The influence of "white flight" on non-American cities?

[Capsicum]

I know when discussing the history of American cities, racial tensions and "white flight" of white Americans choosing to move away from racial minorities (in particular black Americans after the Great Migration to northeast and midwest cities) is seen as uniquely an American thing.

But thinking about it, clearly other western countries were no more welcoming to minorities in the 20th century. For example, Africville in Nova Scotia in Canada was a segregated black community. Western countries ranging from Canada to Australia reacted strongly to Asian-descent and African-descent immigrants. Tensions existed with Afro-Caribbean and South Asian immigration to the UK, and Arabs and Africans to France.

Didn't these racial interactions lead to changes and impacts on these other non-Americans' cities?

W.E.B Du Bois wrote that the color line belts the globe and that the problem of the twentieth century is that problem of the color line (eg. how the Europeans, and non-Europeans like Africans, Asians and their descendants related to one another was not only a domestic but international problem).

Okay, maybe there are some differences, since black Americans' and white Americans' responses to one anothers' living patterns in cities were domestic migrations, but in other places -- the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand, NZ, minorities whether domestic (eg. indigenous peoples, long-standing minority groups) or new immigrants who were racial minorities in their new home, did provoke a response by the local citizens in terms of where people chose to or didn't choose to live or let others live, right? Even if not legal segregation, many western countries nonetheless still did respond and have their character shaped by the presence of minorities.

Why is it rarely discussed that white flight shaped other places outside the US? If so, the idea that the US has its cities uniquely plagued by the problem of racial tensions that hinder urban cohesion wouldn't be as prominent, since it's not alone.

Wikipedia, even though it describes "white flight" as a term being American in origin, does list some examples of "white flight" in its article introducing the topic, that are non-American, ranging from Europeans like Danes and Norwegians fleeing neighbourhoods with non-European immigrants, White South Africans leaving even South African itself after the end of apartheid, to New Zealanders who are white moving away from areas with lots of Maori and Pacific Islanders. So, to idealize the idea that non-American places are more racially harmonious to argue that American cities can't do certain things they can do, might be not necessarily valid.

[mhays]

The US also made sprawl very, very easy, and still does in most places. It even actively encouraged sprawl starting with the GI Bill and freeway construction after WWII. This combination caused huge momentum toward sprawl that didn't exist in most of the world.

[Capsicum]

True, but even without US-style sprawl, you can have differences in urban policy due to some groups moving away from other groups within cities and metro areas

For example, in places like Europe, you can have different racial demographics between a rich city and poor "suburbs" like the French banlieues

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by mhays

The US also made sprawl very, very easy, and still does in most places. It even actively encouraged sprawl starting with the GI Bill and freeway construction after WWII. This combination caused huge momentum toward sprawl that didn't exist in most of the world.

After those two factors you mentioned, the third and maybe even larger in it's cultural and societal implications was the end of segregation in schools; this caused the white middle class to move away from cities (where the majority of black population lived), and into the newly built suburbs where every new arrival was a white family.

One of the hard truths of the American history: whites didn't want to send their kids to schools where the descendants of slaves where sending their kids, as well. This never happened in any other developed country.

In spite of the recent urban renaissance in the US, I don't think cities have or will ever fully recovered from that pivotal moment in america urban history.

[Yuri]

In São Paulo, many (European) immigrant central districts were replaced by domestic immigrants from the poor Northeastearn Brazil from the 1960's, virtually all of them Mixed. São Paulo was 90% White in 1940, whose share fell to barely 50% today.

Bela Vista, Brás and Mooca (Italian), Bom Retiro (Jewish), Liberdade (Japanese) are some of them. Today, they are under gentrification. Bela Vista, for instance, is again mostly White (and gay).

There are not many examples elsewhere, as São Paulo was the only heavily White state that got millions of immigrants from other Brazilian states. The other three (Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul) are insulated and were kept their original ethnic makeup.

Keep in mind there is no cultural differences along racial lines in Brazil. They are mostly social or regional, therefore is not comparable to more racialist societies (US, South Africa, and even postwar Europe).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Keep in mind there is no cultural differences along racial lines in Brazil. They are mostly social or regional, therefore is not comparable to more racialist societies (US, South Africa, and even postwar Europe).

I don't know how they compare with say, African American culture in the US, but I've been told by Brazilians that some of these cultural differences do exist and are quite distinctive (eg. African religions among Afro-Brazilians).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by PFloyd

One of the hard truths of the American history: whites didn't want to send their kids to schools where the descendants of slaves where sending their kids, as well. This never happened in any other developed country.

How about whites not wanting to send their kids to schools where the descendants of non-white immigrants are sending their kids?

Or whites not wanting to send their kids to schools where relatively disadvantaged indigenous populations send their kids?

