A (quite) Scattered Exploration of Diversity
Last week, I visited Minnesota for the first time. Having never been anywhere in the Midwest, I was excited to see a different part of the country. However, as soon as I stepped off the airplane, it was very clear that there were a few things that I take for granted living in Los Angeles. As an Asian American in LA—Pasadena specifically—I cannot say that I’ve had the same experiences that many minorities in the LA area have had. It’s easy for me to forget that I’m considered a minority in most of the places I frequent (which may be a product of the model minority myth, but that’s another topic for discussion). Even so, the racial diversity, or lack thereof, was shocking. It caused me to think a lot about population size and the demographics of a population related to the geographic area. Hennepin County, where Minneapolis is located, has nowhere near the population of LA County (Hennepin comes in at around 1.3 million versus LA’s 10.1 million). So with the environmental challenges that the LA area presents, what made it special? Why have people wanted to settle here, where earthquakes, mudslides, and drought could be on their doorstep at any moment, instead of a city like Minneapolis where snow and the occasional tornado were the only issues?
LA’s population has exponentially increased since California’s statehood in 1850. Hennepin County has experienced more of a linear growth than exponential and even had a negative population growth in 1980, the result of a large farming crisis. However, despite LA’s historical involvement with farming, the population here still didn’t cease to increase, going from around 7 million to almost 7.5 million in the same year.
To narrow down the scope a bit, the city of Los Angeles holds nearly 4 million people on ~ 470 square miles. Minneapolis, Minnesota’s largest city, has less than 500,000 people (though significantly less square mileage at 54 square miles). As for diversity within these populations, 64% of Minneapolitans, as of 2017, are white (more stats here) compared to LA city’s 52% white population (more).
In my research, something I found quite interesting was the LA Times’s “Mapping LA” project. It breaks down the LA county into 16 regions and then further into neighborhoods. They report Pasadena, which is part of The Verdugos region, as being the most diverse in the region. They also have La Cañada as being the least diverse but wealthiest neighborhood. Additionally, they state La Cañada to have the oldest population and Pasadena the youngest. I wonder what relationship these facts have to each other and how they might contribute to the greater population of Los Angeles and the diversity we have or don’t have? (Here’s a link to the project)
Essentially, I am curious about the possible reasons why people choose to settle where they have (specifically LA) despite the natural obstacles that would seemingly stand in their way. I’m also curious about how this has affected diversity in these places and what role, if any, generational differences have in creating more or less diverse neighborhoods and cities.
ReplyDeleteDespite the earthquakes, droughts, and mudslides I think people want to settle in the Los Angeles area because of its diversity of cultures, immense opportunities, weather, and global connection. Also, I don't think many people are aware of Los Angeles’s environmental challenges before they settle here. Although Los Angeles has many environmental challenges, I personally would rather risk encountering natural disasters than not live in this vibrant, bustling city. I think that life is too short to not enjoy it to the maximum. I don't want to live with a fearful mentality, constantly wondering when the next natural disaster will occur.
Pasadena, which has the youngest and most diverse population, is contrasted with La Canada, which has the oldest, least diverse, and wealthiest population. I think that these facts reveal that younger people are more open to change, whereas older people are more stuck in their ways and may not welcome diversity. Overall I think that Los Angeles is very diverse; however, as shown with La Canada, there are neighborhoods in Los Angeles that are not diverse at all. Predominantly white neighborhoods, like La Canada, are wealthier because for generations many of its inhabitants have been presented all the opportunities in the world because of their privilege. As a result of this, they are able to accumulate generational wealth that they can then pass on to their descendents. However for a very long time, people of color were not allowed to even buy houses in neighborhoods like La Canada. There were laws, such as redlining, that prevented people of color from equal opportunities, such as equal opportunities to accumulate generational wealth.
