Why does Milwaukee have such staunchly conservative suburbs?

[Steely Dan]

^ yikes.

however, it's important to remember that nearly 3/4 (72%) of wisconsin's black population lives in metro milwaukee, with 90% of those people living within the city of milwaukee itself.

wisconsin just straight-up doesn't have a whole lot black people outside of the city of milwaukee.

[JoeMusashi]

Originally Posted by edale

I feel like that is basically the definition of a redneck. Rural, blue collar, gun loving Trump supporters are exactly what I think of when I picture a redneck. Just because the people have a Great Lakes accent instead of a Southern one, doesn't make them less redneck.

A redneck is a poorer, unsophisticated, often uneducated rural person that behaves foolishly. Driving a truck with their kids in the bed and things like that.

Being blue collar is often a lucrative or at least comfortable trade. I don’t see anything rednecky about guns (which aren’t cheap) or Trump and the stats back me up on that.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Except for the lack of streetlights and sidewalks on one side and the presence of power lines, there's little difference.

The lack of sidewalks makes a big difference. How are you supposed to walk somewhere? And what if it's night?

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

wisconsin just straight-up doesn't have a whole lot black people outside of the city of milwaukee.

Well I guess the obvious question about this is why?

[cannedairspray]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

A redneck is a poorer, unsophisticated, often uneducated rural person that behaves foolishly. Driving a truck with their kids in the bed and things like that.

I mean yeah but it's also used in a more tongue-in-cheek way, sometimes as a self description with more than a little pride. The people that edale was talking about are the type of people that would use it in that way.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by edale

Well I guess the obvious question about this is why?

i'd guess distance from the deep south, milwaukee was sort of at the end of the line (other than the twin cities) during the great migration. obviously there are factory towns further north from milwaukee but i imagine employment went to people already in the area, and perhaps economic refugees from up north following the clear-cutting and burnovers of the northwoods (similar to what happened to white migrants coming to st. louis from the ozarks after the pine forests were clear cut and the top soil washed away). is that what you mean?

looking back at your stats, st. louis has historically had the most direct connections to the deep delta south through to new orleans (the delta actually starts in missouri) where a huge proportion of the great migration came from, hence the large regional black population. milwaukee is on the other side of chicago, where most obviously ended their journey, so it would make complete sense that wisconsin overall would not have a huge black population. milwaukee was the end of the line, which was in reality one stop past the end of the line (for most).

[edale]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i'd guess distance from the deep south, milwaukee was sort of at the end of the line (other than the twin cities) during the great migration. obviously there are factory towns further north from milwaukee but i imagine employment went to people already in the area, and perhaps economic refugees from up north following the clear-cutting and burnovers of the northwoods (similar to what happened to white migrants coming to st. louis from the ozarks after the pine forests were clear cut and the top soil washed away). is that what you mean?

looking back at your stats, st. louis has historically had the most direct connections to the deep delta south through to new orleans (the delta actually starts in missouri) where a huge proportion of the great migration came from, hence the large regional black population. milwaukee is on the other side of chicago, where most obviously ended their journey, so it would make complete sense that wisconsin overall would not have a huge black population.

That does make sense, and I thought about geographic distance from the South as being a major contributor to there being very few black people in WI outside of a single quadrant of Milwaukee. But then I thought about Michigan, and how there are decent AA populations in many towns outside of Detroit. In Ohio (and I'm sure it's true in MO too) even small, middle of nowhere cities like Lima have sizable black communities.

It's just super weird to me that outside of one portion of one city, the other black clusters in the state are all prisons, homeless shelters, and small clusters of public housing. You'd think places like Madison and Racine would have decent communities. You'd think that by 2018 some of the AA population from Milwaukee would have spread out to the suburbs. It's almost like red lining is still in effect in WI, based on the geography of the AA population there.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

But then I thought about Michigan, and how there are decent AA populations in many towns outside of Detroit.

some of that small town michigan black population thing is also a legacy of the underground railroad days, not just the great migration.

perhaps wisconsin wasn't as much of an end of the line state like michigan was for the underground railroad?

this map of underground railroad routes seems to indicate that was the case.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by edale

That does make sense, and I thought about geographic distance from the South as being a major contributor to there being very few black people in WI outside of a single quadrant of Milwaukee. But then I thought about Michigan, and how there are decent AA populations in many towns outside of Detroit. In Ohio (and I'm sure it's true in MO too) even small, middle of nowhere cities like Lima have sizable black communities.

My guess is that industrial growth and labor demand was far higher in michigan than wisconsin, explaining the discrepancy. I'm not as familiar with michigan overall, but that is interesting that it's different, considering that it's still pretty far north (to me). That being said, the michigan manufacturing city cluster across the state doesn't generally extend much north of the same latitude as milwaukee.

[Docere]

St. Louis was already 10% Black before the second Great Migration, I believe.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Docere

St. Louis was already 10% Black before the second Great Migration, I believe.

there's always been a black presence in st. louis, dating back to the jean baptiste point du sable era (and before), who was married here in the 1780s, left for a swamp on lake michigan, and obviously returned and now is buried in the area.

