Readers: Racial & Economic Segregation are Problems in St. Louis
Few topics garner such diverse perspectives than race relations. The poll last week was simple; “How Racially Segregated is St. Louis?“
- Racial segregation is a major problem 61 [28.91%]
- Economic segregation is worse than racial segregation 49 [23.22%]
- People are free to live where they like, minorities often self-segregate 44 [20.85%]
- Racial segregation is an issue 42 [19.91%]
- Other answer… 9 [4.27%]
- Racial segregation isn’t an issue 5 [2.37%]
- No opinion. 1 [0.47%]
The #3 answer (above) of self-segregation can mask larger issues such as long-standing realities that make harmony a challenge. As a white male I can’t possibly know how a black male might feel about the subject. Â As a gay man I can tell you the city is very welcoming, but the two are not related.
The nine other answers were:
- Racial segregation is no worse in St. Louis than any other major American city.
- Economic segregation and racial segregation are one and the same in St. Louis
- Racism and ignorance is deeply ingrained here.
- Depends on neighborhood, but the tension is awful here.
- Ethnic groups self segregate the world over. Get a clue.
- In St. Louis, some areas integrate harmoniously, others *definitely* don’t
- Like LKB24 say: Even the integrated parts of StL are segregated.
- why call it segregation – some prefer a homogeneous environment
- It’s less of a problem than 20-30 years ago
Enough people see a problem that it demands closer attention.
– Steve Patterson
The Ville was a strong and vibrant, middle class African-American neighborhood. How did racial and economic discrimination cause the Ville to decline and decay?
The era when the Ville was “vibrant” was also the same one in which intense racial segregation and discrimination were thoroughly sanctioned by local laws and customs. UCity was a “sundown town”, with blacks subject to being detained or even arrested by police if they were simply on the streets after dark. This became increasingly absurd as law-abiding maids were the ones most often rousted while waiting for buses or streetcars home after work in some affluent sections. Swank stores in the Central West End, like Montaldo's and Saks, did not allow blacks inside, just like numerous less tony establishments throughout the city. It is intriguing that amid pervasive and flagrant denial of opportunity, municipal services, equal treatment under the law, and oppressive restriction of black citizens' movement within the city, the Ville neighborhood was a clean, virtually self-sustaining enclave of mixed incomes and professions that was (comparatively) safe to walk in at night, according to accounts of former residents.
Segregation is the symptom. Racism is the real problem.
To some people, economic diversity, at the neighborhood level, is the ideal. But to many other people, especially as they become wealthier, the choice is to live in “better' neighborhoods, apart from poor and poorer people. With the urban underclass here being primarily African American, and its wealthier members being primarily Caucasian, I'd suggest that much of our apparent segregation is driven more by wealth than by race. I doubt that Steven Jackson's or Albert Pujol's or Charlie Dooley's white neighbors object much to their celebrity neighbors' race.
That said, racism, both blatant and subtle, does make it much more difficult for many African Americans here to achieve the economic success that many other races enjoy. How hard one wants, or should have to, work, either individually or as a “race” to overcome this is the hardest part to answer. While African Americans make up the majority of the economic underclass here, in other parts of America, they may be primarily Hispanic, Southeast Asian (Vietnamese and Hmong refugees) or even Native American. The “symptoms” are pretty consistent – identifiable physical features combined with poverty, many times marked by increased use of legal and illegal drugs, everything from alcohol to heroin. The results are also pretty consistent – as a group, they're labelled as “lazy”, failure, in both education and employmet, becomes the norm, teen pregnancy outside of marriage increases, driving a cycle of welfare dependence, and the poor end up segregated in crappy, crime-ridden neighborhoods . . .
Another issue, and it may or may not be tied to race, is the percentage of owner occupied housing in these areas. Owner occupied housing tends to spur pride in ownership and homes are better maintained than by a landlord. If owner occupied housing can increase in these areas many issues will fix themselves it seems.
I don't think St. Louis is necessarily worse than many other cities when it comes to racial and economic segregation – just look at Chicago. I think the main issue is that the region has a weak economic engine – in regions that are perceived to be less segregated, there is more of a social churning and mixing of people.
I meant to say that in regions that are perceived to be less segregated, there is more of a social churning and mixing of people due to a stronger economic situation.
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam found that people feel safer, are more connected to their community and just generally more content living in racially homogenouse neighboorhoods.
Does that mean they should have the right to exclude those who make them feel uncomfortable?
I think your poll number are low. What were the demographics of those that responded? I'm betting it was primarily white people who have no or little clue.
I have no way of knowing the racial demographics of who responded.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Yes, the numbers are relatively low (looks like 220 responses) and most likely skew white, but do you think that St. Louis is a lot more or or a lot less segregated than 70%+ of the respondents think?