Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep totally agree the wording is suspect but come on, we're being really sensitive here.
If you ever say that Birmingham has been damaged by "white flight" then you're really saying the same thing. When someone complains about white flight, they're insinuating the city was left to the blacks and they wish it never happened and they're worse off because of it. Basically the same thing but shrouded in a different way... That we would be better off had the "whites" had not moved out.
Then when someone like me rejects the term "white flight", I get bashed. I've said on here a couple times that it's not "white flight" it's just people moving to a better way of life... People making better decisions for their families/future.
Is that not the same basic premise? Anyone who has used the term "white flight" on here or thinks "white flight" hurt the city is guilty of the same sentiments as this poster that yall get upset with.
Yep totally agree the wording is suspect but come on, we're being really sensitive here.
If you ever say that Birmingham has been damaged by "white flight" then you're really saying the same thing. When someone complains about white flight, they're insinuating the city was left to the blacks and they wish it never happened and they're worse off because of it. Basically the same thing but shrouded in a different way... That we would be better off had the "whites" had not moved out.
I don't see it that way. I think White flight is regrettable because it perpetuated segregation of neighborhoods and cities and lowered property values, not because it would be better if the White people were still in charge of the city. The low property values in predominantly Black neighborhoods are one of the key things that has limited accumulation of wealth by Black Americans. A poorer city has all of the problems that accommodate poverty (crime, drugs, public school funding issues, etc.). Imagine if White people would have just accepted their new Black middle class neighbors back in the 1970's, '80's, and '90's, instead of running screaming for the 'burbs where they could exclude Black people from their neighborhoods and schools with higher home costs. Good Lord, this is still happening now. Gardendale just got in trouble for trying to establish a new school system that excludes Black kids from North Birmingham.
I don't see it that way. I think White flight is regrettable because it perpetuated segregation of neighborhoods and cities and lowered property values, not because it would be better if the White people were still in charge of the city. The low property values in predominantly Black neighborhoods are one of the key things that has limited accumulation of wealth by Black Americans. A poorer city has all of the problems that accommodate poverty (crime, drugs, public school funding issues, etc.). Imagine if White people would have just accepted their new Black middle class neighbors back in the 1970's, '80's, and '90's, instead of running screaming for the 'burbs where they could exclude Black people from their neighborhoods and schools with higher home costs. Good Lord, this is still happening now. Gardendale just got in trouble for trying to establish a new school system that excludes Black kids from North Birmingham.
The question I ask is 'why' and the answer can't just be 'racism'. There has to be something else at play here. People are always looking for 'better'. You do realize that many black people have moved to suburbs too? Why did they do that? They were looking for more safety and comfort I guess, like the white people who left. This is just what people do. You say suburbs excluded black people, I see a ton of black people in the suburbs.
You may point to Mountain Brook as being very white. Well no, they are very RICH. You think they like the looks of me and my 17 year old truck riding around there? Nope, they don't want me either, and consider me a waste of good oxygen, unless I'm working on their house and are gone by 6 pm. I'm not exactly welcome in their restaurants either.
It is what it is. People in general love to organize themselves into classes. Families are always rising or falling in America. Who is this boogeyman that controls property values? I sure can't pinpoint him/her. Or, could it possibly be human nature for things to go up and down based on what's going on around them, like the rise/fall of steel/mining/etc., invention of cars to commute, on and on?
yes, the end result is the same: white flight leads to a majority black city.
but contrast the two tones:
when someone says "white flight" impacted the city negatively, they're acknowledging that white people had the means, money, resources and ability to move and decided they wanted to live in the suburbs for a myriad reasons (oftentimes racially motivated, other times a desire for more land, newer/better schools, etc). those with the resources abandoned the city. so those without the means to move were left with a city of the same physical size but now with a smaller tax base, older infrastructure, etc. then those same suburban communities turn around and point to the city and criticize its poverty, schools, infrastructure that was a direct result of their actions.
when someone says birmingham was "left to the blacks", they immediately put the blame on black people. the statement absolutely implies that the city declined for reasons specifically related to the color of their skin. would he have used that wording around black colleagues or friends? if not, why not? how about, "birmingham was left as a majority black city, which due to institutionalized racism (redlining, policing, employment, lending practices, etc) in this country, often leads to more poverty, crime and less education."
honestly, it's the word "THE" that really gets me going. THE BLACKS. to just group an entire segment of a population together based on something they don't have control over (similar to THE GAYS or THE JEWS) just rubs me the wrong way. it's what perpetuates stereotypes.
