Map of White Segregation/Enclaves in Toronto

Statistics Canada has a “thematic” map of the percentage of visible minorities in Toronto CMA (Census Metropolitan Area) in 2006. You can click on the map below to see a larger version. Generally, the lighter areas are where the whites live.

Toronto CMA. Percentage of Visible Minorities by 2006 Census Tracts (CTs). Map 2 of 2.

Toronto is a multi-racial city with a marshmallow centre (or two). The suburbs surrounding Toronto have a greater percentage of visible minorities, while large patches of Toronto’s core have been gentrified are inhabited by whites.

Note that some areas of Toronto are whiter than the national average, over 90% white.

The map lacks detailed street names, so I tried to superimpose a Google Map of Toronto on to the “white segregation/enclaves” map.

Google Map of Toronto superimposed on to percentage of visible minorities map

If you are familiar with Toronto, how do you interpret this?

About these ads

56 Responses to “Map of White Segregation/Enclaves in Toronto”

  1. MissaA Says:

    The western “marshmallow centre” is Etobicoke. That area hasn’t been “gentrified by whites” so much as it has always been mostly white.

    The main white patches seem to consist of what used to be suburbs before they were amalgamated.

  2. Restructure! Says:

    MissaA,

    Sorry, you are right. I don’t recall ever going to Etobicoke myself, but I do vaguely recall it being (described as) white a long time ago.

  3. MissaA Says:

    It’s interesting how sharp the contrast is in some areas. Around Downsview especially.

  4. Restructure! Says:

    There’s an airport there, so that might have something to do with it, although I’m not sure what.

  5. BeccaTheCyborg Says:

    I haven’t lived in TO for that long, but it really is very telling.

  6. fred Says:

    If you are familiar with Toronto, how do you interpret this?

    There’s not enough information. One would need another map showing the demographic breakdown for those living in the dark green areas. My guess would be that a number of them are similarly segregated with various races / ethnic groups clustering together. For example, groups with larger numbers might form a “Chinatown” whereas groups with lesser numbers wouldn’t have the numbers to self segregate.

  7. coefficient Says:

    probably correlates pretty easily with property values. i live in a subsection that’s in the 20% range, travel 5 minutes north and you’re in a subsection in the 30% range. houses, access to services, neighbourhood, etc are all the same, what changes is the proximity to the scarborough bluffs (and the distance from the core of truly ridiculous houses)

  8. coefficient Says:

    it’s also entirely possible that the way gentrification has worked historically in cities like new york isn’t how it works in toronto. as i understand it we used to be lily-white until large waves of south asian, caribbean and chinese immigration hit us in the 70s and it just hasn’t stopped since. the general destination for the immigrants wasnt the city core, though – it was the cheap new construction going up in north york and scarborough. (the exception to this would probably be chinatown, and maybe little portugal/little italy since south europeans weren’t considered properly white by the wannabe-british establishment here until maybe the 50s or 60s. even so, most recent immigration from south europe has gone into the suburbs for much the same reasons). it’s somewhat different than historically black neighbourhoods going white because of gentrifying forces, i think.

  9. not a demographer Says:

    The ‘whitest’ parts of this map (south etobicoke/old mill area and rosedale) are extremely wealthy (multi-million $ homes) old money. The population of visible minorities who’ve reached that level of wealth is probably miniscule. Those areas will be slower to diversify because I think families own those homes for generations and there isn’t likely much turnover.

    That little patch by liberty village might have a more interesting story?

  10. Restructure! Says:

    coefficient,

    Good point; I updated the post to be conservative. I have lived most of my life in 30%+ areas (actually it’s a lot more than that), sometimes in the 20% range (but in places where the building/house is inhabited by mostly POC). I grew up in the “cheap new construction” areas; my parents bought their house new as a new construction.

    However, I read stuff from Wikipedia a long time ago, which was why I thought there was gentrification going on downtown:

    When plans emerged in the late 1950s to construct the new Toronto City Hall at the intersection of Queen and Bay Streets, it became clear that most of Chinatown would be displaced by the project. As Chinese businesses began to relocate, some stores were taken over by other developers, and most stores that occupied the project site were cleared through expropriation. More than two-thirds of Elizabeth Street from Queen to Dundas Streets were destroyed. Construction on City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square began in 1961. In 1967, city planners proposed that Chinatown be moved again for the development of office buildings north of City Hall. This endangered many more businesses. Community leaders, including Jean Lumb, established the “Save Chinatown Committee”, with Lumb acting as coordinator and face of the campaign. She later received the Order of Canada in 1976 for her role in helping to save Chinatown.

    The Chinese community migrated westward to Chinatown’s current location along Spadina Avenue, although a handful of Chinese businesses still remain around Bay and Dundas.

    Also:

    In the 2000s, downtown neighbourhoods became more attractive to urban professionals and young people who work in the Financial District, leading to the gentrification of surrounding areas and potentially changing the face of old Chinatown.

    However, those areas are still dark green, so gentrification doesn’t explain anything (?).

  11. Jordan Says:

    I do a fair bit of work mapping census data in social research and was born and raised in Toronto, so I think I can shed a bit of light on what we are seeing here.

    Restructure, regarding the last point in your last comment about gentrification and dark green areas – I predict that these downtown tracts will begin to see a shift to lighter green after the 2011 census. It is unlikely that the full effects of long-term processes of gentrification initiated in the 2000s would have been realized by the publication of this census. Also bear in mind that the extremely broad 30% and over category may also be obscuring it – a hypothetical census tract that was home to 90% visible minorities in the 2001 census but only 40% in the 2006 census would arguably be a site of rapid gentrification, but the classification scheme at work in this map would assign it to the dark green category both times.

