How are the overall racial relationships in Chicago?

[Avengerfire]

Soldiers for Stroger? What the hell is that?

[Humboldt1]

I see whites and blacks mixing the least in Chicago and the rest of the country. Hispanics and Asians seem to be mixing more (especially as many hispanics are a mix of native american and european ancestry).

[SJaye]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Soldiers for Stroger? What the hell is that?

Fliers allegedly distributed by pro-Stroger group contain racial epithets | < Chicago News, Politics and Public Affairs | Chicago Current|

[meatpuff]

Originally Posted by Humboldt1

I see whites and blacks mixing the least in Chicago and the rest of the country. Hispanics and Asians seem to be mixing more (especially as many hispanics are a mix of native american and european ancestry).

Good point, that certain races mix better than others. But I would say black and brown mix even worse than white and black in Chicago. With white and black you can point to the well-worn examples used on this board of Beverly, Hyde Park and Oak Park. There are neighborhoods with both blacks and Hispanics indicated on the Census, but generally this is only a temporary condition as the Hispanic bloc or black bloc continues to push the other race out to some other place. As in how Mike Royko wrote years ago that integration in Chicago is the brief period between when the first black family moves in and the last white family leaves. I think this is still the case concerning black/Hispanic integration.

One safe generalization is that real integration in Chicagoland (except for Asians, who seem to get along with just about everyone ) only seems to happen in middle-class or above communities. I can't think of any working class or poor neighborhood/community that is stably integrated.

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by meatpuff

Good point, that certain races mix better than others. But I would say black and brown mix even worse than white and black in Chicago. With white and black you can point to the well-worn examples used on this board of Beverly, Hyde Park and Oak Park. There are neighborhoods with both blacks and Hispanics indicated on the Census, but generally this is only a temporary condition as the Hispanic bloc or black bloc continues to push the other race out to some other place. As in how Mike Royko wrote years ago that integration in Chicago is the brief period between when the first black family moves in and the last white family leaves. I think this is still the case concerning black/Hispanic integration.

One safe generalization is that real integration in Chicagoland (except for Asians, who seem to get along with just about everyone ) only seems to happen in middle-class or above communities. I can't think of any working class or poor neighborhood/community that is stably integrated.

Temporary? Chicago Lawn is black/hispanic and so is the South Chicago neighborhood. It seem like that is not going to change in the near future. From my observation, Hispanics are more likely to move to majority black areas than whites and Asians in Chicagoland. In the suburbs, there are Blue Island and Chicago Heights with both being over 20% black and Hispanic. Both of those communities are working class and been mixed for a while. Harvey is 15% Hispanic and has a small population of South Asians at 2%. Calumet City is another majority black community that is now over 10% Hispanic.

[meatpuff]

Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426

Temporary? Chicago Lawn is black/hispanic and so is the South Chicago neighborhood. It seem that is not going to change in the near future. Hispanics are more likely to move to black areas than whites and Asians in Chicagoland from my observation. In the suburbs, there are Blue Island and Chicago Heights with both being over 20% black and Hispanic. Both of those communities are working class and been mixed for a while. The new mayor of Chicago Heights is Mexican. Harvey is 15% Hispanic and has a small population of South Asians. Calumet City is another majority black community that is now over 10% Hispanic.

Maybe you're right. I don't know enough about the social lay-of-the-land in South Chicago or Chicago Lawn or Chicago Heights to say you're wrong. But I don't count it when a particular political boundary happens to lump some blacks and Hispanics together. I only count it when blacks and Hispanics share a "community", which can be larger or smaller than a neighborhood or suburb.

For example, in Blue Island, my understanding is that the blacks generally live along Vincennes Ave. and vicinity only in the north part of town, which is kind of isolated from the rest of Blue Island, and Hispanics only in the other parts of Blue Island. An unrelated great example on the North Side, the Logan Square community area goes down in the Census books as having two large, comparably sized groups: whites and Hispanics. But nobody who lives there would call it "stably integrated".

Chicago Lawn, I don't know if the Hispanics and blacks live on mixed blocks together. But still there I would stop short of calling it "stably integrated". It isn't "stably" anything. My understanding is that this part of the city (SW side) has some of the fastest changing demographics in the city. Those areas were majority white only, what, 20-25 years ago and whatever we have now may be a very temporary arrangement.

EDIT: You edited your post that I was responding to while I was typing this. So some of it is responding to things you deleted.

[meatpuff]

Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426

Temporary? Chicago Lawn is black/hispanic and so is the South Chicago neighborhood. It seem like that is not going to change in the near future.

To elaborate, let's take Chicago Lawn, which is black/Hispanic (although majority 52.5% black in the 2000 Census). It runs N-S from 59th St. to 75th St. The blacks over the last 50+ years have been pushing steadily, inexorably westward down that corridor all the way from Halsted at the start to around Kedzie today. What's to stop them from becoming the (more) dominant force in Chicago Lawn and pushing all the way to Pulaski or beyond?

On the other hand, the Hispanics have pushed very quickly in the last 30 years south and SW from Little Village and Pilsen, a push that is still moving today. What's to say they won't push the blacks out of Chicago Lawn, just like they pushed the whites out of Gage Park just north and are pushing them out of West Lawn just west?

It's like a heavyweight showdown!

Anyway, I don't think the final chapter has been written for Chicago Lawn yet.

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by meatpuff

Maybe you're right. I don't know enough about the social lay-of-the-land in South Chicago or Chicago Lawn or Chicago Heights to say you're wrong. But I don't count it when a particular political boundary happens to lump some blacks and Hispanics together. I only count it when blacks and Hispanics share a "community", which can be larger or smaller than a neighborhood or suburb.

For example, in Blue Island, my understanding is that the blacks generally live along Vincennes Ave. and vicinity only in the north part of town, which is kind of isolated from the rest of Blue Island, and Hispanics only in the other parts of Blue Island. An unrelated great example on the North Side, the Logan Square community area goes down in the Census books as having two large, comparably sized groups: whites and Hispanics. But nobody who lives there would call it "stably integrated".

Chicago Lawn, I don't know if the Hispanics and blacks live together. But still there I would stop short of calling it "stably integrated". It isn't "stably" anything. My understanding is that this part of the city (SW side) has some of the fastest changing demographics in the city. Those areas were majority white only, what, 20-25 years ago and whatever we have now may be a very temporary arrangement.

EDIT: You edited your post that I was responding to while I was typing this. So some of it is responding to things you deleted.

Integration within the community block by block is a different story.Parts of Blue Island and the Heights are more Hispanic or blacks. In Chicago lawn, there are some blocks where Hispanics and blacks live side by side, but I'm sure some parts are more black or Hispanic than the other. Btw 2000 census had Chicago Lawn at 52% black. When it comes to Chicagoland, this tends to happen, although the suburb or neighborhood overall is consider diverse. I think very few neighborhoods in Chicago and the metro are integrated to the point where every section is evenly split. I think even in Evanston, there is one part that's majority black.

This site tells you how segregated the cities were back in 2000.
CensusScope -- Racial Segregation Statistics for Cities and Metropolitan Areas