[eschaton]

Milwaukee's black population came late. It was totally untouched by the first period of the Great Migration. In 1940, the entire state only had 12,000 or so black people. By that time, in contrast, Indiana had 122,000, Michigan 208,000, Ohio 339,000, and Illinois 387,000 (Minnesota also had a minuscule black population). The majority of that black population was limited to a few neighborhoods on the north side of Milwaukee which are mostly non-residential (aside from some housing projects) today.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

there's always been a black presence in st. louis, dating back to the jean baptiste point du sable era (and before), who was married here in the 1780s, left for a swamp on lake michigan, and obviously returned and now is buried in the area.

Also St. Louis was a border city:

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/governmen...Experience.cfm

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Docere

Also St. Louis was a border city:

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/governmen...Experience.cfm

yep, dred scott, et al

Originally Posted by eschaton

Milwaukee's black population came late. It was totally untouched by the first period of the Great Migration. In 1940, the entire state only had 12,000 or so black people. By that time, in contrast, Indiana had 122,000, Michigan 208,000, Ohio 339,000, and Illinois 387,000 (Minnesota also had a minuscule black population). The majority of that black population was limited to a few neighborhoods on the north side of Milwaukee which are mostly non-residential (aside from some housing projects) today.

that's remarkable. there simply haven't been enough generations for the population to naturally disperse.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

milwaukee doesn't appear to have much in the way of a suburban black population. compare this to st. louis which has a majority suburban black population (that is to say most of the black population is suburban) by quite a large margin. contrary to the narrative of the segregation and racial problems in st. louis (which i do feel are actually, albeit fraught, being worked on), the population seems to mix a lot more on a work-day basis, whereas metro/suburban milwaukee feels freakishly white and insular.

My wife is from Pittsburgh. She always comments how St. Louis has such a large black population in the suburbs. It amazes her how there large swaths of middle class, black suburban life in St. Louis. St. Louis literally has a black inner city ghetto, black inner ring suburbs, and black soccer mom suburbs in a way that few other cities it's size does (especially in the Midwest). Went to Red Lobster in North County on a Tuesday night and she was shocked that not only was the staff black, but so was 75% of the patrons. St. Louis also has a noticeably large black professional class for a Rustbelt city. Some people have commented that St. Louis is hell for black people, but growing up there it was not uncommon to meet black lawyers, teachers, engineers at Boeing, have a black doctor, etc. Now we live in Tampa and that is something you see less.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Docere

Also St. Louis was a border city:

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/governmen...Experience.cfm

Not to mention the fact that Missouri was a slave state itself.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by goat314

My wife is from Pittsburgh. She always comments how St. Louis has such a large black population in the suburbs. It amazes her how there large swaths of middle class, black suburban life in St. Louis. St. Louis literally has a black inner city ghetto, black inner ring suburbs, and black soccer mom suburbs in a way that few other cities it's size does (especially in the Midwest). Went to Red Lobster in North County on a Tuesday night and she was shocked that not only was the staff black, but so was 75% of the patrons. St. Louis also has a noticeably large black professional class for a Rustbelt city. Some people have commented that St. Louis is hell for black people, but growing up there it was not uncommon to meet black lawyers, teachers, engineers at Boeing, have a black doctor, etc. Now we live in Tampa and that is something you see less.

KC is similar. Suburban areas east of the city have lots of blacks. Neighborhood I live in a few miles southeast of the stadium is about 1/3 black.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It seems appropriate to link back to this article from 2016.

Yeah, grim.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by goat314

My wife is from Pittsburgh. She always comments how St. Louis has such a large black population in the suburbs. It amazes her how there large swaths of middle class, black suburban life in St. Louis. St. Louis literally has a black inner city ghetto, black inner ring suburbs, and black soccer mom suburbs in a way that few other cities it's size does (especially in the Midwest). Went to Red Lobster in North County on a Tuesday night and she was shocked that not only was the staff black, but so was 75% of the patrons. St. Louis also has a noticeably large black professional class for a Rustbelt city. Some people have commented that St. Louis is hell for black people, but growing up there it was not uncommon to meet black lawyers, teachers, engineers at Boeing, have a black doctor, etc. Now we live in Tampa and that is something you see less.

Honestly, I find it weird your wife was so shocked coming from Pittsburgh. We have a very "suburbanized" black population these days. Admittedly, much of the suburban population is actually in outlying mill towns which are not suburban in built form (Braddock, Rankin, McKeesport, etc). But some areas like Penn Hills have had black suburban neighborhoods since the 1940s. Basically all of the eastern suburbs except for a few right by the county line have a notable black presence now.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Honestly, I find it weird your wife was so shocked coming from Pittsburgh. We have a very "suburbanized" black population these days. Admittedly, much of the suburban population is actually in outlying mill towns which are not suburban in built form (Braddock, Rankin, McKeesport, etc). But some areas like Penn Hills have had black suburban neighborhoods since the 1940s. Basically all of the eastern suburbs except for a few right by the county line have a notable black presence now.

here's pittsburgh and st. louis zoomed at the same scale:

Pittsburgh: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/census/2010/map.html

St. Louis: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/census/2010/map.html

edit: that didn't work did it.