BOOKSHELF: SUNDOWN TOWNS
James W. Loewen
EXCERPT: A sundown town is any organized jurisdiction that for decades kept African Americans or other groups from living in it and was thus "all-white" on purpose. There is a reason for the quotation marks around "all-white": requiring towns to be literally all-white in the census—no African Americans at all—is inappropriate, because many towns clearly and explicitly defined themselves as sundown towns but allowed one black household as an exception. Thus an all-white town may include non-black minorities and even a tiny number of African Americans. . .
Independent sundown towns range from tiny hamlets such as De Land, Illinois (population 500), to substantial cities such as Appleton, Wisconsin (57,000 in 1970). Sometimes entire counties went sundown, usually when their county seat did. Independent sundown towns were soon joined by "sundown suburbs," which could be even larger: Levittown, on Long Island, had 82,000 residents in 1970, while Livonia, Michigan, and Parma, Ohio, had more than 100,000. Warren, a suburb of Detroit, had a population of 180,000 including just 28 minority families, most of whom lived on a U.S. . .
Most Americans have no idea such towns or counties exist, or they think such things happened mainly in the Deep South. Ironically, the traditional South has almost no sundown towns. Mississippi, for instance, has no more than 6, mostly mere hamlets, while Illinois has no fewer than 456. . .
Sundown towns are no minor matter. To this day, African Americans who know about sundown towns concoct various rules to predict and avoid them.
In Florida, for instance, any town or city with "Palm" in its name was thought to be especially likely to keep out African Americans. In Indiana, it was any jurisdiction with a color in its name, such as Brownsburg, Brownstown, Brown County, Greenfield, Greenwood, or Vermillion County—and indeed, all were sundown locales. . .
The sundown town movement in the United States did not begin to slow until 1968, however, even cresting in about 1970, and we cannot yet consign sundown towns to the past. . .
ORDER
12 Comments:
The entire Kansas City North was that way for years. It has become more integrated in the past twenty years, but there use to be about two families that dared live there.
if there were two families that "dared" to live there for twenty or more years, that was hardly a 'Sundown Town'. Blacks may have had their reasons for keeping away, but in an area that was truly experiencing that brand of violent segregation, two families, or even one, would not have been allowed to live unmolested, whether they "dared" to or no.
I find it of some interest that a site which entitles itself "The Progressive Review" seems to have little interest in much of anything other than ceaseless regressive wallowing in the sins of the past.
Any black (or white) who seriously attempts to claim that day-to-day conditions for the average black living in this country today, insofar as threat from violence by whites goes (a claim he might not be able to make for his own black brothers, I might add) are no better than they were 50-70 yeard ago, is being wilfully self-deluding, or else so ignorant of history that years of study would be required to flense him of his ignorance.
America is by no means whatsoever a perfect nation; but it has certainly done more to improve the lot of its' minority populations over the last 100 years than any other nation one could name. Pity there's no sensationalistic value in pointing that out, however; and not nearly the degree of creamy, smug self-righteous that can be obtained from endless masochistic wallows in the bloodinesses of the past. Some progressivism. History should exist to be learned from, not simply as a launch point for unceasing moans over previous injustices.
Most people don't know about this. It's news. If it pisses you off to talk about it, then that's probably a good thing.
Racism is a part of this country in an inescapable way. And legitimate examples of it shed light on a topic that is so systemic to humanity, it must be understood.
It's funny how these anti-anti-racists are so damned reactionary. Imagine if they had suffered any real persecution instead of listening to other peoples?
The irony is just dripping off that last comment. How oppressed does this line of conversation make you feel, anyway?
Spoken like a true "if you want to see the future, the best place to look is up your rectal cavity" 'pwogwessive' PC whiner. God forbid if you couldn't forage through history for some tidbit to moan over.
There's a distinct difference between using history as a learning tool from which to construct a vision of genuine social change, and using it as a flog with which to whip up an endless flood of collective guilt, which nearly always ends up being counterproductive in the long run. Although the difference is distinct, it can also be a fine line, and is altogether too often crossed over by people who may mean well, but who seem to have no real sense of how best that history can be employed for the common good as apart from simply (and futilely) nursing endless grudges.
Common good and collective guilt? What the hell are you talking about? That sounds like some Marxist nonsense. Books have intrinsic value. Even the ones you don't like. This is America. You have to tolerate ideas and opinions you don't like. Even the ones that make you feel 'guilty'.
Anyone who feels guilty about the sins of others, particularly the sins of those long dead, is an idiot.
The debate here doesn't seem to be about the book's "intrinsic worth" nor about "tolerating ideas and opinions one deosn't like". The debate would seem to be more in regard to what's done with the information imparted. I agree that it is senseless to apply these histories only to the service of furthering greivance over past injustices that CANNOT be rectified, since the past cannot be altered. 335 is correct in naming that as counterproductive; I find bizaare 501's contention that using historical documentation as a tool in the service of furthering awareness as a means of promoting the general weal "Marxist nonsense". What would he/she have this history used as?
There's no doubt Americans would be a lot better off if they could learn from the past instead of using it as a justification to keep renewing ancient animosities. I don't understand people who really think there's something to be gained from that.
5:01, if you want to feel guilty over actions committed by people long before your birth, or actions which you (presumably) did not participate in, go right ahead. But knock off getting pissy because not everyone else wishes to join you in doing so.
In this day and age, whether some of us (Americans)want to admit to or not(3:44,5:01)- 'Sundown Towns' STILL exist. It is unfortunate and pathetic, but otherwise still apart of this supposedly 'equal' society of ours. The basis of the book is to shine light on what was done in the past, what is CURRENTLY going on in the PRESENT DAY, to become MORE ACTIVE NOW and IN THE FUTURE in putting an end to this ARBITRARY FOOLISHNESS that stemmed from some very ignorant,half-witted individuals. That seems to be the basic premise here IGNORANCE... People make comments without being informed, or don't care to be informed. Which leads them to making those emotionally charged, half-wit 'ass'umptions. So let me say this: If your not really about trying to help the situation get better for ALL of us- 'ALL' as in every culture that resides within US borders.. Go back to your 'BUBBLE' and stay there. Limited mind sets aren't welcome...
Post a Comment
<< Home