The fact that the older regions are more wealthy than the younger regions does make sense. It is not surprising because money accumulates through time, growing through multiple generations of family. In regards to the possible reasons why people choose to settle where they have despite the natural obstacles that would seemingly stand in their way, my family chose to come to LA for opportunities. The opportunities of education and occupation take precedence over the possible dangers of the natural environment. In addition, my grandparents on my father’s side decided to move to LA rather than any other city in the nation due to the diversity already present in the area. The Chinese first immigrated to California when news of the Gold Rush spread, and soon more came to work on the Transcontinental Railroad. Therefore, knowing that there was already a prominent Asian community in Los Angeles and speaking limited English, they moved here. Growing up in Racine, Wisconsin, my mother was the only Asian person in her whole high school class. As an Asian-American myself, I am lucky to live in a city where there are others who identify like me.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that Pasadena is the most diverse, even of the Verdugos region. In my experience, people consider Pasadena to be the wealthy, white neighborhood that is home to a top private institution and a high-ranking university. While driving east on California Boulevard, I pass countless mansions that have been kept in tip-top shape. Most of my friends who live in Pasadena live in luxurious homes, too. However, once you look beyond the extravagant homes, Pasadena is, in fact, very diverse. This summer I went to a camp in northern California composed of students from Hawaii, Palo Alto, Utah, Pasadena and many other places. I, along with Alexis and a girl from Maranatha High School, shared a cabin with a group of girls, who were primarily African-American, from John Muir High School in Pasadena. During one of our cabin’s “discussions,” we each shared our experience about living in Pasadena. As each person shared their experience, my perspective on the diversity of Pasadena changed. I realized that there is much more to Pasadena than the expensive architecture and lavish homes. Yes, the experience of the wealthy part of Pasadena is important in discussing the history of Pasadena, but so is the experience of the not as wealthy part of Pasadena. Similarly, Los Angeles, at first glance, appears to be for the wealthy whites, which I believe partly stems from the heavy influence Hollywood has on the rest of the country and the world. When only white people are portrayed on the big screen, many people get the impression that Hollywood, and Los Angeles, only have room for white people.
ReplyDeleteI believe people choose to settle in Los Angeles due to a multitude of factors, and because people have found ways to (at least partially) protect themselves from natural obstacles, people find it easier to settle in their desired location. My parents came to (and stayed in) Los Angeles because of college and job opportunities. They did not consider natural obstacles when moving to Los Angeles. I think that many people look at how much money they have, what they can afford, and what opportunities the city offers them before moving to that city. I think that as time has progressed, (younger) people have become more open to diverse populations. However, many people from the same generation are the ones leading the gentrification of Los Angeles, and with the gentrification of Los Angeles, comes the influx of wealthy, white people. This then threatens the efforts made to make Los Angeles a more diverse place.
I have a friend from Minnesota, as she put it "Minnesota [expletive]-ing sucks." She lives in Minneapolis and constantly told me when we were in the same program how there was little to no diversity, a complete lack of interesting culture, and how much she envied that I lived in LA. Being from Pasadena I sometimes forget that I live in LA, the stogy, preppy, and less than diverse area is in my mind somehow separate from LA. I think that the reason people would want to live here is because of how picturesque and beautiful it can be. There also is a-lot of diversity, the huge amount of ethnic communities in LA is unique to the city and the city alone. I feel like in pop culture there also is this dream like representation about LA, that when someone comes here all their problems can be solved and it's the land of endless opportunity. Like the podcast explained: There isnt much to LA when it comes to natural resources, and when people started to come here, enterprising individuals took what LA did have (land) and started to market it until, eventually in many Americans eyes Los Angeles is "the place to be".
