Separate, Unequal, and Ignored

Separate, Unequal, and Ignored

I found an interesting article titled, “Hypersegregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Black and Hispanic Segregation Along Five Dimensions” by Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton.

Something interesting that I found was that blacks are more segregated on any single dimension of residential segregation, and that they are also more likely to be segregated on all five dimensions simultaneously, which never happens to Hispanics, let alone whites.

             Seeing the drastic difference between neighborhoods separated by streets is mind blowing to me. I grew up in a city called Sterling two hours away from downtown. I was never really aware of the drastic racial segregation and social status difference of individuals within suburbs, neighborhoods and blocks in Chicago. The video we watched last week that talked about the homeless in the city was perfect, as it showed how many of the homeless live just a few blocks away from downtown. It seems as if politicians are constantly focused on "the city" and leaving out the poorest parts of town. Yes, it is important to keep downtown maintained as it brings tourist and what not but, individuals living around the area year round also deserve change. Ignoring the issues of white flight, red lining, segregation and racism will only continue to create violence and hate crimes.  

            The five dimensions that were mentioned in this article, during class and in our assigned readings were: Evenness, exposure, clustering, centralization and concentration. I will briefly describe all five. As you read the definitions and examples of all five dimensions think of the ways in which separation and inequality tie to all five and what disadvantages come along with them. 

Evenness is the degree to which the percentage of minority members within residential areas equals the citywide minority percentage (Massey, 1989). Having less evenness within cities equals more segregation in that area. You can think of it as having an “even” amount of individuals with different races in a certain area. 

                                             

     

  

Exposure is the degree of potential contact between minority and majority members; it reflects the extent to which groups are exposed to one another by virtue of sharing neighborhoods in common (Massey, 1989). As we talked about in class, there were and still are many neighborhoods in Chicago that have low income, minority families in one section of town and are restrained to that area surrounded with others in similar situations. As we read, this can cause many issues as individuals are not getting a chance to interact with individuals of other races and in return this can cause conflict, violence and crime. 

Clustering is the extent to which minority areas adjoin one another in space; it is maximized when minority neighborhoods form one large, continuous ghetto and minimized when they scattered widely in space (Massey, 1989). An example of this would be when Benita and I talked about the Henry Horner Homes and how individuals were “clustered” in a building that was not capable of housing so many individuals at once. This can be hazardous, unhealthy and unsafe.

Centralization is the degree to which minority members are settled in and around the center of an urban area, usually defined as the central business district (Massey, 1989).

Concentration is the relative amount of physical space occupied by a minority group; as segregation rises, minority members are increasingly concentrated within a small, geographically compact area (Massey, 1989) An example of this could be Little Village, this is a small town where there is a high concentration of Hispanics.

Additional links: 

Segregation comes in a variety of different forms and these short video clips are an example of that:

https://youtu.be/oBXS8hUWAJc

https://youtu.be/_9aTj8-5ZZQ

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. "Hypersegregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas:         Black and Hispanic Segregation along Five Dimensions." Demography 26.3 (1989): 373. Web.