Sundown Towns: New Light On The History of American Racism
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor | | In the first few decades after the Civil War, African Americans settled widely throughout the North and West. But as the Civil War Era commitment to civil rights faded, around 1890, a vast wave of ethnic cleansing drove them out of many, if not most, places--the vast majority of towns in Illinois, for example. While they might be tolerated passing through, many towns had signs at their borders to make their message clear: don't be caught here after sundown. Hence the name: "sundown towns."
A few decades later, as suburbs started spreading across the land, the vast majority of them were all white--with the active support of the federal government. While Southern segregation is a relatively well-known aspect of our history, James Loewen's new book, Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism, is the first book on the subject, and every page holds a revelation. While some sundown towns and suburbs have become integrated over the years, a surprising number remain all-white, even today, occasionally enforced with violence.
Loewen, best known as the author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, cast a broad net in this book, covering everything from the history of their origins, the sociology of their formation and maintenance, and their effect on whites, blacks and the social system, to their present, future and possible elimination.
A simple one-page chart gives a quick sense of how vast the phenomena is. It lists the number of counties in 39 non-southern states with no or few (less than 10) blacks in 1890 and 1930. Of these, Loewen writes, "not one showed greater dispersion of African Americans in 1930 than in 1890. In 31 of 39 states, African Americans lived in a narrower range of counties in 1930 than they did in 1890." This doesn't even count counties where all towns but one were sundown towns.
While many people recognize they live in an all-white, or nearly all-white town, virtually no one knows why. Loewen first cites and debunks a number of popular, but nonsensical explanations, cold weather, for example. As if there were no blacks in Chicago and Detroit. He then presents a multi-level explanation of how they came about. He starts with the late-19th Century white backlash, culminating in Nadir of race relations (roughly 1890 to 1940). During the Nadir, he identifies three sociological factors that tended to produce sundown towns--political ideology, ethnic solidarity and labor strife. Finally, he examines triggering incidents and the roles of individuals.
When residents do have explanations for their sundown towns beyond the nonsensical, they generally take the form of origin myths, derived from triggering incidents that supposedly explain, and even justify the continued absence of African-Americans. But even on their own terms--ignoring all historical and sociological factors--these stories just don't add up. For instance, Loewen cites the example of Anna, IL, which expelled its entire black population after a black man allegedly murdered a white woman raised in Anna 30 miles away. Anna is all-white to this day.
With this historical background, it is hardly surprising to learn that school integration prompted a later wave of expulsions--often in the South, which had formerly relied on the proximity of blacks to perform difficult, low-status, low-paid work. Indeed, the entire history of American race relations is profoundly altered in light of the history of sundown towns. Much that we take for granted--the concentration of blacks into inner cities, for example--simply cannot be understood apart from the creation of sundown towns and suburbs. Residential segregation--creating separate enclaves of privilege and privation--is the bedrock of everything separating the races in America today. Without understanding how it was created we cannot understand how it can be undone. |
|
I'm sure that makes all the Southern apologists feel much better. But it shouldn't. It does absolutely nothing to excuse Southern racism, and the fact that Southern apologists would use it that way is further indicative of their unwillingness to change, their unwillingness to take responsibility for their own actions.
But let's recall how this issue came up most recently. It was touched off by a remark I made in a diary about an article by Michael Lind, after the Southern-based GOP effort to torpedo America's domestic auto industry. The article talked about the need to Americanize the South by nationalizing labor, consumer and environmental standards, so as to eliminate benefits from that the South's traditional "race to the bottom" strategy, which has been eroding Northern industry for over 100 years. Lind's point was about the need to raise everyone up, in order to counter the South's divisive strategy of dragging everyone down. And yet, the diary discussion virtually ignore that in order to focus on a throwaway line I wrote about hating the South's political tradition--not its people.
Those who hate progress, who hate treating all people equally, will grasp at any straw to avoid what they most detest. And the sad thing is, their antics have come to define our political discourse, so that many more people, even genuine progressives, have come to reflexively echo some of their most ludicrous knee-jerk responses, making excuses for lack of progress when they should be expressing outrage.
Now, about that photo. It ran with almost no commet:
A house in Martinsville, Indiana, via my colleague Marty Kady.
Another reminder of how complicated this race stuff is.
But there was a lot more comment in the comments. Like this, for example:
Spare me the Yankee platitudes. Look: for all the stigma the flag has in some parts of the country, there are Southerners who are proud of their ancestors who died fighting for what they thought was right. Many honor their heritage with the flag. And that doesn't mean they can't vote for a black man who is the best candidate to address the problems this country has. Recognizing that the flag can be something other than a sign of hate is one of the first steps the Democrats can make towards getting the votes of a constituency that could be very loyal. Stereotyping and intolerance is NOT helpful. I'm writing this as a Sons of Confederate Veterans member, and a loyal liberal Democrat. There are elected officials who are critical to the Democratic Party who agree with what I'm saying-- Jim Webb, for example. Slavery was a blight on the South, and was possibly the most important factor in the war. But it wasn't the only issue. And the wrong reasons for the war don't detract from the sacrifice and suffering Southerners, most of whom did not own slaves, felt during and after the war. I'd love to talk to the guy who owns the house above. He's exactly the kind of voter we need to win the presidency and to make an Obama administration a success.
Posted By: DG | October 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM
This is a typical example of neo-Confederate apologia designed for mainstream consumption. In fact, it's got so many classic elements, it's almost like a parody for those familiar with it.
There's the bit where Southern traitors are turned into heros:
Spare me the Yankee platitudes. Look: for all the stigma the flag has in some parts of the country, there are Southerners who are proud of their ancestors who died fighting for what they thought was right. Many honor their heritage with the flag.
Which is indentical in form to the following:
Spare me the Jewish platitudes. Look: for all the stigma the swastika has in some parts of the world, there are Germans who are proud of their ancestors who died fighting for what they thought was right. Many honor their heritage with the swastika.
Funny, isn't it, how we hear the former all the time, but the latter, not so much?
And that doesn't mean they can't vote for a black man who is the best candidate to address the problems this country has. Recognizing that the flag can be something other than a sign of hate is one of the first steps the Democrats can make towards getting the votes of a constituency that could be very loyal.
But, of course, this puts everything 100% ass-backwards, a time-honored Southern tradition. It's the neo-Confederates who insist that the flag has only one meaning. That it's about "heritage, not hate". They're the ones telling blacks to "get over it" as they promote the treasonous Confederate flag as a public symbol throuhgout the South. With very few exceptions, blacks and progressive whites focus their objections to the Confederate flag on such public uses, uses that force it's acceptance on others who know what it's historical meaning actual was, and remains--as a symbol of slavery and treason. For the most part--certainly as far as any organized political efforts go--blacks and progressive whites have focused their energies regarding the Confederate flag around getting rid of it as a public symbol forced on people who see it differently than the neo-Confederates. The single-mindedness, and insistence on others surrendering their point of view is virtually all on the neo-Confederate side.
We are always told that these folks could be "loyal voters" "if only". Who can resist the promise of "loyal voters"? Why, what red-blooded politician wouldn't readily give up all their principles (both of them!) for the promise of loyal voters?
Ah, but here's the thing. In 1988, Jesse Jackson won the Michigan Democratic Caucus. 55%. Twenty years after George Wallace won it, Jesse Jackson won it, too. And his version of reconciliation and bringing the races together was the Rainbow Coalition, which was about bringing people together around justice and equality. There was no neo-Confederate pandering within a country mile of his campaign. But there was cartoon I remember, came out after the Michigan vote: A pickup truck with a gun rack, and two bumperstickers on it: "Wallace '68" and "Jackson '88".
So much for needing to kiss white neo-Confederate ass in search of their votes.
Stereotyping and intolerance is NOT helpful. I'm writing this as a Sons of Confederate Veterans member, and a loyal liberal Democrat.
Don't you just love it when celebrators of the fight to preserve slavery lecture you about the evils of intolerance? Everybody needs a good laugh.
An SCV member who's "a loyal liberal Democrat"? Make that two laughs.
Slavery was a blight on the South, and was possibly the most important factor in the war. But it wasn't the only issue.
This was the whole point of the white supremacist vision promoted after the Civil War--to change the subject away from slavery. And here it is, still with us. The flat out denial of most basic truth. The only sense in which the above is true ("But it wasn't the only issue") is that there was also the little bit about how the South seceeded, and started fighting the North. It only became a war when the North started fighting back. So, in that technical sense, the claim is true.
And the wrong reasons for the war don't detract from the sacrifice and suffering Southerners, most of whom did not own slaves, felt during and after the war.
You know, lots of folks sacrificed and suffered during WWI and WWII, but there is nothing remotely similar in the way of a cult celebrating them. That's because their cause was not despicable, and in need of constant cleansing. The fact that so many poor whites went out and got themselves killed defending the interests of slaveowners who despised them is but another reminder of how twisted the Southern political culture is and always has been. There is nothing particularly noble about being a fool.
I'd love to talk to the guy who owns the house above. He's exactly the kind of voter we need to win the presidency and to make an Obama administration a success.
Obama won the election by 9.5 million votes. There are not 9.5 million Confederate flag flyers who voted for him. Not anywhere close. That's why the picture was published, doofus--because it was so exceptional--not because it was common.
Another commentator was a good deal more blunt:
A treasonous flag?? It's always been about States rights and individual liberty and self-determinism vs. federalism and that is the battle flag of the free and brave.
Ah yes! The freedom to own slaves! The most basic right of all!
A few other commentators did have a more realistic view of things, though:
I'm from Indiana and Martinsville is regarded as the most racist city in the state. They use to call a very popular high school basketball coach in my town racial slurs in the locker room. That's a pretty big deal.
Posted By: myra | October 29, 2008 at 11:29 AM
She's not alone:
I lived just down the road in Bloomington for seven years, and Martinsville had a near race riot at a basketball game against Bloomington. The game was suspended when the Martinsville crowd began throwing things and yelling racial epithets, and the school was banned from high school athletics for several years. Martinsville is most definitely a racist hotbed.
Posted By: Steve | October 29, 2008 at 11:51 AM
And:
I agree that this may be a picture of contrived irony. A Confederate flag in Indiana may have no more significance than membership in the Nascar Nation - which itself is hardly Obama's core constituency. But any Obama sign in Martinsville is a striking statement of some kind. Confederate flag does not necessarily mean KKK; however, Martinsville counts many Klan members (both open and closeted) among its citizens to this day. Interesting, to say the least.
Posted By: B.A. | October 29, 2008 at 11:02 AM
In fact, Martinsville is a classic sundown town. From Wikipedia:
Demographics
As of the census[1] of 2000, there were 11,698 people, 4,621 households, and 3,086 families residing in the city. The population density was 2,620.6 people per square mile (1,012.7/km²). There were 4,880 housing units at an average density of 1,093.2/sq mi (422.5/km²). The racial makeup of the city was remarkably homogeneous, with 98.62% of Martinsville's residents claiming White ethnicity, 0.27% were Native American, 0.18% claimed Asian ancestry, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 0.25% from other races, and 0.56% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino and African American residents comprised less than one percent of the population.
Finally, there's the man who wrote the book on it. From History News Network:
James Loewen: Article on HNN stirs up hornet's nest in Indiana
Source: Mike Leonard in the Herald Times (Indiana) (7-11-06)
With the announcement that Honda would build a major automobile manufacturing plant near Greensburg, national attention was focused on the southern Indiana town.
Nearly all of it was positive. A reporter for "All Things Considered" on National Public Radio even said Greensburg "could be a movie set for an ideal American small town." Honda labeled the Decatur County seat an "outstanding community of people."
Sociologist James W. Loewen would edit that statement slightly. Writing on a Web site called the History News Network, Loewen cited the examples above and wrote that Greensburg would more accurately be described as an "outstanding community of white people."
Loewen is the author of "Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism." And he includes Greensburg among at least 100 Indiana cities or towns he'd call a confirmed sundown town.
Loewen defines a sundown town as a community of more than 1,000 people that has historically excluded blacks to the extent that less than 0.1 percent of the population is African-American. The term comes from the real or apocryphal ordinances or signs that supposedly warned blacks not to let the sun go down on them inside the city limits.
Loewen is an Illinois native who taught sociology at the University of Vermont until he wrote the book that is believed to be the best-selling book by any living sociologist: "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your High School History Textbook Got Wrong." He now lives in Washington, D.C., and writes books.
He began his research on his native state and was stunned at what he found.
"I expected to find about 10 sundown towns in Illinois and maybe as many as 50. To my astonishment, I documented 472 sundown towns in Illinois alone," he said on Monday.
Loewen has not completed his count on Indiana sundown towns, but shared his working list of suspected and confirmed municipalities.
Bloomfield, Dugger, Mooresville, Oolitic, Orleans, Paoli, Spencer and Worthington are among the towns near Bloomington to make the list.
"Martinsville obviously is the one Indiana town that stands out when anyone talks about racism in Indiana," he said. The sociologist hastened to add, however, that just because a town is a sundown town, it doesn't mean that everyone who was born there or lives there is racist....
So, yes. Racism lives in the North as well as the South. And it's got a lot to do with keepng white working class people down, voting against their own economic self-interest, North as well as South. This is where this whole conversation got started, remember? |
STATE BLOGS