ReplyDeleteI was struck by the fact you shared about Pasadena having the youngest population, especially because in my mind I associate Pasadena with old money and old people. I think it is interesting how different regions of LA are seen as “meant” for different age groups or people at different points in their lives. I’ve known younger couples living in Silver Lake and Atwater Village talking about settling down and moving to Altadena or Pasadena when they’re a little bit older. I think to a certain extent, the geography of a region, both manmade and natural, contribute to the types of people that are drawn to live there. I think more bustling and busy neighborhoods will naturally appeal to younger inhabitants because there is a never-ending amount of things to do, and on the opposite end of that, I think that more residential areas would appeal to older people because they are more relaxed and provide more space for calm recreation. I never thought of Pasadena having a young population, but then I have to take into account the amount of schools concentrated in one area, plus the fact that a lot of families in the area can afford to comfortably have more than one kid, which further lowers the average age of the region. I think that because certain areas tend to be populated by certain ages of people, that has the potential to create a bubble effect in terms of people’s outlooks and opinions solely based on the fact that residents will have lived through the same amount of life.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about the reasons behind a city’s racial/ethnic diversity, I think that for any location, there are many different moving parts which have all collided over time to yield the intricate collection of different racial/ethnic groups that coexist today in that one particular location. It’s hard to say what the most important or influential “moving part” is, and I’m certainly limited in my resources at this point in time, but I would argue that regardless of the specific location you are talking about, the history of a location is something to take into consideration. Who are the longest residents? Who are the newest residents? Were there any changes in the area’s racial/ethnic diversity? Why? To me, this last question is the most important to consider — the why question; there is always a historical reason for why one group of people became a minority group and another a majority group. In the case of the city of Los Angeles, the explanations for the city’s racial/ethnic make-up is rather intuitive if you know the city’s history. Los Angeles has a large population of white/caucasian people because, after gold was discovered in Northern California, white people poured into California and settled here. Los Angeles’ hispanic/Latinx population has origins in the Spanish rule of the area, the Spanish Mission system, Mexican independence, the Bracero program during World War II, migrant Mexican farm workers — the list goes on. Backtracking though to answer the question about the reason for living in an area, I think that, in a perfect world, people act in their own self-interest when they choose to live in a certain place. If there were no obstacles, and you could choose anywhere in the world to live, odds are you would choose to live in a place that you like. Liking a place could come from the place’s weather, environment, vibe, geographic location, etc. However, this system of choosing where to live is not how it works in the real world. As we have seen throughout history and up to this day, sometimes you do not have a choice in where you live. In our world, there are too many reasons why someone would not have this choice — an oppressive government, discriminatory laws, general costliness, or family reasons. To sum up my viewpoint, I think that the diversity of an area stems, in part, from the history of the area. Some people live in a place because they chose to live there; some people live in a place because they have no choice but to live there. All cities and places are unique in their demographics and diversity, but I do think that this pattern and system that I have layed out applies to the majority of them.
ReplyDeleteNormally, Los Angeles's poor location would easily drive most of the population away from Southern California. However, the thirst for money doesn't discriminate. Due to the Gold Rush in the 1800s, countless people with varying ethnicities traveled across the length of the United States just for a chance of striking gold. Since there was no predetermined racial makeup of Los Angeles, that would probably further motivate minorities to travel to the west coast. This was likely the spark to the hub of diversity that turned into what Los Angeles is today. As for different generations affecting diversity, I tend to think of older people as more stubborn and less progressive in their views (this might be a stereotype and I definitely could be wrong). Because of the lack of flexibility, I feel like older generations might contribute to a lack of diversity due to the fact that an influx of different races could be viewed as a change to the community.
