White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (Politics and Society in Twentieth Century America)
Product Type: Book
Product Price: $20.95
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
Purchase
Description
During the civil rights era, Atlanta thought of itself as "The City Too Busy to Hate," a rare place in the South where the races lived and thrived together. Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, however, so many whites fled the city for the suburbs that Atlanta earned a new nickname: "The City Too Busy Moving to Hate."
In this reappraisal of racial politics in modern America, Kevin Kruse explains the causes and consequences of "white flight" in Atlanta and elsewhere. Seeking to understand segregationists on their own terms, White Flight moves past simple stereotypes to explore the meaning of white resistance. In the end, Kruse finds that segregationist resistance, which failed to stop the civil rights movement, nevertheless managed to preserve the world of segregation and even perfect it in subtler and stronger forms.
Challenging the conventional wisdom that white flight meant nothing more than a literal movement of whites to the suburbs, this book argues that it represented a more important transformation in the political ideology of those involved. In a provocative revision of postwar American history, Kruse demonstrates that traditional elements of modern conservatism, such as hostility to the federal government and faith in free enterprise, underwent important transformations during the postwar struggle over segregation. Likewise, white resistance gave birth to several new conservative causes, like the tax revolt, tuition vouchers, and privatization of public services. Tracing the journey of southern conservatives from white supremacy to white suburbia, Kruse locates the origins of modern American politics.
Reviews
Rating: 2 / 5
Date: 2010-09-04
Summary: "Narrowly focused"
This book is a thorough study of the mind-set of its subjects, but is not at all interested in testing this mind-set against empirical reality.
The words "crime," "violence," "homicide," "murder," and "robbery" appear but a handful of times in the book -- exclusively devoted to discussing either segregationist violence or the rhetoric of right-wing whites.
Apparently the author considers it beneath himself to ask: Were high crime, bad schools, public disorder, delinquent teenagers, etc., etc., etc., real problems that these conservatives were justified in trying to escape?
Even a short drive around any inner-city neighborhood, or a quick glance at any statistics comparing criminal misbehavior by race (e.g., the black homicide rate is nine times the white homicide rate) will tell you that these fears are not phantom fears dreamed up by the racist imagination, but the objective truths of American life.
There's nothing in this book that even begins to address that problem.
Rating: 3 / 5
Date: 2009-12-15
Summary: "Fails to support the central thesis, but still constitutes an interesting history of Atlanta."
While this book is a good history of some of the trends in the city of Atlanta and the surrounding suburbs, I think that the author ultimately fails at supporting what seems to be his thesis. Apparently, his argument is that white discomfort with growing black influence, naturally occurring out of the civil rights movement and the equal application of the Constitution, has led to the "rights" movement of the contemporary conservative and libertarian strain. The teabagger movement, which spawned after the publishing of this book, would seem to support this thesis.
Even so, no causal link is shown. The stories are simply anecdotal. White people who fled the city found comfort in conservative and libertarian ideology. Some of them even went so far as to firebomb the houses of new black residents in "white" neighborhoods and of whites looking to leave, willing to sell to blacks. So what? Kruse seems to be suggesting that because these ideologies are where racists found refuge, these ideologies are now themselves tainted with this racism. I do not think that is the case. If one wants to attack libertarianism, or even contemporary conservatism (as hard as it may be to define that term), then one should do better than simply pulling the race card and supporting it on a foundation of pretended scholarship.
