As part of the background reading for the I-496 project, I read John Bodnar, Roger Simon and Michael P. Weber’s Lives of Their Own: Blacks, Italians, and Poles in Pittsburgh, 1900-1960. I would recommend this to anyone interested in urbanization, industrialization, migration or immigration. It provides an interesting case study of Pittsburgh on all of these topics.
At the most basic level, their argument is that urbanization and industrialization treat different people differently. They argue this by looking at how migration to Pittsburgh and then adapting to life in an industrial Pittsburgh affected Poles, Italians and Blacks differently. They considered background and expectations, work and residence, family dynamics, neighborhood formation, and occupational mobility (devoting a chapter to each) for each group from 1900-1960.
Pittsburgh c. 1900 - from Encyclopedia Britannica
The authors found that each group was affected differently; however Italian and Polish immigrants had similar experiences and Black migrants’ experiences differed drastically. Family played a major role in migration patterns, job choice and housing for Poles and Italians. They were able to supply housing and jobs because they had enough clout within their industrial sectors to get their friends and family into companies. However, for Blacks, family was important for providing information about migration and housing, but couldn’t help their family find work because they were “unable to establish beachheads in any major local industry” (7).
This resulted in different groups raising their children differently. African American families stressed individualism and the necessity for their children to rely on their own abilities, while other groups stressed the importance of familial relationships more.
The same issues seemed to surface for each category the authors discussed. African Americans in Pittsburgh faced more negative implications of urbanization, industrialization and migration than the other groups. The authors argued that all of these groups experienced racism. For example, as soon as one of these groups would move into a neighborhood, the native population would move out. However, Italians and Poles benefitted from the stereotypes (they were seen as dependable, hard workers), while African Americans suffered (seen as inefficient, unstable). Poles and Italians were able to get (and keep) stable jobs, which aided them in creating secure ethnic neighborhoods. However, the African American population couldn’t get steady jobs and were scattered throughout the neighborhoods. Thus, they were unable to create a solid, racial community. Partially because of this, as time went on, Italians and Poles were seen as more stable and almost as natives, but African Americans continued to be seen as migrants.
The authors make an important point in the conclusion of their book. They say, “racism…did not operate in isolation…[Italians, Poles and Blacks] lived out their lives in response to multiple pressures exerted by tradition, discrimination, urban structure and industrial employment” (264). I find this one of the most intriguing parts of their book. Through the research they present, it is evident that racism and discrimination could not really be separated from the other pressures. It influenced industrial employment and housing, which in turn influenced how children were raised. It is clear that other factors were important: unions excluded African Americans, unions became ineffective in Pittsburgh after agitators in the 1892 Homestead Steel Strike were blacklisted from working in the industrial sphere anywhere, competition increased in the industrial sector, and mechanization increased the demand for unskilled labor (and drastically reduced the demand for skilled labor). However, racism was deeply intertwined with the other pressures that resulted from industrialization, urbanization and migration in Pittsburgh during this time period.
[It is interesting to look at two different perspectives on the Homestead Steel Strike, I came across. Here is the PBS version based on a film about Andrew Carnegie. Here is the AFL-CIO version.]
This book also has implications for our research on the I-496 development in Lansing. It is important to consider the role of racism, but also to consider the authors statement about Pittsburgh. What other pressures were at play? Was this a simple case of racism?
It was also interesting to learn that one of the few African American neighborhoods was eliminated in Pittsburgh: the lower Hill district. This neighborhood was eliminated as a result of the “Pittsburgh renaissance.” It took 1,551 families out of the neighborhood to build a domed arena and new high rent apartments that would accommodate 594 families. The authors say this “attests to the lack of political power of the residents” (221). These African American families that had resided here moved to other ethnically populated neighborhoods – usually ones that already had a Black population, which then expanded. However, the old residents of these neighborhoods generally left as the Black population increased. Unfortunately the authors only spend about a page on this topic. It still presents important parallels for our work. They also say to look into Roy Lubove‘s work for further description of the Pittsburgh Renaissance. This suggests that the development of I-496 in Lansing was not an isolated incident, but rather may have been part of a larger pattern. This provides important context for our own research. It puts our research into better perspective knowing what was happening in other cities.
The Search for an Audience... 