ReplyDeleteEver since the discovery of gold deposits in what is now the Bay Area in the late 1840s, California appears to consistently offer Americans and people from around the globe opportunities that are worth the risk of living in the earthquake, wildfire, and mudslide prone Golden State. In more recent years, Los Angeles County continues to be an attractive place to live, go to school, conduct business, and raise a family. With dozens of the nations top corporations and educational institutions located within an hour of Downtown, people from almost every country on earth call LA home, with thousands more joining us every year. However, LA County has an extensive history of exclusion and segregation (legislated and otherwise). When my parents grew up in Alhambra and Rosemead (then South San Gabriel), their schools and neighborhoods were primarily hispanic. Today, the predominant racial identities are Asian and Hispanic; Alhambra is 52% Asian and 34% Hispanic, with Rosemead being 61% Asian and 34% Hispanic. Like my family, most of the families my parents grew up with now live elsewhere. A similar story can be found in almost every other Los Angeles community. For reasons that seem to evolve and change over time, cities and neighborhoods rotate through predominant racial identities in a manner that reminds me of the changing of the guard. This ongoing cycle is what makes Los Angeles ever-changing in its diversity and demographic makeups. However, there are certain pockets in the county that have managed to maintain more steady demographic changes over the years. Places like La Cañada and South Pasadena still have white people making up over half of the population, even though white people account for a little less than half of the county. Because some (mostly white) families have been able to live in the same homes or neighborhoods for generations, they have enjoyed the advantage of spending their entire lives more privileged than most. Benefits of this range from school legacies to local government nepotism and beyond.
ReplyDeleteSouthern California is always depicted as a sunny utopia in the media, and I think that plays a huge role in why so many people settle in Los Angeles. I am willing to bet that there are a good amount of people that settle in Los Angeles that are not even aware of the dangers that natural disasters pose because they are enchanted by the possibility of living in a place that is hot and sunny all year-round. I also believe the weather outweighs the possibility of natural disasters for a lot of people. Meaning that I think many people would rather live in a sunny place and take the chance of suffering through earthquakes, mudslides, and droughts than live in the freezing cold for most of the year. In reality, natural disasters do not take place as often in Los Angeles as much as it snows in Minnesota. I believe the other main reason why people settle in LA is because of the endless opportunities the city offers. LA presents the easiest access to the Movie industry, has 18 law firms based in downtown, and has 6 major league sports teams that offer many opportunities. As for diversity, I believe the great weather and the countless opportunities the city has to offer to makes LA inviting to most. Thus, many different ethnic groups end up settling in Los Angeles which leads to LA having a diverse population. As Mr. Tom eloquently stated, Los Angeles is a ten-year city. Due to the upbeat nature of LA, there is a very large population of young people in the city which I believe leads to even more diversity in the city.
ReplyDeleteThere are many things people account for when choosing a location to settle in. However, the things people take into account can be vastly different. For example, we would expect the preferences between a person who is just getting out of college to be different from someone looking to start a family. Often, common preferences between a group of people build the structure of a neighborhood and have an immense impact on who will buy into it in the future. In Old town Pasadena, there has been a lot of new apartment projects that appeal to the preferences of younger people. Thus, causing the makeup of the neighborhood to be predominantly younger people. On the other hand, a neighborhood like the one surrounding Poly has been established as a great place to start a family which has caused a draw to predominantly people looking to start a new family. Although these examples are based on age, the same could be said about race. When moving to a new neighborhood, I assume people would feel more comfortable if at least a few people shared their race. However, I don’t have a grasp on how some neighborhoods have become more diverse. It is likely due to some trailblazers who moved into predominantly white neighborhoods and others who followed in their footsteps
ReplyDeleteLos Angeles is nicknamed "the City of Stars" for a reason. Quite literally the embodiment of the American Dream, Los Angeles promises bountiful opportunities to help people prosper greatly. Initially, California lured fortune-hungry Americans to its lands through its abundance of gold. California promised its seekers money with the gold rush during the 19th century. Los Angeles specifically began to appeal to the masses when the Film Industry began. Due to the climate that was generally unchanging, pleasant, and diverse, many film studios decided to make Hollywood their home. Not only was Los Angeles advertising fortune, but now LA suggested that fame was easily acquirable as well. Fame and fortune were highly difficult to earn, but Los Angeles built a facade of easy success. Nowadays, people live in and move to Los Angeles for many of the same reasons as before. Los Angeles is a "major business" capital of the US. Of course, people associate major businesses with money. LA is also filled to the brim with celebrities. Not only does Los Angeles boast its wide array of film stars, but also musicians, comedians, social media celebrities, and television stars. With so many famous people in one place, many assume that they too will become one of those famous stars by simply moving to Los Angeles. Even with the large variety of people who move to Los Angeles, there are still areas that lack diversity. For example, high society people run La Cañada. Old money has existed in and dominated La Cañada for ages. Because old money is predominately owned by white people, there is a total lack of diversity in old money cities. Pasadena, on the other hand, is full of new money households and lower income households. New money families and lower income families tend to be compiled by more racially diverse groups. Diversity attracts minority groups and therefor aid in the further diversification of cities.
