icon caret-left icon caret-right instagram pinterest linkedin facebook twitter goodreads question-circle facebook circle twitter circle linkedin circle instagram circle goodreads circle pinterest circle

Good To Know

History Lesson #4: Immigration Segregation's Impact on Blacks and Indians

Is it possible that immigration segregation that began in the 1800s had an impact on Indian and Black populations? I got this idea from working the Cartwright Virginia City history book. Ronald James noted that 30% of Virginia City residents came from other countries. 39% were from California, with the total number in 1860 at 3017. Hispanics were well represented as were people from the East Coast. The question that rose came with James's comment that "Most of the Spanish-speaking men were packers, and they apparently lived together, suggesting that Euro-Americans restricted people of their ethnicity and occupation to a designated area." Is this true, or did people of like languages simply settle together for support and communication?


A study that was completed by Eriksson and Ward noted this:  "Immigrants from Western Europe were most segregated during their peak immigration decades in the 1850s and 1860s. For later-sending countries in eastern and southern Europe, segregation peaked at the same time as inflows did around 1910. Segregation for all European sources fell after the immigration quota acts of the 1920s, laws which ended the open-door policy of the US."

This does sound as though segregation was a natural policy dominated by the first Europeans (British-French-Spanish) who settled here. But with my German heritage I have noted that Germans tended to settle in areas where there were other Germans and where the weather seemed most like what they were used to in the Old World.

 

People from Europe self-segregated because they felt at home, at first, with their own kind, speaking their own language. Second generation, however, who learned English were much quicker to leave this segregated neighborhood, Eriksson and Ward found. From 1850 to 1870 the most segregated groups were the Irish in mill towns of the northeast such as Lowell and Fall River, Massachusetts. Later in the 20th century, some of the most highly segregated areas were for Eastern Europeans in the mining counties in western Pennsylvania. Mexicans were also highly segregated in the agricultural and mining counties in the American southwest. 

 

There was perhaps an early, and what seemed sensible, decision to segregate Indians and Blacks with each other for the same reason that the immigrants chose to segregate. One reason is you're more likely to get stores, newspapers and restaurants that cater to your needs.

 

The problem is of being unable to get out.

 

We often look down on the segregation of Indians on reservations, and the segregation of blacks into their own neighborhoods, but it's important to remember that if you were a white second generation who spoke clear English you had a much easier time assimilating into a traditional white neighborhood. As noted in "Civil War and Bloody Peace," William Powell talked with a young Indian who had gone to school and had excellent English about why he didn't have a job. "But no one will give an Indian anything to do out here," was his response after saying he would love to have a job.

 

This fight for jobs and fair wages is nothing new. During the Civil War the draft riots in New York City broke out because the Irish were angry at the thought of Blacks taking their jobs at a lower wage. Unions started after the Civil War to try to stabilize wages and working conditions. One group of people (Whites) preferred not to have another group of people (Blacks) vying for their jobs because it tended to drive the wages down. Instead, they were forced into more menial tasks, and a Jim Crow law kind of slavery kept them there until the 1960s. And should a Black move into a White neighborhood? Whites moved out and property values plummeted, for no better reason than fear of accepting them as equal.

 

There was a group of Blacks in the 1870s who pleaded with the government to give them the kind of reservation land that the Indians had. Anything was better the the KKK violence they were enduring.

 

Segregated immigrant communities is still happening. Here's from a report by Gelatt, Hanson and Koball: "Just like US-born white, black, Hispanic, and Asian residents, immigrants from different world regions sort into neighborhoods across cities in patterns strongly shaped by the racial and ethnic and socioeconomic characteristics of those neighborhoods."

 

So even though immigrant segregation seemed like something that was equally good for Blacks and Indians, the difference was in wanting the freedom to move out, move up, and take advantage of the American dream. The difference, too, is that the Indian and Black communities are NOT immigrants, and never have been. But it could easily have been perceived by the white majority as something all inclusive for any group of people who identify a certain way.

 

(Today the white majority fears they're losing their majority, and the GOP attempt to control from a growing minority position.)

 

There's another demographic to pay attention to: According to Ireland & Scopiilliti Black immigrants also segregate. "Levels of segregation are much higher for black immigrants than for Asian, Hispanic, and white immigrants. In addition, because black immigrants are, on average, of higher socioeconomic status than native-born blacks, such characteristics do not help explain their very high levels of segregation."

 

There are case studies online, too, of half-black families who dare to move into white neighborhoods. "When Baptiste-Mombo was seven years old, she and her family moved from Queens, NY, to the suburbs of Jackson Township, NJ. "We left what now I see was our comfort zone — moving from an all-Black neighborhood into an all-white neighborhood," she says. "And we later came to find out that it was not going to be an easy road for our family.""

 

(Note that I left the comments in quotes as I found them.)

 

For two years I lived in an all-Black apartment building in Madison, because it was all I could afford. When I first moved in, two of the seven apartments were with white college students. When they moved out, one Hispanic family and one Black family moved in. I remember the gal who lived on the first floor below my second story apartment. She asked me to stop putting out birdseed because it encouraged the possums to come to her patio. I wanted to say "lucky you," but didn't. In another instance she reported of a flood in her bathroom and the fire department was sent to inspect my apartment to see if I had left any water running. I hadn't. Once I got a plant delivered and it was locked outside the apartment. The nice fellow across from me brought it to me. I never ever had any package stolen while I lived there, as my son has had in his all-White apartments in Green Bay. I never once felt unsafe, not even when the police pounded on my door in the middle of the night, asking me if I'd heard anything suspicious. I hadn't. Eventually I had to move across town because the business I worked at moved and I liked walking to work. That's when I noticed another difference - the all-Black apartment community had more litter around it. Whether this was the result of having to pay more for rent so the owners kept it neater, or not, I don't know. But in the lower rent area, no one cared if I let my cat run up and down the stairs. At the high rent area, they told me I couldn't let them anymore because neighbors complained. So where would I move again if I had the choice? The all-Black neighborhood.

 

Yes, segregated communities are still a thing. But are they still in place because of White supremacy? Or because that's how these cultural and racial groups like it? Again, from Gelatt et al:  "Both Chicago and DC exhibit stark segregation between black and white neighborhoods, with the highest-SES areas primarily made up of white residents and the lowest-SES areas primarily made up of black residents. This dichotomy has changed little over the past two decades. Both cities have also attracted large numbers of immigrants. For the most part, immigrant residents have avoided both the traditionally black, lowest-SES communities and the traditionally white, highest-SES communities, instead settling into the middle-SES neighborhoods.

 

You can see what's going on here, and what needs yet to be addressed by this country and its Juneteenth celebration. Low communities must be upgraded to become more favorable to all if we are ever to achieve perfect equality in this country. This means part of our infrastructure needs to be a dedication to inner cities.

 

If we get used to having clean neighborhoods, maybe we'll all take more responsibility for that litter, too.

 

SOURCES:

James, The Roar and the Silence, 35-36. I will be developing this idea into History Lesson #4.
https://voxeu.org/article/ethnic-segregation-immigrants-us-1850-1940
https://apps.urban.org/features/ncdb/immigrants-reshaping-residential-segregation/index.html
https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/45/1/79/170031/Immigrant-residential-segregation-in-U-S
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/06/17/immigrant-family-navigates-generational-trauma. Read more of her story here.

Be the first to comment

Now Available: From Lincoln to Trump: a political transformation

 

 

This adventure in journalistic history was unlike my other one in two ways. Civil War & Bloody Peace (CWBP) took me twenty years, from beginning to publication, and I was on the road, a lot, going to all the places at which Henry served to dig out primary information to find out why he was sent where he was sent. From Lincoln to Trump (FLT) took not even a year from beginning to publication, because I relied on information commonly available. CWBP was an exercise in objectivity - I had only to demonstrate why Henry said what he said late in life. I had no other agenda. But FLT was written more with subjective objectivity. I am not alone in disdaining Trump as president; historians overall call him the worst president, and Lincoln the best. I felt that made such interesting bookends for everything that came between them that I wanted to find out what the heck happened to the Republican Party from Lincoln to Trump.

 

I'm going to be presenting on both books in September, so I'm going to see if I can hash out a kind of rough draft here.

 

CWBP was a book that I submitted for publication for about 10 years before I gave up and self-published. Well, I couldn't let all that research go to waste, right? Reasons given by publishers for not picking it up varied. Mostly, the lack of my being able to demonstrate that this wasn't Henry's personal story - because he was a nobody, right? But that his orders, where he was going as a non-comm during his 20 years in the army at such a pivotal time in history, I felt could teach us a lot about our history, in a very real way. And that it does.

 

I queried a few publishers on FLT but I knew that I wanted to get it out before the election, because I planned to fill with what happened during every presidency that led to today. No publisher who responded was able to handle such a quick turnaround. So again, I had no choice but to self-publish.

 

This means, of course, that I now have a second book that is not validated by any other historian. And yes, that bothers me. I sent CWBP to my thesis advisor and he hasn't responded since receiving it. I asked for a review from someone on campus. No response. I asked one of my thesis committee members to have someone he knows read FLT before it goes out. Again, no response. I don't know why. And not knowing feels like - when your favorite pet cat disappears one day and never comes back. You never get closure.

 

Anyway, FLT was a cheaper process. I depended on some very factual books to come up with some of the main events in each president in this survey. From there I found some controversy and dug out further information to more fully develop each of the issues in the book.

 

For CWBP, I used a more day to day approach, or fort to fort, and showed what happened at each location that sent Henry there, and kept him there. He was in the Civil War starting in 1862, and then went west - a total of five enlistments, more than any other soldier I found in this research, until medical discharge in 1884.

 

In FLT, I was also able to use research I'd been compiling for quite some time on the assassinations in the '60s. It seems that people don't understand how transformational that period was in our society - and I think that with Trump we're facing another transformational period. But as I put this book togather I found something in the '60s that never occurred to me before. Is it possible the Democrats of the South - Dixiecrats - killed JFK? 

 

So you don't just see Republican presidents, although the focus IS on the GOP. I also do brief comparisons on issues of economy, war, racism and more to Democratic presidents. Because somewhere along the way, the two parties flipped. But did they? I was surprised by the answer, and you will be, too.

 

The seed for FLT was planted in CWBP. In that book I demonstrated how the Republicans gave up on black rights. But I was only scratching the surface, because the book had to have an ending, and I chose Henry's death in 1916. What I learned in FLT made this country's character so clear. When Trump says "make America great again," he really does mean a kind of re-segregation, and dominance, that he felt made us great once before. He is a direct response to Obama's reaching out to the world for healing after the divisive presidency of GW Bush and his Iraq war. But his election is so much more than that, as you'll see.

 

Both books depended on the digging out of facts. You cannot rely on the opinion of others. If you find someone's opinion, and he makes it sound like fact, you have to dig further. While putting FLT together, the libraries closed down. I had to rely on books I could buy, and that I had in my library, and whatever I could find online. But I don't rely on opinions.

 

You will find controversy. I talk about who could have assassinated civil rights leaders like the Kennedys and King; not lone assassins. I include who was freemason throughout this history, but then I also include a discussion of freemasonry in the appendix. I open things up further with my own commentary throughout, something I did not do in CWBP. But I wanted to make sure readers did not miss some of the connections I saw throughout the book.

 

I finally finished up with some more books from the library. In all FLT is an amazing resource. Give it a try. Help validate this work, so that more people take a chance on it. I will use any reviews in my presentation in September.

 

Thanks for reading.

Be the first to comment