Race in America: 'Progressive' cities

Wow, the reader comments here are really intense. Maybe this article is striking a nerve with young suburban kids (like me) who moved to cities over the last ten years. We moved into previously poor, ignored, and often "not white" neighborhoods & we worked to make our neighborhoods a better place.

But it wasn't so long ago when "inner city" was a euphemism for a poor, black (maybe latino) unsafe, ignored, and economically barren neighborhood. Today, we talk about beautiful urban communities that truly are great models for healthy people. Somewhere in that transition, the low-income, and predominantly black, latino, and African American residents were sometimes not equal benefactors of this neighborhood change. So when the neighborhood began to "turn around" & all of these cool "progressive" kids started paying for crappy apartments with the added value of a college degree, the local kine faced a new economic ballgame. Where do you think that people went as the rent prices slowly rose? That they just melted away & floated to a new place that they liked better? Shifting the urban poor (of any race) to the outskirts of the city is not a morally acceptable impact of urban revitalization.

The underlying questions I see in this article are: is it fair to economically overtake a community because you can pay more, because you're more educated, or because you're cooler, or believe the "right thing"? My belief is no. Should WE as a country be concerned that over the last thirty years we've made our cities safer and more attractive, often by displacing one social or racial group with another? Yeah, we need to be more conscious about that history.

New urbanism is exciting, creative, and ABSOLUTELY needed, but I think we have a long way to go to acknowledge that there are valid underlying racial, cultural, and class issues that have been too easy to ignore.

This article focuses far too much on the black population, and fails to mention that places like Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis tend to have larger Asian populations. Which tend to be a major contributing factor to their progressiveness.(FYI) Seattle has a large population of blacks (try International district) as does Minneapolis, Its called (NORTH MINNEAPOLIS).

I live in Portland, and decidedly so. Portland has been able to transcend the racial, sexual, and poverty issues much more successfully than other cities in my humble opinion. This doesn't mean there hasn't been an issue of racial tension within Oregon's history, but welcome to the US. I think we need to stop this acrimonious debate about sustainable American cities. Competition can be good in healthy amounts, but the overall goal here is to be sustainable, limit our carbon output, and keep atmospheric levels of CO2 at or below 350 ppm. I am a student at Portlands only urban university PSU, and I invite you to come take a look at the global diversity that is truly and overwhelmingly represented on our campus, and throughout our city.

Until then, stop pointing the finger, take a look at the issues in your city, and examine how they can be solved by moving into a sustainable future where everyone cares for all humankind.

Because they like to talk the talk, but when it comes to actually dealing with a high level of diversity they would crack, and their 'open-minds' would quickly shut.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is being progressive going hand in hand with the percentage of African-Americans living in a given city? Are black people the only minorities or...?

Perhaps it is that minority groups tend to vote locally for conservative issues(see gay marriage) and therefore less likely to be found in Progressive cities.

The author does relate the high cost of living (by design) of 'progressive' cities as a barrier to the poor (more often african american and hispanic) and this does mirror the zoning practices of the upper income suburbs around large metropolitan areas. This isn't inherently racist but it does raise the question of what being a 'progressive' city is if, in fact, the population doesn't reflect the national makeup. That's a fair question to ask.
What he fails to point out when pumping up larger cities is that a lot of these cities (like my hometown of Dallas) created their own non-progressive reputatons by dividing the city based on its racial makeup. Heavily african-american south Dallas gets little services, commercial or educational opportunity while wealthy, historically white north Dallas gets a lot of funding and services. Definitely not progressive.

Are they going to start shipping in people of color so they are more "progressive?" It reminds me of people who make Black friends just so they don't seem racist. Enough with being PC already.

Just because a city isn't racially diverse, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't progressive. And likewise, there are plenty of cities that are racially diverse that are non-progressive.

Just because a city is mostly White, doesn't mean it's racist. The whole state of Oregon is mostly White, so it's natural that Portland would be too.

I think the author of this has a narrow definition of race. Anyone who has ever been to Seattle knows it is anything but 'white only'. There is a huge asian population as well as a significant contingent of other non-white nationalities. If you
add alternate lifestyles to the equation you have an incredibly diverse population.

What Seattle doesn't have, which is apparently what this author is trying to convey, is a significant section of urban decay, littered from decades of poverty and neglect, that is predominantly inhabited by blacks.

So, if we are meaning 'black' when talking about diversity, perhaps we have something to talk about. But, if a random bomb went off anywhere in Seattle, the death count would not be 'x number of whites died and nobody else'.

I like this article because it takes a stab at the popular consensus concerning the “north.” At the same time I’m disappointed with the lack of humility on the part of the author. If you’re going to dispel a largely unfounded or simplistic outlook of the world you shouldn’t replace it with another unfounded or simplistic outlook of the world. Ultimately I don’t think you can typecast the inhabitance of a particular region based solely on racial diversity anymore than you can typecast the south for the actions of a couple million people some 140+ years ago.

The great migration from the South took people to certain cities, and that is where their communities formed. Work drew people to wherever they landed, and kept people moving like to LA. Just because Minneapolis was never more than a regional capital for an agricultural state, there was never much industrial work there to attract people who weren't from the local MN farming communities, which happened to be white. Same with the other cities.

So, what point are you making?

This is just another attempt to divide the Progressive movement against itself. Typical. Progressives always find a reason to come down hard on other people with the same goals, and so the Republican persist in winning their low-tax mantra war on the country, around which they are all united. They don't get hung up on political correctness if it will save them money.

Are you a plant from Murdoch following the usual divide and conquer maxim to "prevent collusion among the vassals"? It seems to be working given the state of our economy, society and world...and the state of the vassals, which would be us about now!

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."

Zbigniew Brzezinski "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives" HarperCollins 1997?

That is awfully odd (or careless, or disingenuous) to leave out San Francisco. Isn't SF the definitive "progressive" city? White people comprise only 45% of the population. SF has a huge Asian community (33%) a large hispanic community (14%) and a black community in line with numbers for the state (8%). Is it only black and hispanic Americans that qualify when calculating diversity?

i aggree w/ those who have mentioned that this has more to do w/ property values and expense of real estate in these areas. People see black celebrities who are worth millions and sometimes forget that white familes in these country, according to The Survey of Consumer Finances-supported by the Federal Reserve Board, still have $142,000 higher net worth than the average black family, so it's not likely that many black people could afford to live in these places.

Kick A$$ Article

This article is so shallow and ignorant of the complexities of race relationships in America. First of all, Denver, my home, is incredibly diverse when you take into account asian and latin american immigrants who call it home. It is also the mid-west's mecca for urban life so we have few native born coloradans, but lots of awesome "immigrants" from other states.

I have no excuses for Austin, but Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis are hardly places African American migration trends point to. Why would a population entrenched in the south suddenly mass migrate to the miserably windy and rainy portland/seattle area? I don't know much about Minneapolis, sure, but I am from the south originally and no one down there is talking about Minneapolis like some mecca.

Also, a key thing to look at is cost of living. Minority populations (with perhaps asian immigrants an exception to this) tend to make less money. A lot of these cities have a high cost of living. It's not like we have a fence saying "blacks keep out!". You should be asking minority populations themselves why they do not find appeal in these places like white folks do.

it is an asinine argument, no one is constricting the movement of black or any other group of peoples in this country. I live in portland and there is plenty of diversity here. If this study finds african american lower than national average the why is not because people stopped anyone from moving to a "progressive" city. Can't people get over the "race" thing, we are the human race.

Progressive is the new label for the old elitist liberals.
These people have distinguished themselves as being as racist as they claim not to be.
Their neat trick is to dress up their racism in the facade of intellectualism and the cheap costume jewelry of "progressive" politics.
That is, exclude people they are uncomfortable with using such clever techniques as property prices, taxes and zoning.
These actors pretend they want to help minorities as long as the minorities are not living near them.

also, have you been to austin? first of all its not that big, 2) theres tons of homeless people of all colours, 3) its the capitol of texas, of course its gonna be filled with right wing people, but its also a huge college town. austin has ut, which is loaded to the brim with young leftist students.

people look too much into the race factor. other cities arent trying to be more "white", its for the extensive transit system and such. progressive isnt synonymous with white, but maybe in these areas white people are progressing, but there's tons of other factors. you cant just boil it down to race because thats um, racist.

I take concern with any article that defines diversity only in terms of race. Diversity is not the same thing as multiculturalism and the article should not interchange the two. Diversity includes the notion that multicultural persons share the same standard of living as each other in a relative space.

This author never takes stratification into account and discards other characteristics and qualities of diversity, such as age, gender, sexual orientation, body modification, etc. Progressive is as large a concept as is diversity. Using narrowed views of either concept is flagrant and misleading.

Perhaps it is price, not race, that makes these cities "progressive"... have you looked at the cost of living? Ouch! Seriously, half a million dollars for a house that sells for 1/4 of that in the mid-west. The property taxes alone will pay for a transit system. And a college degree is practically a pre-requisite to living in these places.

Uh huh. Do you really want to get into this? This doesn't raise any questions about the cities themselves, it illuminates answers to social questions about group identity, collective responsibility, norms & mores, as well as a myriad of other topics you clearly skipped at Junior College.

have these people ever been to Austin its fucking full of every race.

I maybe defending my home turf here, but, I live in Portland and while there are many white people (welcome to the west coast bright ones) I have noticed a diversity of culture and religions within Portland itself that I haven't seen many other places. It is really hard to get a handle on what the dominating culture or religion is. Is not being Black automatically translate to being white? Are white people a specific type of person? Am I white? I am sorry but racism aint right either way you point the finger. Portland is awesome because it is weird, progressive, and environmentally conscious. We just elected an openly gay mayor who was open while he was running for office for a change. Oregon was one of the first states to implement an S-Chip program. Our minimum wage laws are some of the most progressive. These types of issues serve to push forward the progressive agenda and to inspire others in "blacker" parts of the country to enact similar policies. Try not to hold this whole being white thing against us. Come down to Portland, have a world famous microbrew and try not to get the shanghai! Keep Portland Weird!

I really find the tone of this article offensive.

Amerika is not progressive! We're as strong as our weakest link. Fly over everything, and never stop in a republican wasteland. Let them eat and drink from their own poisonous cup!

Maybe black people aren't into living in these cities, or else they would move there, I don't know. Who cares what percentage of the population is what race, that is not what makes a city great.
Besides Austin, these cities are generally located in majority white areas and states so its really not that big of a surprise that they too would have a lot of white people living there. Anyway Austin seems pretty damn diverse to me, and what about San Francisco is that not a progressive city anymore?