The question I ask is 'why' and the answer can't just be 'racism'. There has to be something else at play here. People are always looking for 'better'. You do realize that many black people have moved to suburbs too? Why did they do that? They were looking for more safety and comfort I guess, like the white people who left. This is just what people do. You say suburbs excluded black people, I see a ton of black people in the suburbs.
You may point to Mountain Brook as being very white. Well no, they are very RICH. You think they like the looks of me and my 17 year old truck riding around there? Nope, they don't want me either, and consider me a waste of good oxygen, unless I'm working on their house and are gone by 6 pm. I'm not exactly welcome in their restaurants either.
It is what it is. People in general love to organize themselves into classes. Families are always rising or falling in America. Who is this boogeyman that controls property values? I sure can't pinpoint him/her. Or, could it possibly be human nature for things to go up and down based on what's going on around them, like the rise/fall of steel/mining/etc., invention of cars to commute, on and on?
absolutely people are looking for better outcomes for themselves and their families. don't think anybody would dispute that. let's play devil's advocate and pretend that none of "white flight" was racially motivated. instead, let's say it was all people wanting a better way of life. if that's the case, why were the VAST majority of those moving to the suburbs white and not black? isn't it because black people typically lack the resources/means of their white counterparts in this country? yes there are exceptions, and of course there are black people in the suburbs and white people in the city, but if human beings are truly born equal and there is no racism present... how do you account for the HUGE disparity between the average white person and the average black person in this country?
TimCity2000, i appreciate everything you saying. Some people are just who they are. Some will not truely understand life and it's dealings amongst races. The people you commenting back to are a waste of your time. Me personally, I just ignore and keep it moving to a different topic on here. I just find something about another thread to comment on just to move it to the top of the page. It's ridiculous.
if that's the case, why were the VAST majority of those moving to the suburbs white and not black? isn't it because black people typically lack the resources/means of their white counterparts in this country?
That's a different argument, and yes I would say race plays into that one, and that solution is different. I was more addressing the idea of these suburbs only letting white people in the gate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcalumni01
TimCity2000, i appreciate everything you saying. Some people are just who they are. Some will not truely understand life and it's dealings amongst races. The people you commenting back to are a waste of your time. Me personally, I just ignore and keep it moving to a different topic on here. I just find something about another thread to comment on just to move it to the top of the page. It's ridiculous.
I hope you are talking about Bamaman only, and not the rest of us. He's the only one here using some questionable language. If not, you might ought to step off that high horse before you bump your head on that glass ceiling. Either way, seriously, stop whining and trying to shut down a decent discussion. I mean you've said you were leaving the discussion multiple times already - we get it, you think your opinion is correct.
yes, the end result is the same: white flight leads to a majority black city.
but contrast the two tones:
when someone says "white flight" impacted the city negatively, they're acknowledging that white people had the means, money, resources and ability to move and decided they wanted to live in the suburbs for a myriad reasons (oftentimes racially motivated, other times a desire for more land, newer/better schools, etc). those with the resources abandoned the city. so those without the means to move were left with a city of the same physical size but now with a smaller tax base, older infrastructure, etc. then those same suburban communities turn around and point to the city and criticize its poverty, schools, infrastructure that was a direct result of their actions.
when someone says birmingham was "left to the blacks", they immediately put the blame on black people. the statement absolutely implies that the city declined for reasons specifically related to the color of their skin. would he have used that wording around black colleagues or friends? if not, why not? how about, "birmingham was left as a majority black city, which due to institutionalized racism (redlining, policing, employment, lending practices, etc) in this country, often leads to more poverty, crime and less education."
honestly, it's the word "THE" that really gets me going. THE BLACKS. to just group an entire segment of a population together based on something they don't have control over (similar to THE GAYS or THE JEWS) just rubs me the wrong way. it's what perpetuates stereotypes.
I agree "THE" was the word that turned up the heat.. But, again, then I got to thinking. Using the term "white flight", indicating the flight consisted of only white people who want to get away from black people is really the same thing.
And whoever mentioned that people just have a way organizing/segregating themselves is right. It does happen naturally. And that's ok! Until hate breeds, love leaves, and territories/people become discriminated against.