    Secondly, referring to this map as the “white segregation” map is misleading: this map does not provide us with enough information to form a conclusion about white segregation in Toronto, again due to the very broad 30% category and the granularity of the data displayed. While we can definitively make statements about the existence of a number of white enclaves in the city by looking at this map (South Etobicoke, Rosedale and a number of already mentioned examples) and make inferences about the politics of exclusion at work there, we lack the necessary information to assess settlement patterns that may be taking place within some geographically large census tracts. Again, take two hypothetical census tracts that are home to, say, 40% visible minorities: in #1, the minority population is equally dispersed throughout the region, but extreme segregation is taking place in #2 – in fact, all of the white people live on one side of the tract while all of the POC live on the other. Given the symbology of this map, these census tracts would look identical (meaning there is a chance that the above map may be hiding areas of white segregation). Generating the same map with data collected at the dissemination area level would tell us a lot more about settlement patterns, as would changing the bounds of the categories (the 10-20-30 division may be for consistency with other thematic maps in the census atlas – I can’t load the site so I can’t tell). I am in no way attempting to insinuate that processes of segregation and exclusion are not taking place, but this particular map does not provide us with enough information to where and to what extent they are having an effect. White segregation may very well be a problem in some dark green census tracts.

    Regarding the anomalous tract in Downsview: as far as I can tell, the only residents of this tract are members of the (overwhelmingly white) Canadian Forces housed in armouries on the former CFB Downsview. There is additional military housing located just northeast of Keele and Sheppard, but this falls within a different census tract. The small light green census tract downtown (immediately to the left of the Trefann Court label) contains the Moss Park Armoury and likely falls into the <10% category for the same reason. There is a third armoury located in within the boundaries of the City of Toronto (in Scarborough), but it opened at approximately the same time that the 2006 census was distributed. I would not be surprised if if received its own census tract in the 2011 census and it appeared as a light green shape in a sea of dark green.

    Re: the little patch by Liberty Village – I can't exactly tell from these screenshots, but it looks like that is one the census tracts for which no data is available…and I also think it might contain only the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (and nothing else). If I start investigating the politics of the census and long-term inpatient care facilities I will never get to bed!!

  12. Restructure! Says:

    Jordan,

    Thank your for your insights.

    I meant that gentrification does not explain the given map, not that it would not correlate with a more detailed map.

    I call it the “white segregation” map, knowing that the map does not provide enough detail on tracts with less than 70% whites. I saw some cool maps of U.S. cities, and I wished there were Canadian versions of those, but we only have pre-made maps that show visible minority percentage at the tract level. I imagine that one could generate a similar map using tract data by evenly dispersing dots representing “visible minority” groups inside the tract, in proportion to their numbers within the tract. It wouldn’t be exact, but you could see more details.

    Update: I changed the post to say “white segregation/enclaves” instead of just “white segregation”.

  13. Thea Says:

    Hey Restructure! thanks for this, very interesting. Like others I would like to see the 2011 map – I lived in Leslieville from 2005 – 2007 and I was shocked by the rate of gentrification there over that time. I believe that that – along with things like the dismantling of Regent Park, and the gentrification of the Junction – would change the colours of Toronto a lot.

    It also surprised me that the areas around the lake (esp in in the city centre) were dark green – I also wonder how all the condos being built will change that.

    I wonder if the patch around Downsview has anything to do with York University and the student body there? Though the few times I visited York it looked pretty diverse. Then again it’s possible that students with less money commute and students with more stay on campus – and I wonder how those class levels would correlate with race.

    It would be interesting to see a more detailed map, with just downtown Toronto (say from the Bloor West Village to the outer Beaches, and from the Lake to Downsview). It would also be interesting to see it by density – I bet that neighbourhoods like the Bloor West Village and the beaches are much less densely populated than say, the Bloorcourt Village, where people tend to split traditional Toronto houses, often cramming up to 5 people into a 3 bedroom (if we are talking about 20 somethings) or maybe even 10 into a 3 bedroom (if we are talking about new immigrant families). And Jane-Finch is supposed to be one of the most densely populated urban areas in North America.

    In any case, I always get a little bit depressed by how segregated downtown Toronto is, even though a lot of folks who live in downtown Toronto get a lot of pride from calling Toronto “a multiculti city”…For eg right now I am at a coffee shop just north of Parkdale and I am the only person of colour here. That is generally my experience all over downtown (College St, Queen W, Queen E, Ossington, the Annex, Roncesvalles, the Junction…) unless I am out with my posse.

    The other “multiculti” city that I live in – Houston, which gets MUCH less cred for being diverse – is actually far less segregated to the untrained eye…who woulda thunk?

  14. Restructure! Says:

    In any case, I always get a little bit depressed by how segregated downtown Toronto is, even though a lot of folks who live in downtown Toronto get a lot of pride from calling Toronto “a multiculti city”…

    Yeah, that really annoys me, especially when I’m coming from outer areas with more POC, and then white people downtown comment on how racially diverse Toronto is, while I perceive downtown to be pretty white.

  15. Robin Says:

    I wasn’t surprised to see that my area (Yonge and Eglinton) seems to be 10-19%. This area is extremely white. I remember getting into an argument once with another parent, as we stood watching our kids at the school my son attended then. “This school is so whitebread,” I remarked.

    She bristled and said, “No, it isn’t. Half the kids here are born to first-generation immigrants.”

    “Yeah, white immigrants,” I replied. “A child of color isn’t going to look around and feel less alone because there’s a bunch of white Russian and Polish immigrant kids.”

    “Those ‘immigrant kids’ still have a lot to deal with,” she said.

    “Sure, I’m not saying they don’t. But at least lacking white privilege is not on the list of things they have to deal with.”

    We went back and forth for awhile until she left, and I don’t think I ever got anywhere in terms of changing her mind. But I do have to wonder how widespread her attitude (being offended at the idea of some areas being considered “white”, because OMG WE HAVE DIFFERENT KINDS OF WHITE PEOPLE, SO WE’RE DIVERSE!) would be among white people. My guess is that if I got a clipboard and made myself look official, and started asking white people at Yonge and Eg to estimate what the proportion of visible minorities is in the area, the answers I’d get would be a lot higher than reality.

  16. coefficient Says:

    >> Yeah, that really annoys me, especially when I’m coming from outer areas with more POC, and then white people downtown comment on how racially diverse Toronto is, while I perceive downtown to be pretty white.

    those people from downtown might live elsewhere. i used to commute in every day but i live in scarborough, which is easily more than 30% visible minority/poc

  17. coefficient Says:

    that said i’m not sure that the toronto as proudly multicultural meme has much of a shelf life left on it. can you believe rob ford’s as popular as he is? ugh

  18. fred Says:

    Robin-

    Was the neighborhood not white when you moved there?

