This confused AP article seems to reveal some attitudes on the part of the author and/or headline writer.
First, it's poorly written. At one point it says, "America's suburbs are now more likely to be home to minorities, the poor and a rapidly growing older population as many younger, educated whites move to cities for jobs and shorter commutes" which implies that suburbs are now primarily minorities. Then it says, "Suburbs still tilt white. But, for the first time, a majority of all racial and ethnic groups in large metro areas live outside the city."
Then the head line was pretty striking. It's "Suburbs lose whites to cities." Not "Suburbs gain cultural and racial diversity." A sub-hed calls it "Bright flight," and the article does not seek to stress that brights does not equal whites. Quite the opposite. Ouch.
Posts
Got a Match?
-
People tell me jokes.
The post Got a Match? appeared first on Ordinary Times.
5 hours ago
If every area were culturally and racially diverse, we would have a homogeneous society. When we have racial and ethnic enclaves, society is diverse. We can have internal diversity or external diversity, but not both.
ReplyDeleteSo maybe it's interesting that it didn't say "Suburbs homogenizing"?
ReplyDeleteOr "Cities homogenizing", with the increasing urban population of People of Pallor.
ReplyDelete"Bright flight" normally would refer to Asian or Ashkenazi enclaves on the move, don't you think? Pink-skinned types aren't in the highest IQ communities in every study I've seen.
Good blog post
ReplyDelete