for this point. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t want to do what whites would do in this circumstance.
The type of intra-racial tension we are talking about here doesn’t usually lead to critiques of the upwardly mobile family. I believe we THINK it does. And there are anecdotes to support it. But not hard evidence.
Finally I’m not sure what you mean by bias.
I agree with you. The freedom to discriminate based on class is definitely not on my wish list. Yet I think we inadvertently DO discriminate on this basis when we assume that bad character and limited self-control equals poor black, or that poor and black automatically means bad character. That’s the point I am attempting to make here. Maybe I’m not doing such a great job of it.
I’d consider anyone moving from a poor neighborhood to a middle-class, or even working-class, neighborhood as upwardly mobile. Here I am assuming that one does so in order to better one’s circumstances. That being the case, why then shouldn’t certain behaviors change? Even if we forget ourselves once in awhile, ordinances and social expectations should stay in place to remind us. It seems there is an unspoken reluctance to impose basic social constraints on intra-racial relationships when those relationships are between black people. Instead, we keep moving away from each other.
In this way, upward mobility for many of us becomes something like a toddler trying to catch a beach ball. Every time we get close, we accidentally kick it away. I mean, if I don’t want my new car shot up, even if it’s not a BMW, then I need to find better ways to deal with conflict, just so I can keep my own new stuff nice. If my freedom to play my music too loud, or to have an impromptu gathering of a few of my loudest associates is disturbing the peace, warn me, fine me if I do not heed, but assume the best, not the worse of me and let me learn to conduct myself accordingly in my new neighborhood. That’s a reasonable social requirement for any human being. Why would this not be the reality for folks who happen to be black?
This lowered expectation is what I mean by bias. We sometimes treat black people as if they/we are developmentally handicapped. Then we pass the resulting behavior off as ‘culture’. I have been black for my entire life. I have been poor for more of it than I am happy about. My family did not absolve me of basic human responsibilities, including civility. I don’t think most poor black people were given a social get of jail free card. This is only my opinion, I have no data, only experience—but I think the most obnoxious people have stood in the light as representatives of ‘black people’ (poor or otherwise) for too long. It hurts. It hurts those of us trying to climb out of the bottom. It hurts those of us trying to keep from falling back down. And it has nothing to do with being black. Ignorance and Don’t-Care is color-blind. So should human dignity be. Damned if fighting the curse of poverty isn’t hard enough.
So here’s something funny. The day you posted your comment I had to deal with this on the bus going to work-I take public transportation to work every morning and sometimes I ride with the high school kids. If the bus is full of them I have to just take it but in this case they only filled the back of the bus.
Loud as all get out.
So, thinking about this conversation I ask one of them to talk to the loudest one out of respect. The rest of them heard me ask, and then made it worse:
He’s telling you to shut up!!
To which the loud one responded: I got freedom of speech!
*sigh*
I then told her it wasn’t like that. I wasn’t telling her to shut up as much as I was asking her to think about a simple question; do the rest of the passengers have a right to ride the bus in peace? After she realized I wasn’t trying to play her she was more attentive.
Democracy, even on the bus, is hard as hell. But given what we’re facing we have to try hard to build community. That involves changing win-lose scenarios to win-win ones as often as we can.
Sent from the Rustbelt
WIN-WIN!
(Rustbelt Rules!)
(on the bus with them now. MUCH quieter! Lol)
I love black people but I hate… http://t.co/E4zbCYqN
Great piece! I’ve witnessed all of it here in Baltimore // RT @LesterSpence: I love black people but I hate… http://t.co/oMEZpSaZ
From the Archives: I love black people but I hate… http://t.co/E4z75ohD