  19. MissaA Says:

    Yeah, that really annoys me, especially when I’m coming from outer areas with more POC, and then white people downtown comment on how racially diverse Toronto is, while I perceive downtown to be pretty white

    I’d be one of those people, but then I live right by Chinatown, so…

  20. Robin Says:

    Fred: I think this area has always been white, but I used to be oblivious to things like racial demographics (as long as I was in a white-dominated area, anyway, since I definitely noticed when I was in the minority; typical white-privileged cluelessness). Now I notice these things. I made my initial remark both because it was something I’d been thinking about at that moment (it was something that I thought about pretty much every day when I’d let my son play on the playground afterschool), and because I was curious to know how the other white mom I’d been chatting with would respond. I thought she’d agree with me (because to me, it’s ridiculous to watch a group of 95% white kids playing and *not* consider that whitebread) and I was surprised at how defensive she got.

    We’re planning on moving in a couple more years. Wherever we move will ultimately be dictated by where we can afford a home, but I’m pushing hard for the Danforth. I don’t want my kids to grow up somewhere like Yonge & Eg, seeing white faces almost exclusively, and subconsciously coming to perceive PoC as exotic/weird/etc as a result. I talk to them about race and racism and privilege, but talk only goes so far.

  21. fred Says:

    but I used to be oblivious to things like racial demographics (as long as I was in a white-dominated area, anyway, since I definitely noticed when I was in the minority; typical white-privileged cluelessness).

    I grew up in a majority non white area. In my opinion, most whites who didn’t grow up under similar circumstances are indeed “clueless”– but not in the way you meant.

    because to me, it’s ridiculous to watch a group of 95% white kids playing and *not* consider that whitebread) and I was surprised at how defensive she got.

    Of course she got defensive. “Whitebread” is a slur.

    We’re planning on moving in a couple more years…

    I moved from a city that was over 80% nonwhite to one that was roughly 95% white. I had mixed feelings as far as my children were concerned. Contrary to your view that they would see ” PoC as exotic/weird/etc” I was concerned their lack of experience would create an idealized impression of others. I had observed this phenomenon in others who didn’t have my experience. Fortunately, I also talk to my children about “race and racism and privilege” and they have a very good grasp of the situation.

  22. Restructure! Says:

    Fortunately, I also talk to my children about “race and racism and privilege” and they have a very good grasp of the situation.

    What? So now you agree that white people have white privilege?

  23. fred Says:

    I said I talked to them about “race and racism and privilege”. I didn’t say anything about agreeing. I’ve shown them Anti Racist TM claims and then used evidence to disprove those claims. Now, when they’re confronted with similar claims in school and elsewhere they’re able to think critically about them.

  24. Restructure! Says:

    Can you give one good example of the “evidence” you used to disprove an anti-racist claim, which you taught to your children?

  25. fred Says:

    restructure writes, “Can you give one good example of the “evidence” you used to disprove an anti-racist claim, which you taught to your children?”

    Sure. The standard Anti Racist TM screed is that whites receive an invisible and pervasive privilege which must be corrected with affirmative action. And yet non affluent whites are decidedly discriminated against in college admissions based on their race.

    A new study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford is a real eye-opener in revealing just what sorts of students highly competitive colleges want—or don’t want—on their campuses and how they structure their admissions policies to get the kind of “diversity” they seek.

    Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an “other things equal basis,” where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points.

    The box students checked off on the racial question on their application was thus shown to have an extraordinary effect on a student’s chances of gaining admission to the highly competitive private schools in the NSCE database. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550. Here the Espenshade/Radford results are consistent with other studies, including those of William Bowen and Derek Bok in their book The Shape of the River

    Espenshade and Radford also take up very thoroughly the question of “class based preferences” and what they find clearly shows a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites. Other studies, including a 2005 analysis of nineteen highly selective public and private universities by William Bowen, Martin Kurzweil, and Eugene Tobin, in their 2003 book, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education, found very little if any advantage in the admissions process accorded to whites from economically or educationally disadvantaged families compared to whites from wealthier or better educated homes.

    When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

    Clearly we have a situation where affirmative action is NOT redressing discrimination against People of Color TM but subsidizing the poor performance of “under represented” minorities by discriminating against more qualified applicants.

    Is it blacks being discriminated against? No. Blacks receive the most preferential treatment. Is it hispanics being discriminated against? No. Hispanics receive the second most preferential treatment. It’s whites and asians who are discriminated against — with lower income whites being heavily discriminated against.

    So you tell me… where is the White Privilege TM???

    =====================

    The Espenshade/Radford study is presented and analyzed in their book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equalavailable from:
    http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9072.html

    The quotations were taken from a review of this book available at:
    http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punishes_asians.html

  26. Robin Says:

    Clearly we have a situation where affirmative action is NOT redressing discrimination against People of Color TM but subsidizing the poor performance of “under represented” minorities by discriminating against more qualified applicants.

    What it’s doing is making higher learning available to students of color from poorer areas, who suffer from having to attend schools that don’t get the same amount of funding and have the same access to resources as the schools in traditionally white areas. You’re saying they have “poorer performance” as if these are slacker PoC who are getting in at the expense of ambitious/studious white people. These are lower-class PoC who are doing the best with the extremely limited resources available to them. And why *are* those schools so limited and have so little funding? Well, to answer that question you have to look at the enduring effects of segregation in the form of generational poverty. So the White Privilege isn’t in the fact that PoC receive affirmative action; it’s in the fact that PoC need affirmative action in the first place.

  27. Jayn Says:

    The extremely cynical part of me says that they only want to increase the number of Black and Hispanic students to make the school more appealing to affluent Whites. They’re not going to want poor Whites mucking up the elite White culture of the place.

    The slightly less cynical part of me says that it’s easier to pretend that poor minority students are easier to deign Not Like Us than poor White students.