Also, other non-American, developed nations have populations who are descended from slaves (eg. Nova Scotia's former Africville residents, or Afro-Caribbean immigrants in the UK, France, and Canada, even though a difference might be that their ancestors might not have been slaves within the country they're residing now but further back elsewhere in colonial times).

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

How about whites not wanting to send their kids to schools where the descendants of non-white immigrants are sending their kids?

Or whites not wanting to send their kids to schools where relatively disadvantaged indigenous populations send their kids?

Also, other non-American, developed nations have populations who are descended from slaves (eg. Nova Scotia's former Africville residents, or Afro-Caribbean immigrants in the UK, France, and Canada, even though a difference might be that their ancestors might not have been slaves within the country they're residing now but further back elsewhere in colonial times).

Fair enough; however, the resulting massive paradigm shift in the structure of the American City, has no parallels in the 20th century developed nations that I can think of.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

The US also made sprawl very, very easy, and still does in most places. It even actively encouraged sprawl starting with the GI Bill and freeway construction after WWII. This combination caused huge momentum toward sprawl that didn't exist in most of the world.

The US was essentially still a developing country back then...despite our economic and industrial might. Think China today. We were building bridges, dams and skyscrapers all over but still had larges swathes of the country living in total poverty and inaccessible by paved roads. Or at least the kind we take for granted today. We also benefited by not having a war fought on our soil so we didn't have to focus on rebuilding cities and infrastructure but suburbs. Japan, Europe and Russia all had to rebuild. Just think if there was no WWII, they could have followed the same path to suburbia.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I don't know how they compare with say, African American culture in the US, but I've been told by Brazilians that some of these cultural differences do exist and are quite distinctive (eg. African religions among Afro-Brazilians).

Only 0.3% of Brazilians adhere to African religions and their ethnic makeup it's pretty much the same of the cities where they are more common (Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre). I'll check the Census numbers later, but there are certainly more White and Mixed (as they are the vast majority) than Blacks following them. It's precisely due the lack of cultural barriers along racial lines, that miscigenation is huge in Brazil. Race in Brazil is a continuum and many people barely know how to identify themselves.

There is certainly racism, income inequality (Whites make twice as much as Mixed/Black), but there is no sense of racial divisions like we have in the US. Everybody is part of the mainstream culture. Social barriers are a big thing though. No one we'll pay attention if two people of the same class, but from different colour to have a relationship. That's the most common thing in the world. People marrying outside their social class is more uncommon though.

[isaidso]

There has certainly been segregation, discrimination, and a backlash to different ethnic groups within Canada but there has never been a 'white flight' like occurred in the United States. People did move to the suburbs after WW2 but it wasn't to escape minorities. It was to live the dream of a large house with a yard.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I know when discussing the history of American cities, racial tensions and "white flight" of white Americans choosing to move away from racial minorities (in particular black Americans after the Great Migration to northeast and midwest cities) is seen as uniquely an American thing.

But thinking about it, clearly other western countries were no more welcoming to minorities in the 20th century. For example, Africville in Nova Scotia in Canada was a segregated black community. Western countries ranging from Canada to Australia reacted strongly to Asian-descent and African-descent immigrants. Tensions existed with Afro-Caribbean and South Asian immigration to the UK, and Arabs and Africans to France.

Didn't these racial interactions lead to changes and impacts on these other non-Americans' cities?

W.E.B Du Bois wrote that the color line belts the globe and that the problem of the twentieth century is that problem of the color line (eg. how the Europeans, and non-Europeans like Africans, Asians and their descendants related to one another was not only a domestic but international problem).

Okay, maybe there are some differences, since black Americans' and white Americans' responses to one anothers' living patterns in cities were domestic migrations, but in other places -- the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand, NZ, minorities whether domestic (eg. indigenous peoples, long-standing minority groups) or new immigrants who were racial minorities in their new home, did provoke a response by the local citizens in terms of where people chose to or didn't choose to live or let others live, right? Even if not legal segregation, many western countries nonetheless still did respond and have their character shaped by the presence of minorities.

Why is it rarely discussed that white flight shaped other places outside the US? If so, the idea that the US has its cities uniquely plagued by the problem of racial tensions that hinder urban cohesion wouldn't be as prominent, since it's not alone.

Wikipedia, even though it describes "white flight" as a term being American in origin, does list some examples of "white flight" in its article introducing the topic, that are non-American, ranging from Europeans like Danes and Norwegians fleeing neighbourhoods with non-European immigrants, White South Africans leaving even South African itself after the end of apartheid, to New Zealanders who are white moving away from areas with lots of Maori and Pacific Islanders. So, to idealize the idea that non-American places are more racially harmonious to argue that American cities can't do certain things they can do, might be not necessarily valid.

id say "urban" flight is a worldwide phenomenon, and yes, its often class based.