ReplyDeleteIt could have started with the cowboy, that quintessentially American image that only roamed the West for about a decade in the 19th century. But the image stuck, riding into the sunset on a rambunctious steed he’d just subdued, burrowing a path free of cacti and Native Americans for the Eastern colonials who would later come to officially colonize the place. The same colonials who sent out their most uncivilized men to first revel in and then quell all the “savagery.” The assumption of land rights (not capitalized, just colonial) certainly did not start with the cowboy or with the Manifest Destiny embroidered onto his jacket. And it didn’t end with him either. In our modern Los Angeles many of us see our place on all of this land as a given. Some of it, like in the 1840s, is not up to our standards, so we are waiting for the area to get cleaned up, for a brewery and a ceramics shop to move in, before we enjoy what Westward Expansion (to Inglewood, then Long Beach) says is “rightfully ours.” In California, there is something called “Squatters Rights” that allows anyone illegally occupying property for five or more years without interruption while adequately caring for the building to gain possession of the land. California’s case with eviction, resettlement, and appropriation seems just as outrageous, though in these proceedings the judge hasn’t considered interruption by countless calls for Land Justice nor Tenants Rights nor mistreatment of the region’s ecology nor government-sanctioned Land Rights (capitalized).
ReplyDeleteLos Angeles was founded on Untouchability. It hardly mattered that this basin was ecologically unable. Colonizing inhabitants were set on fulfilling a “god-given right” to the West and violently beat down any opposition, by Native Americans and other minorities, by the environment, by sense of reason, to live out white supremacy. The white Cowboy is not the picture book story of all of Los Angeles, but its grating arrogance does explain the denial of our ecosystem, of existence long before him, and of our disregard for a harsh reality.
When most people think of Los Angeles, I assume that they imagine the quintessential sunny days, beautiful mountains, sandy shores, and bustling cities filled with opportunity. I think there is a lack of understanding for how unsustainable the environment really is. Even as a life-long resident of Los Angeles, I rarely think about the possibilities of natural disaster or how much our landscape has been changed to support a population (save for in July when I felt an earthquake for the first time in almost ten years). It is the enticing nature of LA that brings people here, and the family, business, memories, and opportunities that make them stay. People ignore or are unaware of the possible dangers of living in LA. Los Angeles is a diverse city because of its history which has brought a variety of people and cultures to the area. Although LA is diverse, it also seems groups of different cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds are isolated from one another. Again, a result of the shaping of LA throughout history as well as the current development of housing and adjustment of costs to live. This is evident even when you look at a small sample of LA within Pasadena- the "youngest" and "most diverse" city in the Verdugos. The city is diverse, but as we discussed in class, invisible boundaries are apparent. I am curious to learn more about what shaped these boundaries.
ReplyDeleteWhile Los Angeles is often affected by natural disasters the geographical features and the climate can outweigh the fear for natural disasters. Los Angeles is located right next to the ocean and houses varying biomes and diverse ecosystems that make it an appealing place to live. Due to being an attractive location, people visit and move to Los Angeles from all over the world, thus creating a melting pot of different cultures and ethnicities. Along with the culture and physical location, I do believe that generational differences played a large role in the diversity of some neighborhoods in Los Angeles area. Neighborhoods were originally segregated in Los Angeles, resulting in large neighborhoods of solely one race or ethnicity. While Los Angeles has gotten a lot more diverse, generationally, these were the founding neighborhoods of large amounts of immigrants who faced alarming amounts of discrimination and segregation.
ReplyDelete^Josh
Delete