    The part of me that’s been a poor White in an upper class atmosphere thinks there’s probably some truth to both of those :/

    (The more rational parts of me are saying that this is a bad attempt to level uneven SAT scores caused by class differences. The cynical parts are saying those ideas are naive.)

  28. Jayn Says:

    And the Canadian part of me is wondering why the SAT is needed in the first place.

  29. joseph Says:

    Is it blacks being discriminated against? No. Blacks receive the most preferential treatment. Is it hispanics being discriminated against? No. Hispanics receive the second most preferential treatment. It’s whites and asians who are discriminated against — with lower income whites being heavily discriminated against.

    So you tell me… where is the White Privilege TM???

    ……….

    Once again you mobilize the discourses of “reverse White victimization” and “entitlement” that frequently pervade all of your blog responses, Fred…

    Is this what you call “teaching” your children about race, racism and WHITE privilege? Is that they have to make sure they guard their “entitlements” because supposed “unqualified” non-White others are “taking over” their turf and opportunities with “preferential treatment” that they don’t “deserve”….?

    One of the primary reasons affirmation action/equity has never really worked in the North America is because so many Whites like yourself have worked themselves into paranoiac fear and distrust to destabilize / undermine them all…

    But you needn’t fear anything…so long as there are Espenshade and Radford and Tea Party Whites like you around, future White generations need never fear that those “evil” Lefty equity or affirmation action initiatives will tip the balance / level the playing field…!

    You will make sure to that as you pass such nonsense onto your children to ensure that Whites will dominate every institution!

    My heart just bleeds for all those po’ White trash kids who just aint got a chance no mo’ because all those “thieving” Blacks and Hispanics are stealing their spot…

  30. fred Says:

    Robin writes, “What it’s doing is making higher learning available to students of color from poorer areas, who suffer from having to attend schools that don’t get the same amount of funding and have the same access to resources as the schools in traditionally white areas.

    Affirmative action isn’t “making higher learning available to students of color from poorer areas.” Most of those benefitting from this AA are middle class NAMs and their children — not “students of color from poorer areas”.

    As for funding, I’m not an expert on the Canadian situation. But in the US, the amount of funding per student is usually inversely proportional to the percentage of whites in attendance. The blacker the school the more money it gets.

    You’re saying they have “poorer performance” as if these are slacker PoC who are getting in at the expense of ambitious/studious white people.

    I’ve said no such thing. But it’s interesting that you did.

    These are lower-class PoC who are doing the best with the extremely limited resources available to them. And why *are* those schools so limited and have so little funding?

    Once again, that is incorrect. See my response above.

    Well, to answer that question you have to look at the enduring effects of segregation in the form of generational poverty.

    Since your question was based on incorrect information your answer is similarly incorrect. But economists generally agree that the single largest factor in whether or not children grow up in “poverty” is whether they come from a single parent home.

    So the White Privilege isn’t in the fact that PoC receive affirmative action; it’s in the fact that PoC need affirmative action in the first place.

    Circular argument.

    =====================

    Jayn writes, “The part of me that’s been a poor White in an upper class atmosphere thinks there’s probably some truth to both of those”

    I’d tend to agree. My last comment focused more on the “what” of the espenshade report than the “why”. The review addresses the “why” as well. Once again the link is:

    http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punishes_asians.html

    “And the Canadian part of me is wondering why the SAT is needed in the first place.”

    The SAT is pretty much an IQ test emphasizing math and language. It’s not advertised as such because of the stigma attached to IQ tests. But it strongly correlates with IQ.

    ================

    Joseph-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmlYe2KS0-Y

  31. Robin Says:

    Me: You’re saying they have “poorer performance” as if these are slacker PoC who are getting in at the expense of ambitious/studious white people.

    You: I’ve said no such thing. But it’s interesting that you did.

    You, earlier: Clearly we have a situation where affirmative action is NOT redressing discrimination against People of Color TM but subsidizing the poor performance of “under represented” minorities by discriminating against more qualified applicants.

    Enough said.

    But in the US, the amount of funding per student is usually inversely proportional to the percentage of whites in attendance. The blacker the school the more money it gets.

    Having grown up very close to what was then known as South Central L.A., I can tell you that if it’s true that “blacker” schools get more money, somebody must have forgotten to tell the bureaucrats that South Central has a lot of black students. Where are you getting the information that schools receive more money per black student than they do per white student?

    Since your question was based on incorrect information your answer is similarly incorrect. But economists generally agree that the single largest factor in whether or not children grow up in “poverty” is whether they come from a single parent home.

    Yes. And the risk of growing up in a single parent household is much higher in areas that suffer from generational poverty. Black men, for example, are much more likely to be put into prison for offenses that white men are less likely to receive prison time for. Having your men put in prison does tend to cut down a lot on the available Dad pool.

    One of the problems I’m seeing is that you’re trying to pretend that all this happened/happens in a vacuum, as if all these things just appeared independently of each other and there’s no history to any of this. You can’t just take things out of context and then think that you’re getting an accurate view of the situation.

  32. Jayn Says:

    The ‘circular argument’ line kind of gets to me. Because AA is anything but proof that white privilege exists. It’s proof of people seeing inequality and trying to even things out. Whether or not you agree that white privilege has anything to do with those inequalities is irrelevant, because if those inequalities didn’t exist in the first place, there’d be no reason to try and fix them.

  33. fred Says:

    Robin says: You’re saying they have “poorer performance” as if these are slacker PoC who are getting in at the expense of ambitious/studious white people.

    Once again, my comment says nothing about “slacker PoC” or “ambitious/studious white people”. There could be lots of reasons for poor performance many of which would be irrelevant to this discussion. By the way, unilateral declarations such as “Enough said” are childish.

    Now, I will repost the example from my original comment.

    From the beginning of my comment:
    The standard Anti Racist TM screed is that whites receive an invisible and pervasive privilege which must be corrected with affirmative action. And yet non affluent whites are decidedly discriminated against in college admissions based on their race.

    And restated again at the end of my comment:
    Clearly we have a situation where affirmative action is NOT redressing discrimination against People of Color TM but subsidizing the poor performance of “under represented” minorities by discriminating against more qualified applicants.

