Friday, April 29, 2005
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
In my hometown of Toledo, OH, a great independent bookstore -- Thackeray's -- is on it's last day. Local columnist, Roberta deBoer, sums up the prevailing feelings about the loss. The shopping center she mentions has also lost Toledo's best independent record store and will probably soon lose other treasures of the Glass Capital as it continues to slowly die while a giant mall grows and grows a mile away.
It's disheartening to think about the homogenization of our culture and landscapes. With a few exceptions, cities in America look and feel pretty much the same wherever you go nowadays. And, I think it affects hometown pride and tends to make people feel less rooted. I'm sure that someone could correlate the rise of chains and an increase in intranational migration to show a positive relationship.
And, I can feel that as well. The loss of Thackeray's is the loss of one more thing that was part of my Toledo.
I wish there was an alternative to the chainization of America. It leads me to believe that Americans value uniformity or individuality more than our rhetoric might suggest. Maybe Applebee's might just be the quintessential American place. Each Applebee's is more or less the same with a few local touches added. Unless you're interested in them, you'd never even know they're there though.
Or, maybe chains are like a new religion in that they offer a stable known entity in an ever changing world.
Whatever, it's depressing to think about the blahness that America has become.
I wonder... Did previous empires go through similar patterns of homogenization in their declines? Seems like this could be similar to something I vaguely remember form the decline of the Roman Empire.
Well, I guess this is an SOC posting.
It's disheartening to think about the homogenization of our culture and landscapes. With a few exceptions, cities in America look and feel pretty much the same wherever you go nowadays. And, I think it affects hometown pride and tends to make people feel less rooted. I'm sure that someone could correlate the rise of chains and an increase in intranational migration to show a positive relationship.
And, I can feel that as well. The loss of Thackeray's is the loss of one more thing that was part of my Toledo.
I wish there was an alternative to the chainization of America. It leads me to believe that Americans value uniformity or individuality more than our rhetoric might suggest. Maybe Applebee's might just be the quintessential American place. Each Applebee's is more or less the same with a few local touches added. Unless you're interested in them, you'd never even know they're there though.
Or, maybe chains are like a new religion in that they offer a stable known entity in an ever changing world.
Whatever, it's depressing to think about the blahness that America has become.
I wonder... Did previous empires go through similar patterns of homogenization in their declines? Seems like this could be similar to something I vaguely remember form the decline of the Roman Empire.
Well, I guess this is an SOC posting.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Everyday, I go to work to fulfill the mission of our organization. That mission in a nutshell is to eliminate housing discrimination and segregation in the six-county Chicago region. As you might expect, this is not always an easy sell.
One of the common retorts sent my way is that people in protected classes -- especially minorities -- tend to self-segregate. In other words, people tend to "stick with their own kind." And, there is evidence that self-segregation does happen in places throughout the region. But, the term is a little misleading. While it might seem as though people are "self-segregating" in reality they are making choices based on perceptions of where they are and are not welcome.
In truth, self-segregation is an effect not a cause. The causes of self-segregation are primarily discriminatory techniques and attitudes and perpetuated perceptions of openness. Self-segregation is the effect.
Of course, people then say things like, "Latinos just seem more comfortable living in neighborhoods where the signs are in Spanish." or "We don't really get many African Americans looking for housing here." To which I ask, "Why? Why aren't there any signs in Spanish in your community? Why do you think African Americans tend to stay away from your town?" The problem isn't the homeseekers. To which I add, "You basically just stated a plan for how to attract more minorities to your community. If you were to provide services in Spanish and promote your community as tolerant and welcoming then you'd probably see more diversity."
The problem is that governments don't do enough to promote their communities as open and inclusive. The housing industry doesn't work hard enough to provide housing for minorities in white areas and vice versa. Nor, does the housing industry do enough to educate consumers on non-traditional choices. Community groups could also better promote their activities to minorities. In Chicago, this is situation is severe. Chicago is the fourth most segregated MSA in the country. Of course, it used to be #1 so there has been a little progress. (Or, others have gotten worse.) But, there are examples of diverse, welcoming, open, and inclusive communities. The shining example being Oak Park.
So to me, the argument that segregation is partially caused by self-segregating minorities is just plain wrong. And, those who use it are either ignorant or dishonest.
One of the common retorts sent my way is that people in protected classes -- especially minorities -- tend to self-segregate. In other words, people tend to "stick with their own kind." And, there is evidence that self-segregation does happen in places throughout the region. But, the term is a little misleading. While it might seem as though people are "self-segregating" in reality they are making choices based on perceptions of where they are and are not welcome.
In truth, self-segregation is an effect not a cause. The causes of self-segregation are primarily discriminatory techniques and attitudes and perpetuated perceptions of openness. Self-segregation is the effect.
Of course, people then say things like, "Latinos just seem more comfortable living in neighborhoods where the signs are in Spanish." or "We don't really get many African Americans looking for housing here." To which I ask, "Why? Why aren't there any signs in Spanish in your community? Why do you think African Americans tend to stay away from your town?" The problem isn't the homeseekers. To which I add, "You basically just stated a plan for how to attract more minorities to your community. If you were to provide services in Spanish and promote your community as tolerant and welcoming then you'd probably see more diversity."
The problem is that governments don't do enough to promote their communities as open and inclusive. The housing industry doesn't work hard enough to provide housing for minorities in white areas and vice versa. Nor, does the housing industry do enough to educate consumers on non-traditional choices. Community groups could also better promote their activities to minorities. In Chicago, this is situation is severe. Chicago is the fourth most segregated MSA in the country. Of course, it used to be #1 so there has been a little progress. (Or, others have gotten worse.) But, there are examples of diverse, welcoming, open, and inclusive communities. The shining example being Oak Park.
So to me, the argument that segregation is partially caused by self-segregating minorities is just plain wrong. And, those who use it are either ignorant or dishonest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)