Rating: 4 / 5
Date: 2009-10-12
Summary: "The city that wasn't too busy to hate"
I was drawn to this book because I recently had lived in one of the neighborhoods (Kirkwood) profiled by Kruse and, oddly, it was very difficult to get a history of the place. Long-time black residents would talk about their time in the neighborhood, but elliptically skipped over the racial transition. White gentrifiers focused on long past history as when the railroad was less of a barrier to nearby neighborhoods or the development of the Craftsmans and even older larger houses. What little I learned came from academic studies available on the internet, people whose families had left during the white flight of the 1960s and people who had departed the area before racial change had begun. This actually was typical for Atlanta--the city "too busy to hate" was too uncomfortable to discuss race, at least with someone from elsewhere. During my time in Atlanta, I came to recognize it as a place as racist as any classically segregated city like Cleveland (where I grew-up) or Chicago (where I had lived earlier in my career). Atlantans also seemed less matter of fact about race than people in contrast to Washington, DC--a city with much Southern heritage or Nashville, a less self-consciously moderate place. Particularly unlike northern cities, Atlanta also has a heritage of feudal social, economic, and political stratification within white and black communities that has remained even when the people changed.
Kruse provides cases studies from several Atlanta neighborhoods, to the West, East, and South of downtown and the processes of white resistance and racial change, as well as the larger political context in which this occurred. There were several surprises--one being the historical coalition between well-off "moderate" whites and the African-American community, both of which chafed under a Georgia political system that favored rural whites. This inversion of the usual Southern coalition (well-off and working class whites against blacks) retained the usual feudal character of a well-off group minimally serving the interests of one less advantaged group while playing their ally off another less advantaged group. In Atlanta, this represented an early version of the often touted "power sharing" relationship between business interests and the black political power structure that developed in the 1970s, after whites lost the mayor's office and had engaged in a brief flirtation with the working class whites they had once derided. Not surprisingly, the white moderates weren't particularly moderate on race, in private. OTOH, they generally lived apart from their less advantaged fellow Atlantans, regardless of race. Also not surprising was the presence of the Ku Klux Klan and other racial separatist organizations
I'd always been curious why Atlanta, as a headquarters for the civil rights movement, didn't have more activist history in its own backyard. Kruse indirectly answers the question. First, Rev. King and others were heavily invested in the image of Atlanta that also concerned wealthy whites because of its perceived ability to attract northern employers. Second, there was more activism than usually has been discussed, although much of it was instigated by students and others unresponsive to the cautious attitudes of the black Atlanta elite. In the end, Atlanta's integration efforts were mostly cosmetic and usually undermined by institutional resistance from whites of all backgrounds and, ultimately, white flight. Kruse briefly describes the development of Atlanta's suburbs as white flight havens and sources of conservative votes, even after drawing newcomers from elsewhere.
This is a well written book but I knocked a star off because the scholarship is weak in a number of areas. The history of Kirkwood emphasizes long tenure of local residents, yet the area (including neighborhoods to the North and West) was heavily settled by people who had relocated from South Georgia after WWII. Eastern Kirkwood had a substantial amount of post-WWII GI bill housing constructed as infill. Kruse also misses the heavy Klan presence, particularly in East Atlanta (a neighborhood treated as part of Kirkwood, but a bit to its south). Also missing is discussion of segregation era Black neighborhoods, amidst white areas and the roles they played in racial change. For example, the presence of these areas is given only passing notice in the discussion of Kirkwood, but they are never described in much depth. No mention is made of areas that remained white like Cabbagetown or places that kept at least a nominal amount of their white population such as Grant Park or the neighborhoods N of Kirkwood. Kruse's consideration of recent history is rather cursory and focuses more on the evolution of white flight areas like Gwinnett County into places of surprising racial and ethnic diversity, which has led to a new round of white flight. Oddly, there is no contemporary mention of the communities he profiled, which have changed in surprising ways. Kirkwood and the neighborhoods to its North & West have been transformed since the 1980s and have become the most liberal areas of the city (in contrast to the relatively conservative areas like Buckhead that once were characterized as moderate). The area of NW Atlanta described in the book also is gentrifying and represents perhaps the most recent wave of change. Ironically, despite its historic importance, the Sweet Auburn area has attracted none of the gentrification interest from African-Americans that has occurred in historic African American neighborhoods in some places like DC's LeDroit Park. The city, itself, is becoming whiter although it is again the white community that is split by politics (liberals in "intown" areas, conservatives in Buckhead). What is evident is that Atlanta's headlong rush into presenting itself as modern and forward looking has always been at odds with the reality. There remain few public spaces that draw together a wide cross section of the population and many of the assets that give character to a city such as cultural institutions and even some of the sports teams (like the Falcons) have not thrived and developed as much as in other cities with rapid late 20th century growth. Kruse's story is a useful one, but it would have been a better story with more understanding of the present and perhaps a smaller number of case examples, with more depth.