    So the issue used in my example was “discrimination against more qualified applicants” in favor of People of Color TM with particular emphasis on discrimination against “less affluent whites” in college admissions.

    While the topics you’ve raised may be relevant they are premature. You can’t defend preferential treatment for “underperforming minorities” at the expense of “less affluent whites” without first acknowledging that there is preferential treatment for “underperforming minorities” at the expense of “less affluent whites”. And at this point you haven’t done that.

    One of the problems I’m seeing is that you’re trying to pretend that all this happened/happens in a vacuum…

    Not at all. I’d be happy to discuss school funding, poverty, or incarceration in greater depth. But they should be addressed independently after we finish this discussion and not used as a diversionary tactic to avoid admitting the obvious.

    Now, would you care to discuss my example or not?

  34. fred Says:

    Jayn-

    I hope this parody will finally convince you of how unreliable circular reasoning is and why it can’t be used to support a position.

    The ‘circular argument’ line kind of gets to me. Because AA is anything but proof that racial inferiority exists. It’s proof of people seeing inequality and trying to even things out. Whether or not you agree that racial inferiority has anything to do with those inequalities is irrelevant, because if those inequalities didn’t exist in the first place, there’d be no reason to try and fix them.

  35. Robin Says:

    That’s my point, Fred. Those aren’t independent topics. They’re intertwined with *why* affirmative action exists in the first place.

    To use an analogy, let’s say I saw a parent ignoring their kid who is cowering in the corner, crying. It would seem like, “Wow, that parent is being an asshole. That was totally mean to that kid.” But if I had gotten there twenty minutes previous, and seen the kid acting up, and the parent giving them a warning that a time-out would follow if they continued to act up, and then the kid kept acting up… well, that changes things. What you’re trying to do here is the equivalent of looking only at the action so you can slam the parent for their actions, while ignoring *why* the action occurred. I understand why you’re doing that, because you know that the white privilege is in the “why”, and that kills your argument.

    Your argument, as I understand it, is that white privilege doesn’t exist. If it did exist, white people wouldn’t have such a hard time getting into university while PoC may have an easier time.

    To which I explained that the white privilege isn’t in the getting into university, it’s in *why* we have those programs in the first place. You then claimed that was a circular argument, although I think you know full well that it isn’t. But just in case you really are confused, I’ll break it down for you.

    1. White supremacy created a situation where PoC were subjugated and oppressed for hundreds of years in North America. During this time, PoC were largely unable to progress in any significant way in economic terms.

    2. Even after slavery and other such things were abolished, Jim Crow laws and white privilege continued to cause issues by preventing PoC from progressing. White privilege came into play by, for example, businesses hiring whites rather than PoC for good jobs, refusing to rent homes to PoC in better areas, incarcerating PoC at much higher rates than whites, etc.

    3. During this time whites as a group continued to accumulate wealth and resources, and pass them down to their offspring. PoC were largely unable to do so due to the continuing effects of racism.

    4. Various people realized that something had to be done to address this situation and equalize the playing field a bit. Programs like affirmative action were created to address this need. Whether affirmative action has worked or not isn’t relevant; the point is that these programs exist as a direct way to combat the effects of white privilege and white supremacy.

    Furthermore, switching words in something is a technique that can be used to invalidate anything, even when it’s completely valid in its original state. So your “parody” is useless. For example,
    * I like green things in general, so I like trees.
    We change a word:
    * I like green things in general, so I like alligators.

    While the second statement works on a semantic level, that doesn’t automatically make it valid. It’s quite possible that the person who likes trees and green things in general doesn’t like alligators.

    But I also understand why you’re doing that, because it’s a frequent diversionary tactic that I’ve seen often from people trying to defend white privilege, sex privilege, etc. For example, a man coming into a feminist discussion about how sexism affects women, and he swaps out the word “women” for “men” and proceeds to whine about how men are getting screwed because women get priority for loans. But it’s just not the same, because men don’t have the same history of being considered inferior (as women do).

    Anyway, if you still don’t get that your “AA proves the nonexistence of white privilege” argument after having me break it down step by step, I have to accept that you’re choosing to be wilfully ignorant. There’s no point in wasting my time on wilfully ignorant people.

  36. Robin Says:

    Gah, proofread fail. That last paragraph should have been, “Anyway, if you still don’t get that your “AA proves the nonexistence of white privilege” argument is debunked after having me break it down step by step, I have to accept that you’re choosing to be wilfully ignorant. There’s no point in wasting my time on wilfully ignorant people.”

  37. fred Says:

    Robin writes, “There’s no point in wasting my time on wilfully ignorant people.”

    You have just cited a laundry list of grievances to defend the very discrimination which you refuse to acknowledge and argued in defence of circular logic. So I imagine that just about everything you do is a waste of time.

  38. fred Says:

    Since no one could refute my first example, I’ll move on to the next one. Fortunately, another reader was kind enough to supply it. I’ll start by debunking the canard that school funding is the reason for lower test scores among “underperforming minorities”.

    For my information, I’ll rely on a report from the left leaning Urban–Brookings Tax Policy Center entitled “Racial Disparities in Education Finance: Going Beyond Equal Revenues”.

    http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411785_equal_revenues.pdf

    Did you catch that title? The gist of the report is that even though schools receive “equal revenues” there is still a “racial disparity in education finance” because students don’t achieve equal results. Apparently, no amount of funding is “equal” as long as there is an “achievement gap”.

    Clearly, the Brookings report is arguing for more spending for non white students. So what do they have to say about the actual difference in spending? They state that there has been very little difference in funding since at least 1972. I quote from page 5 of their report.

    In 1972, the ratio of nonwhite to white spending was .98; this trend had reversed by 1982, as spending per pupil for nonwhite students was slightly higher than for white students in most states and in the United States as a whole and has been for the past 20 years (figure 2).

    Table 2 on pages 6 & 7 of their report lists the Average District Spending Per Pupil, Weighted by Subgroup Population calculated from the 2002 Census of Governments: School System Finance (F-33) File.

    From this table we can see that the average district spending is higher for black students than white students in 42 out of 50 states. And that the average district spending is higher for all non white students than white students in 48 out of 50 states.