[tablemtn]

Parts of Vancouver and its suburbs have been heavily "white-flighted" since the 1980's. There are whole areas of Richmond, Surrey, Burnaby, Vancouver proper, etc. which were well over 90% white in the 70's/80's and are a quarter or less today. On a global basis, you could look beyond "whites" and at examples like the Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia, the social divisions people of Indian descent and those of African descent in northeastern South America and parts of the Caribbean, etc.

[mhays]

Not in the US sense. That's about people getting priced out.

Nobody has sprawled like the US. Even the US-like sprawl aerials of the UK, Sweden, etc. are smaller lots, narrow roads, and often duplexes or townhouses.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Only 0.3% of Brazilians adhere to African religions and their ethnic makeup it's pretty much the same of the cities where they are more common (Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre). I'll check the Census numbers later, but there are certainly more White and Mixed (as they are the vast majority) than Blacks following them. It's precisely due the lack of cultural barriers along racial lines, that miscigenation is huge in Brazil. Race in Brazil is a continuum and many people barely know how to identify themselves.

There is certainly racism, income inequality (Whites make twice as much as Mixed/Black), but there is no sense of racial divisions like we have in the US. Everybody is part of the mainstream culture. Social barriers are a big thing though. No one we'll pay attention if two people of the same class, but from different colour to have a relationship. That's the most common thing in the world. People marrying outside their social class is more uncommon though.

I think the fact that Whites make twice as much as Blacks in Brazil highlights that there is indeed a racial division in Brazil. Considering that a majority of Brazilians have at least part African heritage this is a recipe for social instability and division, which is likely why Brazil has some of the most militarized police in the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...lians-majority

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by isaidso

There has certainly been segregation, discrimination, and a backlash to different ethnic groups within Canada but there has never been a 'white flight' like occurred in the United States. People did move to the suburbs after WW2 but it wasn't to escape minorities. It was to live the dream of a large house with a yard.

Yes, back in the 1950s places like Ontario didn't have different ethnic groups. The country was overwhelmingly of british isles origin. Contrast Toronto in 1950 to a real multi ethnic city like detroit at the time. So it's no wonder that there was no backlash.

[Crawford]

It's kind of a silly question, because "white flight" was really flight from the African American underclass. Since African Americans are only in the U.S., why would other countries have similar phenomenon?

Of course there has been some degree of white flight in most "white" countries. Certainly the urban cores of Germany, France, UK are far less white than in the past. There are certainly neighborhoods in Western Europe that were all white a generation ago, now with almost no whites.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Yes, back in the 1950s places like Ontario didn't have different ethnic groups. The country was overwhelmingly of british isles origin. Contrast Toronto in 1950 to a real multi ethnic city like detroit at the time. So it's no wonder that there was no backlash.

Toronto didn't have backlash because it didn't have African Americans. If, in some alternate universe, a million mostly poor African Americans had moved to Toronto in the mid-20th century, I have no doubt the same thing would have happened.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's kind of a silly question, because "white flight" was really flight from the African American underclass. Since African Americans are only in the U.S., why would other countries have similar phenomenon?

Of course there has been some degree of white flight in most "white" countries. Certainly the urban cores of Germany, France, UK are far less white than in the past. There are certainly neighborhoods in Western Europe that were all white a generation ago, now with almost no whites.

You mean to tell me there are no African Americans in Norway? GTFO!

[eschaton]

I think people are misunderstanding what white flight was. It wasn't selective emigration of white people from urban neighborhoods which became dominated by nonwhites. That dynamic exists in many countries of course, and also existed in the U.S. prior to and after the white flight era. White flight was basically the wholesale abandonment of the urban core by the white upper and middle classes for the suburbs, at least as places to live (in some cases they CBDs themselves retained vitality as job centers).

The analogue here is not what happened to individual neighborhoods in Canada and Europe. The best analogue is French Algeria, Rhodesia, the flight of most of the white population of the Caribbean after the countries gained independence, etc. Indeed, during the mid-20th century, many black nationalist groups in the U.S. specifically equated cities with colonial nations who were being oppressed by an occupying force. Of course, many different elements went into white flight in the U.S., but particularly after the urban riots started in the 1960s it shifted from white people simply moving to the suburbs because they had access to new suburbs that black families did not, to actual racial panic.

While I realize that in recent years there has been a huge influx of immigrants to many European nations, which in some cases make up over 20% of the population, my understanding is in basically every European city these groups are mixed between some elements of the core city and poorer, often dense surburbs. The historic city centers generally remain what would be termed "gentrified" within the U.S., and there are still rich urban neighborhoods. So the situation is not analogous.