Rating: 4 / 5
Date: 2009-09-01
Summary: "A comprehensive and detailed study for general readers, even though liberal biased again."
It may have started as a one issue thing, segregationists v. non-segregationists, but after the Civil Rights movement had won the day, and things had changed 360 degrees to end up with a population as segregated as the generation before had been -but with both races calmer than they started off, only then do we see that both were fighting the wrong dude.
It's like your close neighbor, whom you can't get along with, had suddenly joined forces with a strong new boy in town to back him up, then you realize that the strong guy is indeed more worth considering and watching out for than your neighbor himself. What do you do? You give up the fight with the weaker fellow, make peace with him, and turn to the strong fellow with all your might. The strong fellow -big and nosey government- is now your deadly enemy, the one that -because you were so stupidly busy- you didn't notice coming. Your old neighbor, instead, can even be won to your side if only you are able to persuade him that both your interests are better served by joining forces against the bullying newcomer. And this, unfortunately, is not the way the author presents his study, which otherwise is detailed, clear, and comprehensive. The author, in any case, does not identify at all with white flight people, seeing them as a foreigner sees a country he is new to, and thus does not accept without apparent indignation the fact that whites might live where and however they feel like, as can be expected from a free people making free choices (politically correct or not). Only free people make wrong choices. Panhandlers and boot-lickers will never make a right one, but they are very good at pointing to others' wrong ones.
Mr. Kruse sees Southern conservatism evolve, but not quite enough to redeem itself from its seed of segregationism, "In a single sentence, without ever mentioning race, Newt Gingrich had managed to tie together suburban concerns over public transportation, public housing, and public education just as whites around Atlanta had been doing for four decades." (in his Contract with America). While the statement is true, still the implication is unfair. While Mr. Gingrich talks about his "here and now", Mr. Kruse still holds on to the "then and there" old grudge. Kruse intelligently describes the changes in Southern political perceptions, from racial to anti-government, he is not gallant enough though to give up past grievances. I sure adore the South and what it stands for today, and I am sure those great ideals were always present in the Southern mind, only racism tinged whatever good it has ever done in the eyes of unforgiving fellow Americans.
Proof that black and white middle classes can benefit in greater measure by working together againt all mighty government is what happened during Andrew Young's mayorship of Atlanta from 1982 to 1990: "He eased the burden on property taxes, and cut the red tape for new construction projects ... Andrew Young, the civil rights activist once considered so radical by the white elite, 'turned out to be the best friend a business community ever had.' ... 'My job' he told a reporter in 1985, 'is to see that whites get some of the power and blacks get some of the money.'"
But with big government in our homes nobody but the boot-licking bureaucrats and the Washington D.C. aristocracy, the scientifically and politically correct insiders to America's liberal regime, will ever see either: No power and no money for the middle-classes. I recommend reading, also, 'The Character of Nations', by Angelo M. Codevilla, a book that provides the answers to questions Mr. Kruse is not even asking.
As a final ironical note, what about the book's last sentence: "White Americans must stop running away from their past."? But isn't that what progress is meant to be? There's the preaching vocation clouding the liberal scholar's power of judgement once again.
Socialism uses coercion to change human nature. Evil only multiplies evil.
Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2008-11-09
Summary: "Right on time"
Got here on time, haven't read it yet, but I have to say I was very pleased with Amazon's service.