  39. Wiggles Says:

    (Sigh.) Fred…Fred…Fred…

    Did you actively stop reading the article, once you “read all you needed to?” Or did you intentionally chose to leave out the 2nd paragraph on page 15?

    Although the variation in district spending has decreased, spending at the district level
    does not necessarily translate into actual dollars spent in a specific classroom or school.

    Glad to see you’re not disingenuous when you try to cite facts. Err…wait.

  40. fred Says:

    wiggles-

    I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Could you be more specific?

  41. Wiggles Says:

    You’re obviously trying to imply that “because inner city schools receive an equal amount of money coming into their districts, that there is no possible way students are failing because of money.”

    The bottom line is that the money being allocated to the schools isn’t always distributed properly. The conclusion of the article clearly states that.

  42. fred Says:

    I implied nothing. I stated very clearly while providing evidence that the average district spending is higher for non white students than white students.

    The bottom line is that the money being allocated to the schools isn’t always distributed properly. The conclusion of the article clearly states that.

    Funding is apportioned through specific formulas such as the average number of students in attendance with extra funding for lower performing schools. There are rules mandating that certain funds must be spent in certain ways. Any other disparity in the way funding is allocated is the responsibility of local administrators. The school superintendent is either locally elected or appointed by a school board that is locally elected.

    Neither you nor the report provided any evidence that “the money being allocated to the schools isn’t always distributed properly”. But if it is then it is because the local residents of those school districts chose representatives who didn’t distribute it properly.

    So what do you want to do about it — take away their right to elect their own representatives? In fact, that’s essentially what happens. If a school repeatedly fails to meet performance standards the state can take it over and run it. With the obvious result of the people in that district accusing the state of “racism”. But I’m sure a bright person such as yourself already knew all that.

    Now, can you make a reasonable argument on this topic or shall we move on to the next example?

  43. Wiggles Says:

    Neither you nor the report provided any evidence that “the money being allocated to the schools isn’t always distributed properly”.

    It seems as if you have trouble “piecing two and two together”, especially if something isn’t spelled out for you as plain as day in a sentence. For example, coming to a logical conclusion based on an article’s graphs seems to be hard for you.

    It’s quite apparent that inner city schools aren’t having the funds distributed correctly, despite the fact that they are funded more. Look at Table 7 where it points out internet access. First, it points out how 96% of schools with over 50% minority enrollment have internet access, but then on the chart underneath it, you see how only 64% of their classrooms have such access. With schools having 5% and less minority enrollment, having 85% internet access. A clear example of money being distributed unequally. Include “the classroom overcrowding issue” in minority schools, and my point is even stronger.

    Now are you going to retract your laughably smug and ultimately premature expression of triumph? Because you clearly need to, as more reading is obviously required on your part.

    Also, (not trying to change the subject, as this is something of importance that I noticed) why does this study have a grouping for “children who receive free lunches” when it comes to certain statistics, when most of the children enrolled in this program ARE inner city students? Who are more often than not minorities. This study seems a little bit “odd” (trying not to say dishonest) in a few areas.

  44. SUCKY SUCKY FIVE DORRA Says:

    If whitey is so bad, why did your parents run from Hong Kong to Canada the moment it was about to be returned to the PRC?

    Get on your rickshaw and fuck off back to your authoritarian shithole if you want to experience real “oppression”

  45. fred Says:

    wiggles-

    You’re taking an awful lot for granted. What makes you think having a couple of internet enabled computers in the back of the classroom that everyone shares is any better than having a computer lab? Which is of course what every school has nowadays.

    Moreover, what makes you think internet access improves learning at all? There are just as many studies saying the internet hurts grades and test scores as there are studies saying it helps.

    Regardless, it’s still up to the local administrators how they spend discretionary funds. And if it were up to me I wouldn’t put internet access on any student computers. I just think the time would be better spent with textbooks.

    But I encourage you to keep looking for excuses. You’re just making my point for me. And my point is that you guys are like some kind of weird cult. Do you realize that you are arguing that the internet is responsible for the achievement gap?

    The internet has really only been widespread since the late 90s. Did grades and test scores improve after schools added internet access? Did the achievement gap change after schools added internet access? The answer is no. Despite what this report implies in its conclusion the achievement gap hasn’t changed in 40 years.

    You can argue all you want. And it may seem that I’m just out to shoot your arguments down but I’m not. I’m actually listening to your arguments with an open mind. It’s just that you’re wrong. If you make a valid argument then I’ll admit it even if it goes against my own position. But you haven’t. None of you have. And I seriously doubt you ever will. Because you’re arguing a position that simply isn’t supported by the evidence. Which makes it very easy for me to support my own position. :)

  46. Sam Says:

    Having read the article and all the comments what I find most notable is the white-hating posters’ apparent cluelessness about their own openly racist mindset.
    “White enclaves”, or white communities, are automatically BAD.
    Non-white communities, like the above-mementioned Chinatown are not.

    “‘because to me, it’s ridiculous to watch a group of 95% white kids playing and *not* consider that whitebread) and I was surprised at how defensive she got.’

    Of course she got defensive. ‘Whitebread’ is a slur.”

    Robyn never responded to fred’s observation. Clearly Robyn knows that the term “whitebread” is a slur, she uses it as such and is probably not the slightest bit surprized by the reaction she got. Either she is clueless about her hypocrisy or she’s quite comfortable with it.
    Meanwhile, the subject of the article was revealing the presence and location of evil white communities.
    Being a non-self-hating white person I’d like to drill down the point of it all. Is it that you would like to eliminate any and all white communities, (leaving only non-white or “diverse” communities, which you deem to be OK), or do you simply want to move into white communities? I noticed that white communities were labeled “exclusionist”. That would seem to imply a non-white desire to “be included” in the white communities.
    But if you all hate whites so much, why do you want so badly to be around them? Don’t blather on about your holy grail of “diversity”. You don’t need whites for that. You can live in a world of diversely “good” non-white people. Wouldn’t that just be heaven for you?

  47. Robin Says:

    @Sam: I didn’t bother responding because I don’t consider whitebread a slur. Someone whining about how whitebread is a slur makes me think of all the people who consider “cracker” or “honky” equivalent to something like the N-word. It’s not, and never will be, because whites aren’t an oppressed class in racial terms.

