Though I have little to no personal experience of observing racial dynamics, Herman’s idea of residential, occupational political and general economic succession, where a group claims monopoly on vital, limited resources and improves conditions for their children, who then move on to a higher standard of living and surrender the resources to the newly arrived and still unestablished group that is looking for a way to establish their own monopoly and promote development in their ethnic community, intuitively seems coherent to me. I don’t buy Massey’s theory (mentioned by Herman) that since “the movement of Black people into White residential neighborhoods led to greater out-migration of Whites than did the movement of Hispanics into formerly White neighborhoods,” this proves that skin color is a more decisive factor in racial conflict than perceived cultural difference. It seems to me that there are too many other potential factors to be making that statement from the information given.
The Anti-abolition riots case is interesting because it supports Massey’s theory of color over culture and Herman’s theory of succession, while reversing his idea of unification and increased assimilation through cultural similarity. Even though the blacks and whites were unified by religion (the conflict began when a black man attended a white church gathering), the religious middle ground was not only outweighed by skin color, but offended the whites because it pointed out the cultural similarity. Given the context of slavery times (down south, at least), there were emotional ties to racial superiority, which was challenged by Tappan’s attendance of the church gathering and partaking in claimed white culture. It is evident from the fact that the rioters didn’t touch the decrepit alley of Cow Bay, instead focusing their attacks on black households and businesses, as the whites are obviously threatened by the blacks’ residential and occupational succession in the neighborhood, and are attempting to prevent it.
Simon Plutser-Sarno