Birds of a feather flock together based on commonalities. I don't feel welcomed in Mountain Brook either or the trailer park.
i agree: humans tend to self-segregate using many factors, and race is absolutely one of them.
i'm not even saying that "white flight" was entirely racially motivated, but i think it would be naive to say it didn't play a role... and maybe even a big one. hell, i can specifically remember a neighbor of ours in huntsville saying something to my parents about the neighborhood i had grown up in "turning dark" when i was home from my last year of college. they obviously meant that as a negative. and this was in the early '00s.
i guess i just want Bamaman1 to understand and acknowledge that yes, birmingham was "left" with a majority black population, but being black doesn't automatically lead to poverty, crime, lack of education, a city's decline, etc. unfortunately in our society, it just puts you behind the starting line.
i haven't been to montgomery in years and frankly have never spent much time there. so i can't compare it to either birmingham or huntsville. i will say that i feel like montgomery has a significantly lower national profile than either of those two, and that being the capital is probably the only thing keeping it in a higher tier than, say, tuscaloosa or auburn/opelika.
huntsville is definitely the media darling of the past decade. it has enjoyed good growth (particularly by alabama's standards). although much older than birmingham, it actually didn't "come of age" until the '50s, and by then the automobile had taken hold of the US. as a result, it's a city very much oriented around the car and suburban style development. this is reflected in the size of its downtown, although progress has been made on that front recently. still, it's a sleepy downtown for a city its size. the major employers are west of downtown (NASA / Redstone Arsenal / Research Park), and much of the area's growth as been that direction as well. defense, aerospace and tech are the largest industries, which naturally attract some pretty bright citizens. huntsville is well-regarded in that area. the new toyota-mazda plant will diversify the economy as well. i think you'll find the area is still fairly conservative, although i imagine the more people that move in from out of town, the more purple it will become.
birmingham is a legacy city that, up until a decade ago, was hemorrhaging residents. it peaked at 360,000 in the '60s and is down to about 210,000 now. the good news is that we seem to have finally bottomed out. empty/abandoned buildings are being filled throughout downtown with condos/restaurants. the bad news is that this development does not seem to be showing up in terms of population growth. so while the city center and several downtown-adjacent neighborhoods are seeing growth, the other neighborhoods are likely still losing residents or staying stagnant. steel and banking no longer dominate the economy, although their presence is still felt. healthcare is now a major player here (not just because of UAB, but also companies like encompass). there is also a small tech/startup scene here that has gotten some attention (hello shipt). also, birmingham is absolutely a blue dot in a red state. the suburbs still lean very red, though.
comparisons between birmingham and huntsville:
downtowns: this one isn't a contest
suburbs: huntsville has one true suburb in my opinion - Madison. and it's a good one. great schools and centrally located in the area. there are lots of unincorporated communities in madison and limestone counties as well. birmingham has a billion suburbs which, frankly, is one of its biggest problems. it creates these fiefdoms that fight each other for turf/people/schools and in the past have not cooperated well. most have good schools, although you'll hear mountain brook, homewood and vestavia mentioned highest in that regard. both cities offer the chance to live relatively close but still have some land if you want. a commute longer than 30-45 minutes is probably rare in either city, unless you purposely choose to live way out.
outdoor activities: probably a tie... neither lacks for nearby lakes/rivers/"mountains", although huntsville has the tennessee river; birmingham doesn't have anything like that
food: birmingham punches well above its weight here and is known for its culinary scene
jobs: huntsville is certainly growing faster and has had by far the more "high profile" jobs announcements recently (FBI / Toyota-Mazda / Blue Origin); birmingham has experienced modest job growth as well, though. both have relatively low unemployment rates.
crime: no contest here. this is a black eye for birmingham. i will say that i live in the city and have never once felt unsafe. unfortunately, as in most places, violent crime seems to be concentrated in a handful of areas which in turn give the city a bad reputation.
sports: neither has professional sports. birmingham is closer to tuscaloosa and auburn and has a new stadium under construction.
music: birmingham probably leads in the music department as well, although huntsville will significantly raise its profile with a new amphitheater. birmingham gets some fairly big acts, and huntsville does occasionally as well, but usually you will find yourself driving to nashville, new orleans or atlanta.
nightlife: i can't comment on huntsville's nightlife - i assume it's concentrated downtown, but i'm not sure. birmingham has probably 2-3 nightlife districts that were pretty lively pre-covid. per capita (and maybe even total?), huntsville has more breweries.
transportation: both are typical southern cities in this regard. not sure what huntsville's bus system is like, but birmingham's is notoriously bad and unreliable. we are due to get a BRT system before 2022... it remains to be seen if this will help anything. you will definitely need a car in either city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