    Your initial assessment is that we all hate whites, so you’re coming from a ridiculous place to begin with. I don’t hate white people in and of themselves, and I certainly don’t hate myself. What I hate is the system that we’re all a part of, that places more value on white skin than on skin with more pigment, that subtly guides us into exclusionary existence separate from non-white people.

    In my ideal world, we wouldn’t *have* to have these conversations, because there wouldn’t be any communities that were historically created due to one race having more money than another. In my ideal world these conversations would have no more relevance than if we were to have a “why are there lots of communities that are almost entirely short-haired people, and the long-haired people are being not-so-subtly encouraged to live over there?” discussion now.

  48. Robin Says:

    I just remembered that Stuff White People Do also tackled the whole “white self-hate” concept, so I’ll link to Stuff White People Do: describe white people who point out the problems with whiteness as ‘self-flagellating’. It essentially explains that there’s a difference between being white – which is to say, the physical color of one’s skin – and whiteness, which is the system that rewards white skin and promotes racism. Being upset at the psychological and social system that unfairly privileges your group is not the same thing as being upset at yourself for physically belonging to a group.

  49. Sam Says:

    “@Sam: I didn’t bother responding because I don’t consider whitebread a slur. Someone whining about how whitebread is a slur makes me think of all the people who consider ‘cracker’ or ‘honky’ equivalent to something like the N-word. It’s not, and never will be, because whites aren’t an oppressed class in racial terms.”
    @ Robin~ I agree with you that those labels don’t carry the emotional weight of the N-word. That does not change the fact that they are race-based terms intended to be insults and that they reflect a racist mentality, (or a default endorsement of it), on the part of the person using them. You only reinforce my point with your answer.
    “What I hate is the system that we’re all a part of, that places more value on white skin than on skin with more pigment, that subtly guides us into exclusionary existence separate from non-white people.’
    Well, I think the problem I have with that lovely sentiment is that I can remember when non-whites were REALLY all but completely absent from televison, movies, print media, sports and the workplace, when ridiculous racial stereotypes went unchallenged and when non-whites were almost NEVER presented as examples of success, accomplishment or beauty. In that context the notion that there is now some all-pervasive “system” that values white skin above all else is absurd. The trend is, and has been for some time, in the direction of inclusion. I’m not sure exactly what you mean about having to live “separate” from non-whites. What’s keeping you away from them?
    As for Shelly Tochluk, I’ve heard her speak and visited her blog. She IS self-flagellating. But hey, it gets her honors, speaking engagements, book deals… what a racket. She is one of a slew of academics milking that gravy train. If I ever get around to reading her book, it will be a copy from the library~ I have no interest in subsidizing her career. I suggest that you suspend trying to be a “good white person” for a moment and critically examine the “whiteness” thing as well as the trend toward demonizing whites and consider where they might ultimately lead.

  50. Sam Says:

    I’m off to Colorado, so failure to respond to any retorts is a result of not being here to do it.

  51. Robin Says:

    That does not change the fact that they are race-based terms intended to be insults and that they reflect a racist mentality, (or a default endorsement of it), on the part of the person using them.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see nothing inherently racist in a white person using such a term. Would you argue that a black person saying the N-word is inherently racist against other blacks?

    Well, I think the problem I have with that lovely sentiment is that I can remember when non-whites were REALLY all but completely absent from televison, movies, print media, sports and the workplace, when ridiculous racial stereotypes went unchallenged and when non-whites were almost NEVER presented as examples of success, accomplishment or beauty. In that context the notion that there is now some all-pervasive “system” that values white skin above all else is absurd.

    Saying, “Things used to be really overtly racist, and they’re not really overtly racist anymore, so racism is pretty much over!” is an incorrect statement. This is the risk of people considering racism to only mean overt racism; it allows them to believe that racism is over as long as people aren’t using the N-word without repercussions.

    There’s many ways that subtle racism is pervasive in our culture, but to make this simple, let’s stick solely with your example of media depictions as an arbiter of whether white skin is more valued. I’ll point out movies being whitewashed (and plenty of examples can be provided there, that’s just a very recent one), or books about PoC being given covers featuring white people. While some covers are later recalled due to outcry, there shouldn’t be an issue having PoC on the cover in the first place, and plenty of whitewashing does not get recalled; also, even when a PoC is substituted on the cover due to outcry, there’s been plenty of cases where the character was very dark-skinned and yet the cover is almost always a light-skinned PoC. If you want more examples, feel free to take a glance at the top supermodels in the world, or the top newscasters, and see how many of them are PoC, and if that’s reflective of the actual population. Do you need further examples? If so, I’d recommend the site Racialicious, as it’s primarily about PoC representation in the media and often covers the topic.

    I’m not sure exactly what you mean about having to live “separate” from non-whites. What’s keeping you away from them?

    Historically, PoC were either guided or forced to live in certain areas by the dominant white group. Those areas tended to be the poorer areas where white people didn’t want to live. Alternately, when PoC started to move en-masse into white communities, white people fled to other areas where they could continue to have white-dominated communities. (Google “white flight”.)

    Because PoC were essentially forced to live in the poorer areas, and were generally kept there through the continuing effects of subtle racism, the best areas of the city in which to live – that is to say, with the lowest crime records, the highest property values, and the nicest schools – are generally white-dominated. If I want to live in an area in my city with the best possible schools for my kids and an extremely low crime rate, it’s almost certain that it’s going to be a white-dominated area.

    So living in a more diverse area, rather than our current white-dominated neighborhood, means we’re going to be living much further away from the downtown core; the schools may not be as good; the property values are cheaper. No, there is nothing physically that prevents me from living in a more diverse neighborhood. But there’s a lot of practical bonuses to living in an area dominated by upper-middle-class to rich whites, and I’m frustrated by knowing that that’s the result of hundreds of years of racism both overt and subtle/systemic. These communities aren’t accidents. White people didn’t just happen to settle in certain areas and PoC in others. White people didn’t just happen to end up in the nicest areas of town; it wasn’t some sort of lottery where pure random chance meant that whites got the good spots and PoC got the lesser spots. These communities were essentially designed through systemic racism, and continue to stay largely segregated.

    As for whether communities that are primarily of a particular type of PoC are exclusionary, in general, I’d say they’re practical. If I was a PoC and knew that whenever I went into white-operated stores I’d be watched like a hawk due to their expectation that I’m going to steal, I’d prefer to shop in stores that are run by PoC who aren’t going to regard me that way. If I felt uncomfortable walking down the street in a white-dominated area and got harassed by police more often when in white areas, I’d prefer to live somewhere where that didn’t happen (which is to say, a neighborhood where more people looked like me). There’s safety in numbers, and anyone who thinks that acts of racism don’t still happen frequently is deluding themselves.

  52. fred Says:

    Robin thinks slurs against blacks are more serious than slurs against whites??? That’s just another example of her double standards. It reminds me of an old joke. Astronomers notice a giant asteroid hurtling towards earth and the New York Times runs a special edition. On the front page the headline reads, “World To End Tomorrow: Women and Minorities to Suffer Most”

    PS- So far I’ve debunked college admissions and public school funding. Which would you like me to do next — poverty or crime?

  53. Anonymous Says:

    Only something like Fred could possibly think that racial slurs against whites carry the same weight as racial slurs against blacks, or even other non-whites. I’d love to step into your parallel universe sometime. It sounds like fun, with “up” being “down” and whatnot.

  54. The Great Equalizer Says:

    @ Fred

    I don’t see where you debunked Public School funding. All you did was intentionally misinterpet what last person said and accuse them of claiming that the internet was the sole reason for the achievement gap. Which they clearly didn’t even say, while choosing to ignore the fact that no matter the reasons for the money not getting where it needs to be, that money is still the reason for the gap.

    Did you even think to consider the fact that the materials they were getting and have been getting for decades (before the internet mind you) have always had a reputation for being crummy and sometimes not even usable? Or would that conflict with your “everything’s equal ’cause I say so!” theory? Seeing as how the schools of “the children in the free lunch program” (which I agree with Wiggles, means “minorities”) didn’t even have proper funding directed towards basic utilities like heating? As illustrated in your link.

  55. fred Says:

    The Great Pumpkin writes, I don’t see where you debunked Public School funding. All you did was intentionally misinterpet what last person said and accuse them of claiming that the internet was the sole reason for the achievement gap.

    Robin argued that the achievement gap was the result of funding disparities. So I showed that non white schools receive more funding than white schools. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a matter of fact.

    Wiggles argued that even though non white schools receive more money, it still wasn’t “equal” because non white school administrators were too incompetent to spend the money correctly. Wiggles gave internet access as an example of financial mismanagement while failing to provide any evidence that internet access affects grades or test scores. It was fair for me to question that assumption.

    Now you argue that it really doesn’t have anything to do with internet access after all but that the materials have a “reputation for being crummy and sometimes not even usable.” Well, who do you think is responsible for that? As I’ve already stated, school administrators are locally elected. Is your argument that blacks are too stupid to run their own schools?

    Or would that conflict with your “everything’s equal ’cause I say so!” theory?

    That non white schools receive more funding isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact. I do, however, find it interesting that white schools receive less money and you still argue that non whites are the ones getting screwed.

    But I think we can bypass all this nonsense about school disparity and answer the question very simply. How do students who attend the same schools compare??? I think you’ll find that the real disparity isn’t in schools or textbooks but in the students themselves.

    =====================

    anonymous is arguing in favor of “double standards”. That pretty much says it all.

  56. Sam Says:

    “Would you argue that a black person saying the N-word is inherently racist against other blacks?”
    What I hear is that they do that to “take posession” of the word and thereby destroy its power to harm them. If that’s really what they are doing its a brilliant tactic. I imagine that for some it’s just what they grew up with or it’s the fashionable thing to do.
    For purposes of our argument I think that blacks using the N-word on each other is a relatively mild example of the double standard currently being established in the discussion on race in which any misbehavior on the part of a white person relative to non-whites is deemed “very wrong” while the same behavior by non-white people relative to whites is either ignored or rationalized away.
    Yeah I know, if only I was enlightened I would realize that only whites can be racist. Blacks can’t. So, no, blacks using the N-word against themselves can’t be racist, can it?

    “Saying, “Things used to be really overtly racist, and they’re not really overtly racist anymore, so racism is pretty much over!” is an incorrect statement. ”
    I didn’t say that racism is “over” I said that your “system…that places more value on white skin than on skin with more pigment” is trending toward being more inclusive than it used to be as evidenced by a significant difference in the presence and portrayals for people of color in popular culture.
    But since publishers get the occasional book cover art wrong, film makers don’t stick stictly to their source material, (ONLY to shortchange people of color, of course. They never take license with anything related to whites), and there aren’t enough black supermodels yet the horror of white oppression continues.

    “No, there is nothing physically that prevents me from living in a more diverse neighborhood. But there’s a lot of practical bonuses to living in an area dominated by upper-middle-class to rich whites…If I want to live in an area in my city with the best possible schools for my kids and an extremely low crime rate, it’s almost certain that it’s going to be a white-dominated area.”

    Acknowledging that I edited your comment for brevity, I’ve seen similar explanations of one’s choice of a neighborhood described as racist. I won’t be surprized if you “confess” to being a racist, (if only by virtue of “benefitting from a system that oppresses people of color”). Shelly Tochluk does.

    “As for whether communities that are primarily of a particular type of PoC are exclusionary, in general, I’d say they’re practical. If I was a PoC and knew that whenever I went into white-operated stores I’d be watched like a hawk due to their expectation that I’m going to steal, I’d prefer to shop in stores that are run by PoC who aren’t going to regard me that way.”
    It must be expensive for those nasty white-owned stores to hire enough personnel to trail behind every person of color who enters them. I guess it’s worth it for the thrill of perpetuating systemic racial oppression. By the way, you have clearly missed out on getting the sudden silence/ baleful glare treatment upon entering a business owned by black people.
    Oops, I forgot. They are incapable of racism.
    Never mind.


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers

%d bloggers like this: