LlVIN' FOR THE CITY: AFRICAN AMERICAN ETHNOGENESIS AND

DEPRESSION ERA MIGRATION*

TOWNSAND PRICE-SPRATLEN

Urban ethnogenesis is a process by which a group creates andmaintains social networks and communication patterns as the basisfor institutional and communal life in urban areas. Ethnogenesis isa foundation upon which most historical, urbanward migrationshave been built, including the "Great Migration" ofAfrican Ameri­cans during the first halfof this century. Although a period of de­creased migration, the Depression was marked by sizeable move­ment in which nearly 10% ofthe total African American populationmoved interregionally. Ethnogenic measures such as NAACP activ­ism, the number of community newspapers directed at AfricanAmericans, and the longevity of a chapter of the National UrbanLeague significantly increased migration flows.

Since the period of Reconstruction, African Americanshave used geographic mobility to pursue a better life throughbeneficial ethnoracial affiliation and greater opportunity.Both before and during the Depression, growing numbers ofAfrican American southerners were essentially evicted fromrural areas because of efforts to stabilize farm prices throughcrop reduction (Fligstein 1981; Gottlieb 1991). Although theDepression crippled the nation's economy and imposed hard­ships and deprivation on all Americans, African Americanswere often "precariously clinging to the bottom rung of theeconomic ladder" (Moore 1991;117). Migration during the1930s was more limited than it had been from 1915 to 1930,the first wave of the Great Migration. Still, nearly 10% ofthe African American population migrated to a different re­gion, and most of this Depression Era movement was to ur­ban areas (Johnson and Campbell 1981; Price-Spratlen 1998,1999). Although there were few urban opportunities duringthe Depression, many African Americans moved into citiesand towns rather than starve in the countryside when forcedoff the farms (Fligstein 1981).

"Townsand Price-Spratlen, The Ohio State University, Department ofSociology, 300 Bricker Hall, 190 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210;E-mail: TPS+@osu.edu. The research for this paper was begun while theauthor was a Predoctoral Fellow of the American Sociological AssociationMinority Fellowship Program. This research was supported in part by theNIA Training Grant T32AG00208 and the Population Research Institute,The Pennsylvania State University, which has core support from NICHDGrant I-HD28263. For their helpful comments, I am indebted to Avery M.Guest, Barrett A. Lee, Stewart E. Tolnay, Daniel T. Lichter, KrishnanNamboodiri, Joan Huber, Bill Form, Frank Mott, Thaddeus H. Spratlen,Robert D. Mare, the current journal coeditors, and two anonymous review­ers. Thanks also to the late Clifford C. Clogg for his help in completing thediagnostic evaluations ofthese data. I extend a very special thanks to LaurenJ. Krivo for her detailed, kind, and consistent inputs.

Demography, Volume 36-Number 4, November 1999: 553-568

In this paper, I present an analysis of the relationshipbetween historic urban primacy, ethnogenesis, and the urbanmigration of African Americans during the Depression.Ethnogenesis is the process by which ethnic groups comeinto being by developing and refining a communal socialstructure and a collective ethos from the interplay betweensociocultural characteristics and American social structure.African American ethnogenesis has been an ongoing simul­taneous product of both external forces of racial exclusionand internal forces within African American communities. Itis both a counterformation, or a reaction to exclusion frommainstream social processes, and a proactive formation, or ameans by which African Americans seek to reaffirm their tiesto a cultural past through organizational development andvoluntary communalism (Taylor 1979; see also Jones 1985;Myrdal [1944] 1964; Price-Spratlen 1998, 1999).

Most previous research on African American migrationhas either emphasized the importance of government andsouthern regional dynamics (e.g., Fligstein 1981; Tolnay andBeck 1992) or provided single-city analyses of destinations(e.g., Gottlieb 1987; Thomas 1992). I extend this research,providing a systematic analysis of the importance of urbancharacteristics across a number of destinations simulta­neously. I consider how moving to urban areas throughoutthe United States between 1930 and 1940 was influenced byAfrican American destination-area ethnogenesis, or the in­stitutional and organizational exigencies of survival and animproved quality of urban life. Other researchers have illus­trated the importance of social organization, employmentopportunity, and industrial expansion during the heaviest pe­riods of the Great Migration before and after the Depression(Kusmer 1976; Marks 1989; Tolnay and Beck 1990, 1992).It is unclear, however, whether this ethnogenic motivationmaintained its importance as the migration continued in theface of the limited opportunities of the 1930s. I predict thatDepression Era ethnogenesis was an important social attrac­tion shaping the urban migration of African Americans. Theexpected opportunity to improve their quality of life moti­vated many African Americans to migrate to urban areas. Ifso, the heaviest flows should be to counties in which thehighest levels of ethnogenesis were taking place.

AFRICAN AMERICAN ETHNOGENESISEthnicity may have relatively little to do with Africa, Asia,and Europe, "but much more to do with the exigencies ofsurvival and the structure of opportunity in this country"(Yancey, Ericksen, and Juliani 1976:400). Evaluating

553

554

ethnogenesis can help one detail the content and historicaloutcomes of these exigencies of survival. Thus, AfricanAmerican ethnicity should be viewed in relation to urbaniza­tion and internal migration. For all groups, there is often adirect relationship between urbanism, ethnic identity, andmigration when in-migrant groups create and sustain a vari­ety of specialized institutions and services after reaching acritical mass. Prior research has shown that "the coincidenceof occupational concentration, residential segregation anddependence on local institutions and services promoted thecrystallization of ethnic identities and communities in Ameri­can cities" (Taylor 1979:1405; see also Fischer 1975;Herschberg 1973; Massey 1990). Occupational concentra­tion, in fact, may have fostered as much restrictive competi­tion as it did ethnic or racial crystallization. The process ofracial occupational concentration has previously been evalu­ated as the proletarianization of African American labor, orthe rise of the African American urban working class (e.g.,Fligstein 1981; Gottlieb 1987; Steinberg 1981).

To evaluate the historical influence of ethnogenesis, onemust evaluate the migration consequences of African Ameri­can efforts "to develop and sustain group cohesiveness andidentity [and] to establish social networks and communica­tion patterns as the bases of their institutional and communallife" (Taylor 1979:1405). For example, in an analysis of1960s migration, Liu (1975) concluded that social living con­ditions were the most influential factors in the interstate mi­gration of people of color. African American ethnogenesis isthe means by which such living conditions have been en­hanced. It is the process by which African Americans refineda sense of "urban place" in the first half of this century.Ethnogenesis improved conditions in urban destinations, in­creasing the likelihood of cognitive liberation among urbandwellers and prospective migrants alike (McAdam 1982).Cognitive liberation is "a new sense of efficacy [that makes]people who ordinarily consider themselves helpless come tobelieve that they have some capacity to alter their lot" (Pivenand Cloward 1979:3-4). The effect of cognitive liberationon subsequent mobility was, in part, a function of "thestrength of integrative ties ... [within the] established interac­tion network[s]" (McAdam 1982:49) that ethnogenesis es­tablished and maintained. In international migration, theseinteraction networks have increased access to network con­nections and substantially increased the likelihood of migra­tion to the United States (Durand et al. 1996; MacDonaldand MacDonald 1964; Massey et al. 1987).

The infrastructure of African American ethnogenesisduring the Great Migration consisted of four basic elements,each of which was an important determinant of migration inearlier historical periods: (l) a readily transferable writteninformation source (community newspapers), (2) employ­ment-related transitional services (job placement support),(3) religious supports (churches), and (4) secular support(volunteer organizations). First, African American newspa­pers and other publications detailed opportunities and thequality of life in potential urban destinations. They were themost transferable source of information and, as a result, were

DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 36-NUMBER 4, NOVEMBER 1999

often the most influential in shaping perceptions of urbandestinations. Second, job placement, business development,and other forms of occupational support by the National Ur­ban League (NUL) established and cultivated connectionswith urban businesses and played a leading role in findingjobs for African American migrants upon their arrival in themetropolitan areas. Third, churches provided access to nu­merous social supports and spiritual empowerment. Finally,volunteer organizations provided important opportunities forpolitical activism and the promotion of social awareness. Thegrowth and development of chapters of the National Asso­ciation for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),which focused primarily on local legal cases, often paralleledthe rising tides of racial awareness and racial discriminationin urban areas. NAACP activism was often a barometer ofthe potential for a better life for many African Americans,despite the organization's tradition of a small, elite member­ship. Each of these reactive and proactive processes madeimportant, independent contributions to ethnogenesis and thechain migration process (Curry 1981; Grossman 1989; Marks1989; Price-Spratlen 1998; Thomas 1992).

These elements wielded effective influence because theywere an important part of a network that gave prospectivemigrants information about urban areas, including "what lifewas like ... and virtually anything else they wanted to knowbefore leaving" (Grossman 1989:68). In addition, prospec­tive migrants wrote hundreds of letters of inquiry to publicagencies, social welfare organizations, newspaper editors,and employers, illustrating that moves of the Great Migra­tion often were highly informed decisions (Adero 1993;Gottlieb 1991; Grossman 1989; Moore 1991). As such, 1 ex­pect significantly more migrants to have migrated to placeswith the most developed ethnogenic structures. This empha­sis on urban-destination ethnogenesis should not be con­strued as an effort to minimize the importance of varioussouthern pushes that also shaped the migration. Such factorshave been thoroughly documented elsewhere (e.g., Fligstein1981; Tolnay and Beck 1992), and it is my intent to evaluatewhether ethnogenic-destination diversity is also important inshaping the historical migration of African Americans.

ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS OF MIGRATIONPrevious migration research commonly has focused on oneof four alternative perspectives on migration: the history,gravity, economic and concentration models (e.g., Fligstein1981; Herting, Grusky, and Van Rompaey 1997; Marks 1989;Massey and Espana 1987). Each is considered below.

Historical Factors: Primacy and MomentumThe period of the current analysis (1930-1940) occurred wellafter much of the urban African American system had beenestablished, given that urban residents of African descentdate back to the initial urban settlements of North America.Throughout the period of chattel slavery, free African Ameri­cans resided in cities throughout the South and the North(Curry 1981). These factors suggest that African Americanethnogenesis was ongoing long before the 1920s. A measure

AFRICAN AMERICAN ETHNOGENESIS AND DEPRESSION ERA MIGRATION 555

of urban primacy should take into account the longest­standing and most populous African American urban settle­ments in the United States before the onset of the initial waveof the Great Migration (i.e., 1910). Doing so should controlpartially for the ongoing ethnogenesis that preceded 1930.

Also ongoing well before 1930 was prior migration, ormigration momentum. That is, among a group of people, overtime, the quality of social networks in urban destinations in­creases to a point at which migration generates its own mo­mentum. Gradually, migration networks become "self-per­petuating because migration itself creates the social struc­ture to sustain itjself]," decreasing the significance of fac­tors that previously conditioned the migration (Massey1990:8; see also Myrdal 1957). The Great Migration that pre­ceded the 1930s "generated its [sic] own momentum... [as]the arrival of each migrant.i.created a new contact with po­tential migrants" (Spear 1967:133).

Gravity FactorsThe gravity model posits that migration is a function ofpopulation size and geographic distance, with the migrationbetween two locations being a positive product of their popu­lations and inversely related to the distance between them:u; = p.~, / o, x (Zipf 1946). Fligstein (1981) demonstratedthe empirical utility of the model in analyzing historical Af­rican American migration. He found that net migration ratesto "Black Belt" southern counties between 1930 and 1940were significantly enhanced when the destination countycontained a big city. I, too, am testing a destination model;thus I cannot test the "competition between origins and des­tinations" that grounds the gravity model. The destinationpopulations, however, can proxy both this and another mi­gration explanation: the significance of social networks inchain migration (e.g., MacDonald and MacDonald 1964;Massey et al. 1987). The size of the African American popu­lation is included as a control in the gravity model and as aproxy of the number of possible social network connectionswithin a given destination. Other things being equal, thelarger the population, the larger the number of potential con­nections to which one has access. I

Given that the South was the region of origin for mostAfrican American migrants, the distance between their ori­gins and southern urban destinations was small, whereas thedistance to destinations outside of the South was usually

I. Mucser (1989), for example, noted the potential limitations of usingcross-sectional population in a migration model to proxy unmeasured ef­fects. The dynamic nature of migration virtually insures that the unmea­sured effects being proxied (potential social network tics in this analysis)arc quite likely to be related to both population and the other model mea­sures. If the unmeasured faetor(s), Z" "arc at all stable over time, previouslevels of in-migration will, in part, reflect Z" so observed population will bepositively correlated with Z,. [As a result] the estimate of the coefficient forpopulation taken as a measure of its causal impact, will be upwardly bi­ased" (p. 500), biasing downward all other coefficients positively correlatedwith population. I usc race-specific population in an effort to specify moreaccurately its intended proxy for social tics. In general, ineluding popula­tion, along with the inherent biases it may introduce, in migration models isfar better than omitting it (Mueser 1989).

greater. Thus any measure of distance might also tap thelargely southern origin of African American migration. Toevaluate the independent influence of distance, one must alsoinclude regional controls in the model.

Economic FactorsThe human capital, or economic perspective, has dominatedmigration research. It posits that causation runs from employ­ment change to migration-that migrants are motivated bythe potential for enhancing their economic well-being. Ingen­eral, people move from areas of low income to areas of highincome. Although previous research has illustrated the mutu­ally dependent relationship between employment growth andmigration, growth in employment opportunities often isviewed as the critical economic determinant (Blanco 1962,1963, 1964; Greenwood 1981; Lowry 1966; Muth 1971;Sjaastad 1962). The economic perspective depicts an AfricanAmerican migrant who has made a rational choice to relocatein the face of economic difficulties in hopes of improving thefamily's financial fortunes (Tolnay and Beck 1992). Vickery(1977), for example, concluded that wage differences werethe primary cause of African American migration betweenthe South and the North from 1900 to 1960.

In the most extensive county-level evaluation of AfricanAmerican historical migration, Fligstein (1981) found thatnumerous dimensions of capitalist development significantlyshaped net migration during the 1930s. Both the absolutenumber and percentage change in manufacturing establish­ments were positive, significant determinants of DepressionEra migration in the South. Consistent with an extensive lit­erature, prospective migrants would likely consider areasmarked by economic expansion better potential locationsthan areas of slower growth. Most evidence supports the ideathat areas of economic growth experience the highest levelsof in-migration and the lowest rates of out-migration (Green­wood 1981; Wilson 1988). Though many of the historical andcontemporary economic specifications of migration empha­size the importance of economic contrasts between originand destination areas (e.g., Lindstrom 1996), measures ofdestination growth provide a control for the effect of eco­nomic opportunity in shaping the migration streams. Thus,economic expansion and job growth should significantly in­crease migration flows.

Concentration FactorsA fourth alternative model of migration considers distinctconcentration dimensions of potential destinations. Concen­tration effects are an extension of models of ethnic segrega­tion, which suggest that "the concentration of ethnic groupsis rooted in the spatial differentiation of the urban economy,and reinforced by the nature of immigrants and immigration"(Massey 1985:317). This spatial differentiation and concen­tration may promote or suppress migration, depending on theaspect of concentration being considered. Racial concentra­tion across neighborhoods within an urban area may promotemigration as the institutional restrictions on residential ac­cess combine with the prospective migrants' ethnogenic mo-

556

tive of seeking the institutionalization dependent on a criti­cal mass of people (Fischer 1975, 1982; Massey 1985). Ra­cial concentration across occupations within an urban area,however, may suppress migration as prospective migrantsseek to avoid excessive job competition in the few occupa­tional niches to which they have been restricted.

It also is important to explore race-specific aspects re­garding the position of African Americans in the economy.Consistent with prior and subsequent labor migration, urbanAfrican Americans were most often concentrated in the pe­ripheral sector of the dual or segmented economy and oftenwere excluded from most labor within the center-sector in­dustries (Portes 1978). Thus, an index of occupational black­ness measures the level of racial participation in the economyof the urban county and can be used to evaluate the role ofoccupational concentration in the Great Migration. A highlevel of racial occupational concentration and increased jobcompetition within a county is negatively related to net mi­gration (Price-Spratlen 1993, 1998). Because urban residenceis important, the ethnic or racial distribution in the urban areaalso is likely to affect migration flows. An increase in theproportion African American in an urban area, through natu­ral increase and chain migration, should strengthen the criti­cal mass necessary to further ethnogenesis and the subsequentmigration it likely instigated (Curry 1981; Taylor 1979).

THE CONCEPTUAL MODELAlthough prior research has illustrated the interdependentrelationship between migration and social forces (e.g.,Tolnay and Beck 1992), the current model's unidirectionalframework advances our understanding of migration by pro­viding a detailed empirical specification of the AfricanAmerican ethnogenic process. Each dimension described ear­lier will be enumerated with archival and census-based mea­sures pertaining to each urban-county destination. None ofthe studies previously cited operationalize the ethnogenicprocess in so much detail.

I propose that African American ethnogenesis consistsof organizational and institutional domains that were pre­ceded by pioneer urban settlements and migration momen­tum. In addition to contributing to the formation of AfricanAmerican ethnogenesis, pioneer urbanites and their migra­tion momentum also had direct effects on later migrationstreams. This ethnogenesis, although an independent effecton migration, likely occurred simultaneously with a numberof other factors that have also been shown to condition theprocesses of historical migration. These factors include grav­ity (e.g., population size and distance), economy (e.g., eco­nomic expansion, job growth), concentration (e.g., residen­tial settlement, occupational overrepresentation), and re­gional effects (e.g., differences between the South and therest of the United States). Another possible specification isthat the ethnogenic measures may be more proximate deter­minants in the migration process, intervening between thesealternative factors and the Depression Era migration flows.This alternative specification will also be considered. Prioranalyses establish a framework for analyzing the causal rela-

DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 36·NUMBER 4, NOVEMBER 1999

tionships between ethnogenesis and historical migration. Per­haps the most closely related areas are in the social move­ment and community formation literature regarding AfricanAmerican insurgency, and in the ethnic residential segrega­tion literature. The historical insurgency literature empha­sizes the organizational and communication networks thatwere essential to the cognitive liberation leading a prospec­tive migrant to choose one location over another.

This literature recognizes the significance of regional­ized pushes, or southern factors that contributed to the de­cline of cotton farming and agricultural opportunity and to aconsequent push of migrants into urban settings. A densemixture of perceptions of expanded urban opportunity at themicro level and agricultural and economic transformationsat the macro level provide the clearest lead to theethnogenesis-rnigration process. Such analyses have con­cluded that the Great Migration "was not so much a generalexodus from the South as a selective move from those areaswhere the political participation of blacks was most severelylimited" (McAdam 1982:79; see also Fligstein 1981; Tolnayand Beck 1990, 1992). This suggests the importance of ur­ban opportunity for cultural and political (i.e., ethnogenic)participation in Depression Era migration.

DATA AND METHODSThe analysis is based on urban counties throughout the UnitedStates (see Figure 1 and Appendix A). Counties represent rela­tively homogeneous areas in terms oftheir social and economiccharacteristics (Fligstein 1981). To capture the twentieth-cen­tury U.S. urban system, the 136 sample cases contain all 161cities of 25,000 or more residents in 1900. These include theprimary urban target counties among African American mi­grants. Sixteen of these 161 cities were in counties where oneother city also had a population of25,000 or more. Nine addi­tional cities were in two adjacent counties that together servedas a homogeneous single unit; these counties were combined.'Consistent with Fligstein's (1981) analysis of "Black Belt"migration, a county was included if it (1) existed in both 1930and 1940 and (2) if any boundary shift caused no more than a10% reduction or increase in the square mileage over the de­cade. The final sample contained 136 cases. These cases ac­count for approximately 95% of the 1930 African Americanurban system (i.e., African Americans living in cities of 25,000or more total residents). They also account for 90% ofthe areashaving 25,000 or more African American residents, includingall 25 cities with the largest African American populations.Given the primacy ofAfrican American migration (i.e., a fewdestinations receiving a large proportion of all migrants), thesample includes both the prime destinations and a broad rangeof potential urban alternatives.

2. The nine merged counties were in six cases because in 1900, sixcities were defined as being in more than one county. The six cases consist­ing of multiple counties arc (I) DeKalb and Fulton Counties (Atlanta, GA);(2) Chesterfield and Henrico (Richmond, VA); (3) Clay and Jackson (Kan­sas City, MO); (4) Jasper and Newton (Joplin, MO); (5) Bronx, Kings, NewYork, Queens, and Richmond (New York City, NY); and (6) Mahoning andTrumpbull Counties (Youngstown, OH).

FIG

UR

E1.

TH

EU

.S.

CO

UN

TIE

SO

FT

HE

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

AF

RIC

AN

AM

ER

ICA

NU

RB

AN

SY

ST

EM

_Sa

mpl

eC

ount

ies

EJ

Non

sam

ple

Cou

ntie

sin

Rep

rese

nted

Stat

es

EJ

Stat

esW

ithN

oSa

mpl

eC

ount

ies

Sour

ce:

Env

iron

men

tal

Syst

ems

Res

earc

hIn

stit

ute'

sM

aps

and

Dat

a.Pr

epar

edby

the

Ohi

oSt

ate

Uni

vers

ityC

ente

rfo

rM

appi

ng.

» ." ;:II

(; ~ » 31: m ;:II ~ z !:!l ::I:

Z o (j) m z m en en » z c c m "'lI

;:II m g: (5 z m ~ 31: Gi ~ (5 z UI !!l

558

Dependent Variable

African American, county-level net migration flows for the1930-1940 period are from Gardner and Cohen's (1971)Inter-University Consortium for Social and Political Re­search (lCPSR) data file containing information on county­level demographic characteristics for the United States in theperiod 1930-1950. The number of net migrants was esti­mated using a forward census survival-rate method (Shryockand Siegel 1980). For each county, both the number of Afri­can American males and females in 1930 and the numberaged 10 years and older in 1940 were known (Fligstein1981). To develop net migration estimates, I used county Af­rican American population figures from the 1930 and 1940censuses along with county data on births and deaths for thedecade. Using state age structures by race, sex, and censussurvival rates, I computed for each state the proportion ofAfrican American males and females who survived from1930 to 1940. I multiplied this proportion by the appropriatesubpopulation in 1930 in the county, producing an estimateof the number of survivors in the county's subpopulation.Then I subtracted the product of the survival rate and theage-group population in 1930 from the subpopulation total,producing a migration estimate of each African Americansex-by-age-group subpopulation. Summing these subpopula­tion values yielded a net migration estimate for the county(Fligstein 1981; see also Bowles and Tarver 1965; Gardnerand Cohen 1971; Lee et al. 1964).

To evaluate the predictive significance of population, Icreated a measure of migration flow (rather than a measureof migration rate). I added the absolute value for the largestnegative net migration count to the net counts of every casewithin each period. I then added 1 to all adjusted values,making all adjusted net flow values greater than or equal to1 for all cases. Next, I logged these adjusted counts to con­trol for their skewed distribution. It is impossible to constructonly in-migration flows because race-specific, county-levelin-migration data are not available. Net movement suggestswhether relatively more people are being forced from or at­tracted to a county (Fligstein 1981). Because the conceptualmodel is intended to measure the significance of communitycharacteristics of attraction, the importance of this limitationis likely to be quite small.

Independent VariablesFirst, to account for history (e.g., pioneer urban settle­ments), I measure urban primacy as a dummy variable indi­cating sample cases having a city of 25,000 or more AfricanAmerican residents in 1910 (just over 18% of the cases;U.S. Bureau of the Census 1963). This time point is beforethe Great Migration began and indicates areas with a long­standing African American urban presence. No race-specificmigration count for urban counties throughout the UnitedStates exists before 1930. Therefore, migration momentumis indirectly measured by the 1930 proportion of AfricanAmericans in the county's state who were born in anotherstate. The percentage born in a different state partially con-

DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 36-NUMBER 4, NOVEMBER 1999

trols for the effect of prior migrants and prior migration onlater migration.

Next, to test the proposed model of ethnogenically re­sponsive migration, I use a set of archival and historio­graphic measures. First, for ethnogenesis, the longevity of abranch of the NUL is the number of years before 1930 that acounty had a branch of the NUL. Early establishment of achapter was likely indicative of having a longer-standingAfrican American community and a higher level of ongoingjob-placement support. Twenty-three percent of the countieshad chapters of the NUL by 1930, with the other countiesnever having an NUL chapter before that year (National Ur­ban League 1990). An alternative dummy variable measur­ing the existence of an NUL chapter before 1930 had amuch weaker effect than the continuous longevity measure(results not reported).

The level ofNAACP chapter activity provides a gauge ofthe degree to which African Americans and persons sympa­thetic to African American concerns organized to promoteprogressive change in the county. These data were compiledfrom a content analysis of The Crisis, the national magazineof the NAACP (DuBois 1911-1935). The measure used is thetotal number ofactivities, both external (e.g., participating ina boycott, lobbying for expanded employment opportunity)and internal (e.g., electing chapter officials, holding member­ship meetings), in the county reported during the decade. Al­though the interval of observation for NAACP activity over­laps with that for the dependent measure, this endogeneityproblem cannot be overcome because the NAACP did notbegin keeping records of its branch activities until 1934. Noother data or organization could be substituted effectively toprovide a nationally comparative indicator of secular institu­tional support. The primacy and momentum measures pro­vide a partial control for this confounding effect.

The number of African American community newspa­pers is the total number of papers within the county directedat an African American audience (i.e., "race papers") and incirculation for at least six months during the 1920s (com­piled from Pride's work [1950]). Fifty-eight percent of thecounties had African American newspapers, whereas the re­maining counties had no such sustained race paper duringthe 1920s. Similar to NUL longevity, this continuous mea­sure is of greater explanatory value than a simple dummyvariable for the existence of race papers (results not shown).

African American churches historically have been cen­ters for social and political action (Associated Press 1993;Grossman 1989). The percentage of African Americans regu­larly attending church services in 1936 provides a proxy forthe viability of African American churches as an ethnogenicoutlet in the county. Churches are operationalized based oncensus counts for the six predominantly African Americandenominations (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1941).>The 1936

3. The six predominantly African American denominations representedin the 1936 church survey arc African Methodist Episcopal (AM E), AMEZion, Church of God in Christ, Colored Methodist Episcopal. ColoredPrimitive Baptist, and Negro Baptist.

AFRICAN AMERICAN ETHNOGENESIS AND DEPRESSION ERA MIGRATION 559

church census is by far the most comprehensive count avail­able for this period, allowing for a national race-specificcomparison of religious support. Again, the primacy andmomentum measures provide a partial control for the over­lap in the timing of the church and migration variables.Given the improved quality of African American life thatthese areas fostered, all four ethnogenesis variables shouldbe positively related to urban migration.

Consistent with the gravity model and prior analyses(e.g., Fligstein 1981; Tolnay and Beck 1992), I include thesize of the county's African American population to measurethe effect of the destination population (Inter-University Con­sortium for Social and Political Research [ICPSR] 1974). Thenumber of migrants may increase simply because of a largerdestination population (Lieberson 1980). The number of po­tential social network ties also is associated with the race­specific destination population size. The destination modelof this analysis does not allow for a specific set of origins tobe specified. The distance measure is the air mileage betweenthe sample county and the nearest predominantly AfricanAmerican county (i.e., more than 50% of county residents).These origin proxies are generally consistent with the loca­tion and direction of the three primary streams characterizingthe Great Migration. Predicted by the assumptions ofreducedaccessibility due to distance decay, distance should negativelyeffect the level of urban migration.

I include two measures of occupational growth to con­trol for the attracting influence of economic expansion: theproportionate change in the total number of jobs across 35occupational categories and the proportionate change in thetotal value added per capita within the county between 1919and 1929. This tests whether the relative pace of prior eco­nomic changes were important economic determinants (U.S.Bureau of the Census 1933; see Fligstein 1981).

I evaluate the effect of racial concentrations with occu­pational, residential, and population variables. I measure oc­cupational concentration with an index of the county-specificemployment competition faced by African Americans in1930. This measure is based on the U.S. race-specific pro­portionate representation ofAfrican Americans in each of 35occupational categories. The index measures the expectedvalue of the proportion of a county's labor force that AfricanAmericans would constitute if each occupation in the countyhad the same proportion of African American employees asobtained in that occupation in the nation as a whole.' Forexample, if personal and transportation services occupationspredominate, the index value will be high given the high Af-

4. The index of occupational blackness is based on an index of "fe­maleness" of labor participation used by Preston and Richards (1975) in thehistorical prediction of women's marriage rates. To construct the indices, 1(I) multiply the number of workers in a county in each of 35 occupationalcategories in 1930 by the national proportion of African Americans withincaeh individual category; (2) sum these category-specific expected values;(3) sum the total number of all county employees across all occupationalcategories; and (4) divide the expected value sum by the sum of all countyemployees. Because of the racial marginalization of African American em­ployment, especially in 1930, the index of occupational blackness is also anindirect index of the prevalence of menial, low-wage jobs in the county.

rican American representation in these industries. By con­trast, for a county with relatively many construction or non­durable goods manufacturing jobs, the index value will below given the low African American representation in theseoccupations. Variation across counties of the sample is in theprevalence of more or less heavily represented AfricanAmerican occupations existing within them. A high indexvalue should suppress migration: Individuals are least likelyto migrate to places where their employment prospects arelimited to primarily menial, low-paying service jobs that pre­dominate when traditionally African American jobs are over­represented (Greenwood 1981; Trotter 1991). I use the na­tional racial proportions and subsequent county-specific ex­pected values because race-specific county-level counts werenot available for 1930.

Segregation is a measure of the pattern of overall un­evenness in the residential distributions of people of colorand whites in 1940 (Taeuber and Taeuber 1965). Though1940 is at the end of the analysis period, this was the firstcensus to segment urban areas throughout the United Statesinto specific tracts of neighborhood distinction, allowing forthe construction of a nationally comparative index of resi­dential unevenness. As the index of dissimilarity, it measuresthe clustering of African Americans into racially predomi­nant areas within the primary urban center of the samplecounty. Sizeable racially homogeneous clusters gave rise toracially specific public institutions beneficial to increasingthe quality of urban African American life (Taeuber andTaeuber 1965), increasing the probability of migration.

The importance of an internal unevenness across neigh­borhoods, however, may be quite distinct from the propor­tionate racial composition in a city as a whole. Thus, the pro­portion of African Americans in the population is the finalconcentration measure. The proportion ofAfrican Americansprovides a more diffuse indicator of concentration and a con­trasting representation of racial density (ICPSR 1974). As apopulation parameter, it contributes to setting the limits ofracial differentiation more than it specifies the residentialpattern within an area (Taeuber and Taeuber 1965). As such,it is likely to be far less strongly related than residential seg­regation to migration streams. I include a set of dummy vari­ables for region to evaluate patterns of nonsouthern varia­tion in migration flows. Consistent with the rationale for ur­ban primacy, ethnogenesis may be partly a consequence ofracial proportion (and population size). Preliminary analysisregressing each of the individual ethnogenic measures onproportion and population size provided partial support forthis view.

MethodsI regress net adjusted total migration flows on AfricanAmerican ethnogenesis measures and the other independentvariables using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Ifirst regress migration flows on historical urban primacy inModell, and then add migration momentum in Model 2. Iregress migration flows on these two historical effects, alongwith all four measures of African American ethnogenesis, in

560

Model 3. To evaluate the contribution of the ethnogenicmodel further, I add measures of all four additional controldimensions (gravity, economics, concentration, and region)in Model 4. Finally, Model 5 is a full-variable model thatincludes the 1930 proportion ofAfrican Americans. Both his­tory effects are removed from Model 5 because these threevariables are too highly correlated to be run simultaneously.

FINDINGSThe means and standard deviations for all variables are re­ported in Table 1. Despite the low levels of migration in the1930s, on average, counties of the African American urbansystem experienced a net growth of more than 6,240 peopleover the decade.' Measures of ethnogenesis show substantialvariation.

Multivariate ResultsTable 2 presents the regression coefficients measuring thepartial effect of each independent variable on the net migra­tion of African Americans from 1930 to 1940.6 Variations in

5. This average net growth is the unlogged mean of the dependent mea­sure minus the largest out-migration value that I added to all cases in adjust­ing the migration flows so that logged values could be used in the currentanalysis.

6. I examined several diagnostics to test for the potential impact ofmulticollinearity among variables and the potentially inappropriate influ­ence of outlying cases (Netter, Wasserman, and Kutner 1989). First, I com­puted condition indices to assess the relative contribution of each indepen­dent variable. Only industrial blackness (55.474) had a relatively high value(with a value of 15-30 being in the probable high range). I then ran zero­order regressions, with blackness as a dependent variable, against all otherpredictors to see if any excessive R' values existed between them. High R'values would suggest that much of the explanatory value of either of thesevariables was a function of another predictor. This was not the case, as noneof the values were over 0.13. As a result, the blackness variable was re­tained in the model. Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs), which arc related toboth the zero-order regressions and the conditional indices, were also calcu­lated with similar results.

Second, I compared standard errors between the zero-order and multi­variate runs for each of the predictors. Although the standard errors for twovariables (NAACP activism and number of race papers prevalence) morethan doubled in the multivariate model, neither variable showed enormousincreases. This suggests that all of the predictors arc relatively stable acrossthe models tested. VIFs were also calculated, and similar results occurred:No variable contributed inappropriately to the variance of the model.

Third, I computed a leverage, or influence, value for each case. Al­legheny County, PA (Pittsburgh), New York, NY and Cook County, IL (Chi­cago) showed the greatest leverage within the model, having substantiallygreater values compared with all other cases. I reestimated the model ex­cluding these cases, and the results did not change substantially. Given thatthere is no clear reasonable range for leverage values, and in view of theimportance of including these cases in the model, the reported results in­clude them. These three cases might best be examined as special cases infuture work.

Finally, I ran scattcrplots of the (standardized] residuals versus pre­dicted values for each variable and found one sizeable outlying case:Charleston County, SC (Charleston). When I excluded it from the models,the overall fit dramatically improved (e.g., with Charleston, R' = 0.056 forModel I and 0.573 for Model 4; without it, R' = 0.351 for Model I and0.794 for Model 4). Thus, Charleston County, SC was excluded from thecurrent analysis.

I also tested the model using migration rates as the dependent variable(results available from the author). The rate models were significantly less

DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 36-NUMBER 4, NOVEMBER 1999

TABLE 1. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONSFORVARI­ABLES IN THE ANALYSES OF TOTAL NETFlOVYS,1930-1940

StandardDependent Variable Mean Deviation

Total net migration flows (In) 9.121 1.049

History Effects

Historical primacy 0.184 0.389

Migration momentum 56.922 23.179Ethnogenesis

NAACP activism 2.544 4.681

Number of community newspapers 0.963 1.668

NUL longevity 2.052 4.622

Religious prevalence 34.762 13.840

Gravity Model Controls

African American population 8.742 1.913

Distance 375.147 369.727

Economic Model Controls

Job growth 0.021 0.013

Economic growth 1.292 0,431

Concentration Controls

African American proportion 0.078 0.117

Occupational blackness 9.710 2.776

Residential segregation 85.202 4.729

Region

Northeast 0.353 0.480

Midwest 0.353 0.480

West 0.081 0.274

South 0.191 0.395

migration across the African American urban system resultedfrom numerous factors. As predicted, when pre-Great Mi­gration primacy is included alone in Model I, it has a strong,positive effect on migration flows.

Two considerations explain the centrality of pre-GreatMigration primacy. First, a key feature of chain migrationlinking former migrants to both long-term residents of anarea and prospective future migrants is the establishment ofinterpersonal communication linkages between an origin anda destination. Settled migrants provide information, re­sources, and opportunities for friends and relatives at originto join them at their destination. These micro-level linkages

stable in predicting migration. This is likely a result of the weakened pre­dictability of a model of cross-sectional location characteristics when popu­lation is used in the denominator of the dependent variable instead of as apredictor of flow values (Mucscr 1989). The reduced model accuracy is afunction of the misspecification of the population at risk in a net rate(Licbcrson 1980) and the exclusion of potentially influential variables nototherwise specified as location predictors. In other words, the use of popu­lation as a predictor is partly a proxy controlling for the relative influenceof these other unmeasured characteristics (Mueser 1989). When this proxyis not in the model in predicting migration estimates, the variance explainedby the model is likely to decline. This is the case in the current analysis.

AFRICAN AMERICAN ETHNOGENESIS AND DEPRESSION ERA MIGRATION 561

TABLE 2. OLS REGRESSION MODELS OF HISTORY, ETHNOGENESIS, AND OTHER DESTINATION FACTORS ON AFRICANAMERICAN MIGRATION FLOWS, 1930-1940

Variable Modell Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 ModelS

History Effects

Pre-Great Migration primacy (1910) 1.080*** 1.289*** 0.318* 0.251 *(.126) (.151) (.148) (.135)

Migration momentum 0.006** 0.0002 0.007**(.003) (.002) (.003)

Ethnogenesis

NAACP activism 0.049*** 0.048*** 0.055***(.010) (.009) (.009)

Number of community papers 0.126*** 0.071* 0.085**(.032) (.030) (.030)

NUL longevity 0.025** 0.022** 0.027**(.010) (.009) (.009)

Religious prevalence 0.002 0.002 0.002(.003) (.002) (.003)

Gravity Model Effects

African American population 0.040 0.015(.030) (.036)

Distance from African American concentration -.0002 -.0002(.000) (.000)

Economic Effects

Job growth (number of employees) 11.560*** 10.291**(3.302) (3.335)

Economic growth (change in V.A.P.e.) 0.168* 0.200*(.088) (.092)

Concentration EffectsAfrican American proportion 0.432

(.711)

Occupational blackness -0.014 -0.019(.016) (.018)

Residential segregation 0.012 0.015(.010) (.010)

Region

East -0.408* -0.215(.161) (.137)

Midwest -0.568** -0.330*(.195) (.153)

West -0.353 0.014(.375) (.340)

Intercept 8.996*** 8.606*** 8.894*** 7.131*** 7.398***(.053) (.170) (.171) (.966) (1.024)

Adjusted R' 0.351 0.373 0.669 0.764 0.751

Note: Standard errors of the OLS coefficients are in parentheses.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

cannot be measured effectively with these data and the ag­gregate model under investigation. The significance of ur­ban primacy, however, suggests that the historical echo ofthese interpersonal linkages was among the factors contrib­uting to its significance.

Second, in the early part of this century there was a pat­tern of intensifying residential segregation magnified by the

first wave of the Great Migration that was soon to follow(Lieberson 1980; Massey and Denton 1993). In 1910 thispattern had only begun to affect the lives of urban AfricanAmericans adversely, in many ways being more beneficialthan detrimental during this time. The challenges of makinga life for themselves and their families during this time likelywas a severe struggle. The positive significance of the pri-

562

macy measure, however, suggests that there was a lagged ef­fect of urban residence from the residential evenness of thepioneer urbanites that was quickly halted with the onset ofthe Great Migration. When migration momentum is added inModel 2, the lagged effect of primacy, along with the preva­lence of prior movers, remains significant in shaping Depres­sion Era migration.

Model 3 introduces the ethnogenic indicators. As pre­dicted, key aspects of ethnogenesis significantly influencelevels of African American urban migration during the De­pression. Three of the four ethnogenic variables are signifi­cant when the historical effects of urban primacy and themomentum of prior migrants are controlled. In particular, thelevel of NAACP activism, the number of community papers,and NUL longevity are significant and positive predictors ofnet migration. These findings are consistent with the viewthat African Americans moved to maximize their social andcultural urban benefits during the Depression. These factors,however, may be nothing more than proxies for the alterna­tive migration explanations. To test this, I included additionalcontrols in Model 4.

Model 4 adds variables from the important alternativeexplanations of historical migration. Their inclusion does notalter the general pattern of significant ethnogenic effects onthe migration flows. Among them, only variables indicatingthe economic model-job growth and overall economicgrowth-were statistically significant. A basic premise of theeconomic model of migration is that migration is positivelyresponsive to job opportunities (Greenwood 198 I, 1985;Muth 1971). Strong growth in the number of employeesacross 35 occupational categories significantly increased thetotal flow of African American migrants during the Depres­sion (b = II.560;p < .001). In addition, growth in the valueadded per capita within the county during the prior decadealso increased migration (b = .168; p < .05). Here, this vari­able is a proxy for the overall trajectory of economic well­being in the area. Overall wage growth was not significant(results not shown), consistent with prior findings in whichthe overall level of occupational opportunities provided amore significant pull in shaping migration streams than didchanges in wage levels over the same period (e.g., Elgie1984; Mueser 1989).

Measures from the gravity and concentration modelswere not significant in influencing the migration streams.The nonsignificance of gravity model measures holds forboth total population size (results not shown) and AfricanAmerican population size. This result is contrary toFligstein's (1981) finding that African American DepressionEra migration to southern counties significantly increasedwhen the destination county contained a big city. This in­consistency likely occurred because (1) I use a more de­tailed measure (i.e., actual logged population rather than thedummy variable for size used by Fligstein [1981 D, (2) thecurrent sample is composed entirely of urban counties, and(3) these counties are drawn from across the United Statesrather than from a single region. Perhaps the distance mea­sure is not significant because it is not an effective proxy

DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 36-NUMBER 4, NOVEMBER 1999

for distance decay, given my destination emphasis. It none­theless suggests that migration was not suppressed signifi­cantly by the number of miles between the sample countyand the nearest county of African American predominance.

Regarding the concentration model indicators, industrialcompetition suppressed migration, but this effect was not sig­nificant. During the economic stricture of the Depression,counties with an excessive number of jobs in which mostAfrican Americans were employed (i.e., often the worst jobs)probably could not be avoided by African American migrants.

Alternative ModelsI also estimated several alternative aggregate models. First,to evaluate the significance of the African American propor­tion within each area, I added this variable to the full­variable model (Model 5). This proportion was included in­stead of primacy and momentum variables, as the proportionof African Americans was too strongly correlated with thehistorical-effects indicators for all three variables to be in­cluded simultaneously. These results are shown in Model 5.

The patterns of urban migration during the Depressionwere shaped much more by history than by the relative rep­resentation of African Americans in the area. This specifica­tion, however, may capture only a portion of the influencesof these factors on the migration of this period. Specifically,the ethnogenic factors may, in part, be a result of the size orproportion of the African American population; thus, ethno­genic factors may be more proximate influences rather thannonsignificant ones. To evaluate this possibility, I regressedeach ethnogenic measure on both (1920) population size andconcentration.

Support was found for this pattern of ethnogenic prox­imity. Population size was positively related to all fourethnogenic factors, whereas concentration was positively re­lated to the prevalence of race papers and to religious par­ticipation (results not shown). In addition, the strong zero­order relationship between urban primacy and the popula­tion and concentration measures, and the likelihood that pri­macy partially captures the possible historic effects of both,further limits the possible significance of the gravity andconcentration dimensions. I then evaluated the proximity ra­tionale by excluding the ethnogenic variables from an other­wise full-variable model. Supporting the proximity rationale,in separate analyses, both African American and total popu­lation size were significant in the predicted direction. Thissuggests at least a partial intervening influence of ethno­genesis between population size and concentration and themigration flows. This partial intervening pattern extends thevalidity of the historical urban primacy rationale and can beviewed as consistent with it, as both more global populationfactors and more proximate ethnogenesis factors were im­portant in shaping the migration flows. In other words,ethnogenic dimensions likely presented the prospective mi­grant with much more localized and detailed indicators ofthe possibility for an improved quality of life at a potentialdestination when compared with the more indirect value of alarge proportion or number of African Americans.

AFRICAN AMERICAN ETHNOGENESIS AND DEPRESSION ERA MIGRATION 563

In addition to African American population size and to­tal population size, I included change in the African Ameri­can population to evaluate an alternative gravity control.The pace of population change over the prior two decadesalso significantly increased the flow of migrants to an area.Prospective migrants were most likely to choose destina­tions that were already undergoing the most rapid change.This is likely an extension of these areas having generatedthe most migration momentum or having the most well­developed migration chains. I tested population changealong with change in the proportion of African Americansto control for the effect of prior migration. Because so manyother factors can affect these changes, they were not in­cluded in the current analysis. The positive significance ofpopulation change may be viewed most directly as a proxyfor gravity competition and shows that patterns of changewere much more significant than the actual point-in-timepopulation values (Mueser 1989).

Finally, I evaluated a number of interactions. For ex­ample, I segmented alternative models by analyzing gender-,age-, and region-specific migration flows. Although thesemodels produced some contrasting patterns of variable sig­nificance, none of the differences were statistically signifi­cant. To the degree that the impact of ethnogenesis varied bygender and age, it did not do so in ways that led to alterna­tive patterns of urban migration during the Depression. Inaddition, there were no significant regional differences in thefit of the ethnogenic variables. The only control variable pro­viding a regional contrast was occupational blackness. Al­though strongly deterring migrants to urban areas of theSouth, occupational blackness actually had a positive effectoutside of the South, significantly increasing migration flowsonly to urban areas of the Midwest. This suggests that theformation of a beneficial occupational niche suggested by themeasure could occur only in urban areas outside of the re­gion in which slavery's legacy is most pronounced.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONMy objective was to examine the historical effect of AfricanAmerican ethnogenesis in urban destinations on the migra­tion of African Americans during the Depression. I arguedthat these destination characteristics could lead to increasedmigration flows as news of a good quality oflife spread. Theresults provide significant support for the influence of Afri­can American ethnogenesis on the historical urban migrationof African Americans. Community development and socialorganizing played an important function in directing theirflows of migration and in helping to explain their patterns ofinsurgency and urbanization.

Depression Era migration among African Americans wasinfluenced significantly by the ethnogenic processes ofinstitu­tional development and organizational participation. The ur­ban migration of the 1930s was significantly conditioned byseeking opportunities to voice and act on an insurgent agendafor social change. Newspapers, in particular, were a criticalelement of the African American social structure of urbancounties. They often provided the only means of communica-

tion beyond the information available through social centerssuch as barbershops, poolrooms, and churches. These "racepapers" greatly enhanced the sense of community among di­verse groups ofAfrican Americans and the resulting attractive­ness of the county to Depression Era migrants (Grossman1989; Thomas 1992). The NAACP was an institutional allywith which to protest and organize formally against many indi­vidual and institutional practices of racial discrimination. Al­though the level of activity varied dramatically among chap­ters, the NAACP was generally more proactive outside of theSouth. The longer an NUL chapter was in a county, the broaderthe ripple effect of its job placement and business developmentassistance to prospective migrants via former migrants in themigration chain. In short, in addition to more purely economicand geographic aspects, these sociopolitical processes directedmigration flows and were an important dimension of AfricanAmerican urbanward migration.

This analysis helps to explain the patterns of urbaniza­tion among African Americans. NAACP activism, NUL lon­gevity, and the presence of a race paper were related ele­ments. "Far from remaining constant, the organizational re­sources available to [African Americans] increased simulta­neously with the expansion in political opportunities...duringthis initial period of insurgency" (McAdam 1982:87). Ethno­genesis was multifaceted, and these resource increases fos­tered cognitive liberation and increased migration to the ur­ban areas where this liberation was most prevalent. Ethno­genesis succeeded in affirming a respectful sense of urbanplace, often in spite of the rather conservative sentiments thatthese measures represent. For example, in many communi­ties the race papers of the 1920s were often far from radicalin their representations of African American life. Many ofthese papers were often little more than institutional exten­sions of the "asymmetrical deference rituals" (Feagin1991:103) that characterized African American responses todiscrimination and other forms of cultural marginalization.Amidst the multiple assaults of this period, however, thatsentiment was more than enough to foster migration. In ad­dition, in many communities ethnogenesis expressed itselfin much less deferential yet disrespectful ways in respond­ing to new migrants. In Chicago, for example, the UrbanLeague commanded special influence among migrants. Eventhough "its patronizing and didactic attitudes towards mi­grants tended to discredit its advice on some matters, itscounsel on economic issues was generally taken seriously"(Grossman 1991:93).

Dependence on local institutions and services promotedthe "crystallization of ethnic identities and communities" inU.S. cities, leading Yancey et al. (1976) to suggest that"ethnicity may have relatively little to do with Europe, Asiaand Africa, but much more to do with the exigencies of sur­vival and the structure of opportunity in this country" (p.400). The results of the current study suggest that theseethnogenic dependencies significantly shaped AfricanAmerican crystallization through urban migration during theDepression. The presumed extreme deculturation of AfricanAmericans during enslavement did not leave them without

564 DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 36-NUMBER 4, NOVEMBER 1999

the failure of industrial capitalism to distribute its prosperityas broadly as the migrants had expected." The promise ofthe geographic movement to help African Americans getcloser to a position of social and economic equity was exem­plified by the vitality of historical ethnogenic activities thatdrew upon an infrastructure held together by African Ameri­can social institutions, leaders, and individual initiative(Grossman 1989; Marks 1989). What other destination char­acteristics may have played an important role? Were theseinfluences unique to a period of severe economic hardship,or were they also significant in a time of relative prosperity?Would the model hold for other racial and ethnic groups?Future analyses can answer these and other related questions,providing an even better understanding of how and when thepromises of the Great Migration were broken.

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE COUNTIES

an authentic, viable cultural heritage with which to sustainethnic identity and communal life generations later, and withwhich to bolster this communal life with the arrival of eachnew migrant.

These results also emphasize the need to broaden the "al­most exclusive emphasis on economic forces" in migrationresearch and to place greater emphasis on important socialdeterminants of geographic mobility (Tolnay and Beck1992:113). Historical ethnogenesis contributed to the cogni­tive liberation, growing vitality, and self-consciousness ofAfrican American urban communities, making them attrac­tive to prospective migrants. The rational actor assumptionof economic specifications must be adapted to take into ac­count the ethnogenically rational migrant that bolstered theAfrican American urban system during the Depression andin other periods. The economic rationality assumption doesnot properly consider other noneconomic rationality, and itdoes not properly emphasize the historical relationship be­tween structural forces and the developmental vibrancywithin urban African America.

In partial contrast to the previous explanations, ethno­genesis may be partly the process through which selectedcontrol variables for the alternative explanations might oper­ate. For example, ethnogenesis may be a consequence ofpopulation size or concentration. In this case, one would notnecessarily expect size or concentration to have an effect onnet migration flows after ethnogenesis is taken into account,as ethnogenic factors may simply be more proximate deter­minants of this migration. This alternative interpretation ispartially supported by preliminary analyses regressing eachethnogenic measure on (1920) African American populationsize and concentration. Size is positively related to all fourethnogenic factors, whereas concentration is positively re­lated to the prevalence of race papers and to religious par­ticipation (results not shown). This suggests that ethno­genesis indeed may be simply a more proximate influenceon these migration flows. Thus the current model provides across-sectional representation of a more complex causalchain in which the factors presented as being wholly exog­enous to ethnogenesis are actually linked across time. Futureanalyses can assess these patterns in more detail. Despitethese results, and consistent with my primary hypothesis,ethnogenic factors shaped the urban migration of AfricanAmericans during the Depression.

In addition to the four measures discussed here, severalother unmeasured dimensions also may have been a part ofthe ethnogenic process. The early twentieth-century AfricanAmerican women's club movement, for example, playedcritical roles in creating and sustaining new social, religious,political, and economic institutions (Hine 1991). Amidstthese and other such efforts, African Americans have beenmoving within the United States since before Reconstruction;the continuing search for greater opportunity was broughtabout, in part, by a complex set of both social and economicforces. As Grossman (1989:265) stated, however, "thedreams embodied in the Great Migration eventually col­lapsed under the weight of continued racial oppression and

Case ID

I23456

7

89

10

II12

1314

15161819

20

21

2223

2425

2627282930

3132

3334

County Name

AL-Jefferson

AL-Mobile

AL-Montgomery

AR-Pulaski

DE-New Castle

DC-District of Columbia

Fl.-Duval

GA-Chatham

GA-FultoniDeKalb

GA-Richmond

KY-Campbell

KY-Fayette

KY-Jefferson

KY-Kenton

LA-Orleans

MD-Baltimore

TN-Davidson

TN-Hamilton

TN-Knox

TN-Shelby

TX-Bexar

TX-Dallas

TX-Galveston

TX-Harris

TX-Tarrant

VA-Chest./Henrico

VA-Norfolk

WV-Ohio

CA-Alameda

CA-Los Angeles

CA-Sacramento

CA-San Francisco

CO-Pueblo

Primary City

Birmingham

Mobile

Montgomery

Little Rock

Wilmington

Washington, DC

Jacksonville

Savannah

Atlanta

Augusta

Newport

Lexington

Louisville

Covington

New Orleans

Baltimore

Nashville

Chattanooga

Knoxville

Memphis

San Antonio

Dallas

Galveston

Houston

Fort Worth

Richmond

Norfolk

Wheeling

Oakland

Los Angeles

Sacramento

San Francisco

Pueblo

AFRICAN AMERICAN ETHNOGENESIS AND DEPRESSION ERA MIGRATION 565

Case ID County Name Primary City Case ID County Name Primary City

35 CT-Fairfield Bridgeport 86 NJ-Mercer Trenton

36 CT-Hartford Hartford 87 NJ-Passaic Passaic

37 CT-New Haven New Haven 88 NJ-Union Elizabeth

38 IL-Adams Quincy 89 NY-Albany Albany

39 IL-Cook Chicago 90 NY-All five New York

40 IL-Peoria Peoria 91 NY-Broome Binghamton

41 IL-Sangamon Springfield 92 NY-Cayuga Auburn

42 IL-St. Clair East St. Louis 93 NY-Chemung Elmira

43 IL-Will Joliet 94 NY-Erie Buffalo

44 IL-Winnebago Rockford 95 NY-Monroe Rochester

45 IN-Allen Fort Wayne 96 NY-Oneida Utica

46 IN-Marion Indianapolis 97 NY-Onondaga Syracuse

47 IN-St. Joseph South Bend 98 NY-Rensselaer Troy

48 IN-Vanderburgh Evansville 99 NY-Schenectady Schenectady

49 IN-Vigo Terre Haute 100 NY-Westchester Yonkers

50 lA-DuBuque DuBuque 101 OH-Clark Springfield

51 lA-Linn Cedar Rapids 102 OH-Cuyahoga Cleveland

52 lA-Polk Des Moines 103 OH-Franklin Columbus

53 IA-Pottawattamie Council Bluff 104 OH-Hamilton Cincinnati

54 lA-Scott Davenport 105 OH-Lucas Toledo

55 lA-Woodbury Souix City 106 OH-Mah.lTrurnpbull Youngstown

56 KS-Shawnee Topeka 107 OH-Montgomery Dayton

57 KS-Wyandotte Kansas City 108 OH-Stark Canton

58 ME-Cumberland Portland 109 OH-Summit Akron

59 MA-Bristol Fall River 110 OR-Multnomah Portland

60 MA-Essex Gloucester III PA-Allegheny Pittsburgh

61 MA-Hampden Holyoke 112 PA-Berks Reading

62 MA-Middlesex Cambridge 113 PA-Blair Altoona

63 MA-Plymouth Brockton 114 PA-Cambria Johnstown

64 MA-Suffolk Boston 115 PA-Dauphin Harrisburgh

65 MA-Worcester Fitchburgh 116 PA-Deleware Chester

66 MI-Bay Bay City 117 PA-Erie Erie

67 MI-Jackson Jackson 118 PA-Lackawanna Scranton

68 MI-Kent Grand Rapids 119 PA-Lancaster Lancaster

69 MI-Saginaw Saginaw 120 PA-Lawrence New Castle

70 MI-Wayne Detroit 121 PA-Lehigh Allentown

71 MN-Hennepin Minneapolis 122 PA-Luzerne WilkesBarre

72 MN-Ramsey 31.Paul 123 PA-Lycoming Williamsport

73 MN-St. Louis Duluth 124 PA-Northampton Easton

74 MO-Buchanan S1. Joseph 125 PA-Philadelphia Philadelphia

75 MO-Clay/Jackson Kansas City 126 PA-York York

76 MO-JasperlNewton Joplin 127 RI-Providence Providence

77 MO-St. Louis St. Louis 128 UT-Salt Lake Salt Lake City

78 MT-Silver Butte 129 WA-King Seattle

79 NE-Douglas Omaha 130 WA-Pierce Tacoma

80 NE- Lancaster Lincoln 131 WA-Spokane Spokane

81 NH-Hillsboro Manchester 132 WI-Douglas Superior

82 NJ-Atlantic Atlantic City 133 WI-LaCrosse LaCrosse

83 NJ-Camden Camden 134 WI-Milwaukee Milwaukee

84 NJ-Essex Newark 135 WI-Racine Racine

85 NJ-Hudson Jersey City 136 WI-Winnebago Oshkosh

566

~PPENDIX B: CATEGORIES OF THE OCCUPATIONALBLACKNESS INDEX

Category Number Occupational Category

All occupations (total number of thosegainfully employed)

2 Agriculture3 Farmers4 Farm managers and foremen5 Farm laborers6 Wage workers7 Unpaid family workers8 Forestry and fishing9 Coal and other mineral extraction10 Building industryII Chemical and allied industries12 Clothing industries13 Bakeries, slaughter houses and other food

industries14 Automobile factories and repair shops15 Iron and steel industries16 Lumber, woodworking, furniture, paper,

printing, and other wood industries17 Independent hand trades18 Other manufacturing industries19 Construction, street maintenance, and other

like industries20 Garages and greasing stations21 Postal service22 Steam and street railroads23 Telegraph and telephone24 Banking and brokerage25 Insurance and real estate26 Automobile agencies and filling stations27 Wholesale and retail trade, except automo-

biles28 Other trade industries29 Public service (not elsewhere classified)30 Recreation and amusement31 Other professional and semiprofessional

services32 Hotels, restaurants, boarding houses, and the

like33 Laundries and cleaning and pressing shops34 Other domestic and personal services35 Industry not specified

REFERENCESAdero, M. 1993. Up South: Stories, Studies and Letters of This

Century's African-American Migrations. New York: The NewPress.

Associated Press. 1993, February 13. "Race a Key to Churches'

DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 36·NUMBER4, NOVEMBER 1999

Social Activism, Study Finds." Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Se­attle: Hearst Publishers, Section A, p. 3.

Blanco, C. 1962. The Determinants of Regional Factor Mobility.The Hague: Drukkerij Posmans.

---. 1963. "The Determinants of Interstate Population Move­ments." Journal ofRegional Science 5:77-84.

---. 1964. "Prospective Unemployment and Interstate Popula­tion Movements." Review of Economics and Statistics 46:221­22.

Bowles, G.K. and J.D. Tarver. 1965. Net Migration of the Popula­tion, 1950-60 by Age, Sex and Color. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Curry, L.P. 1981. The Free Black in Urban America, 1800-,1850:The Shadow of the Dream. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

DuBois, WE.B., ed. 1911-1935. (later edited by J.W Ivy, H.L.Moon, and W. Marr II). The Crisis. New York: Crisis Publish­ing Company.

Durand, J., W Kandel, E.A. Parrado, and D.S. Massey. 1996. "In­ternational Migration and Development in Mexican Communi­ties." Demography 33:249-64.

Elgie, R.A. 1984. "The Changing Structure of NonmetropolitanMigration in the American Deep South." Tijdschrift voorEconomische en Sociale Geograjie 75: 14-21.

Feagin, J.R. 1991. "The Continuing Significance of Race: Anti­black Discrimination in Public Places." American SociologicalReview 56:101-16.

Fischer, C.S. 1975. "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism."American Journal ofSociology 80: 1319-41.

---. 1982. To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks inTown and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fligstein, N. 1981. Going North: Migration of Blacks and Whitesfrom the South, 1900-1950. New York: Academic Press.

Gardner, J. and W. Cohen. 1971. Demographic Characteristics ofthe Population of the United States, 1930-1950, County-Level[computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.

Gottlieb, P. 1987. Making Their Own Way: Southern Blacks' Mi­gration to Pittsburgh, 1916-30. Urbana, IL: University of Illi­nois Press.

---. 1991. "Rethinking the Great Migration: A PerspectiveFrom Pittsburgh." Pp. 68-82 in The Great Migration in Histori­cal Perspective, edited by J.W. Trotter, Jr. Bloomington, IN: In­diana University Press.

Greenwood, MJ. 1981. Migration and Economic Growth in theUnited States. New York: Academic Press.

---. 1985. "Human Migration: Theory, Models and EmpiricalStudies." Journal of Regional Science 25:521-44.

Grossman, J.R. 1989. Land of Hope: Chicago, Black Southernersand the Great Migration. Chicago: The University of ChicagoPress.

---. 1991. "The White Man's Union: The Great Migration andthe Resonance of Race and Class in Chicago, 1916-1922." Pp.83-105 in The Great Migration in Historical Perspective, editedby J.W. Trotter, Jr. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Herschberg, T. 1973. "Free Blacks in Antebellum Philadelphia."Pp. 111-33 in The Peoples of Philadelphia, edited by A. Davisand M. Haller. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

AFRICAN AMERICAN ETHNOGENESIS AND DEPRESSION ERA MIGRATION 567

Herting, lR., D.B. Grusky, and S.E. Van Rompaey. 1997. "The So­cial Geography of Interstate Mobility and Persistence." Ameri­can Sociological Review 62:267-87.

Hine, D.C. 1991. "Black Migration to the Urban Midwest: TheGender Dimension, 1915-1945." Pp. 127-46 in The Great Mi­gration in Historical Perspective, edited by J.W. Trotter, Jr.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Inter-University Consortium for Social and Political Research(ICPSR). 1974. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colo­nial Times to 1970. Ann Arbor, MI: ICPSR.

Johnson, D.M. and R.R. Campbell. 1981. Black Migration inAmerica: A Social Demographic History. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.

Jones, J. 1985. Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women.Work, and the Family From Slavery to the Present. New York:Basic Books.

Kusmer, K.L. 1976. A Ghetto Takes Shape: Black Cleveland, 1870­1930. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Lee, E.S., A.R. MiIler, C.P. Brainerd, and R. Easterlin. 1964."Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables." InPopulation Redistribution and Economic Growth, United States,Vol. I. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

Lieberson, S.C. 1980. "The Interpretation of Net Migration Rates."Pp. 176-90 in Sociological Methodology, edited by K.Schuessler. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

Lindstrom, D.P. 1996. "Economic Opportunity in Mexico and Re­turn Migration From the United States." Demography 33:357­74.

Liu, B.-c. 1975. "Differential Net Migration Rates and the Qualityof Life." The Review ofEconomics and Statistics 57:329-37.

Lowry, I.S. 1966. Migration and Metropolitan Growth: Two Ana­lytical Models. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.

MacDonald, J. and L. MacDonald. 1964. "Chain Migration, EthnicNeighborhood Formation and Social Networks." Milbanks Me­morial Fund Quarterly 42:87-97.

Marks, C. 1989. Farewell-We're Good and Gone: The Great BlackMigration. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Massey, D.S. 1985. Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of Inter­national Migration From Western Mexico. Berkeley, CA: Uni­versity of California Press.

---. 1990. "Social Structure, Household Strategies, and theCumulative Causation of Migration." Population Index 56:3­26.

Massey, D.S., R. Alarcon, J. Durand, and H. Gonzalez. 1985. "Eth­nic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Em­pirical Review." Sociology and Social Research 69:315-50.

Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segre­gation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.

Massey, D.S. and EG. Espana. 1987. "The Social Process of Inter­national Migration." Science 237:733-38.

McAdam, D. 1982. Political Process and the Development ofBlackInsurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Moore, S.A. 1991. "Getting There, Being There: African-Ameri­can Migration to Richmond, California, 1910-1945." Pp. 106­26 in The Great Migration in Historical Perspective, edited byl.W. Trotter, Jr. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Mueser, P.R. 1989. "Measuring the Impact of Locational Charac­teristics on Migration: Interpreting Cross-Sectional Analyses."Demography 26:499-513.

Muth, R.F. 1971. "Migration: Chicken or Egg?" Southern Eco­nomic Journal 37:295-306.

Myrdal, G. 1957. Rich Lands and Poor. New York: Harper andRow.

---. [1944] 1964. An American Dilemma, Vols. I and 2. NewYork: McGraw-HilI.

National Urban League. 1990. National Urban League: 80th Anni­versary, 1910-1990. New York: National Urban League.

Netter, J, W. Wasserman, and M.H. Kutner. 1989. Applied LinearRegression Models. Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin

Piven, EF. and R.A. Cloward. 1979. Poor People s Movements.New York: Vintage Books.

Portes, A. 1978. "Migration and Underdevelopment." Politics andSociety 7:1-48.

Preston, S.H. and A.T. Richards. 1975. "The Influence of Women'sWork Opportunities on Marriage Rates." Demography 12:209­22.

Price-Spratlen, T. 1993. "African American Community Develop­ment and Migration Streams: Patterns of Change in 20th Cen­tury Metropolitan Migration." Unpublished doctoral disserta­tion, Department of Sociology, University of Washington.

---. 1998. "Between Depression and Prosperity? Changes inthe Community Context of Historical African American Migra­tion." Social Forces 77:515-40.

---. 1999. "Flowin' All At Once: Gender, Race and Class inDepression Era U.S. Urbanization." Race, Gender and Class6:147-70.

Pride, A.S. 1950. "A Register and History of Negro Newspapers inthe United States, 1827-1950." Unpublished doctoral disserta­tion, Department of Sociology, Northwestern University.

Shryock, H. and J. Siegel. 1980. The Methods and Materials ofDe­mography. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Sjaastad, L.A. 1962. "The Costs and Returns of Human Migration."Journal ofPolitical Economy LXX:80-93.

Spear, A.H. 1967. Black Chicago: The Making of a Negro Ghetto.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Steinberg, S. J98 J. The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity, and Class inAmerica. Boston: Beacon Press.

Taeuber, K.E. and A.F. Taeuber. 1965. Negroes in Cities: Residen­tial Segregation and Neighborhood Change. New York: Ath­eneum.

Taylor, R.C. 1979. "Black Ethnicity and the Persistence of Ethno­genesis." American Journal ofSociology 1401-23.

Thomas, R.W. 1992. Life for Us is What We Make It: BuildingBlack Community in Detroit, 1915-1945. Bloomington, IN: In­diana University Press.

Tolnay, S.E. and E.M. Beck. 1990. "Black Flight: Lethal Violenceand the Great Migration." Social Science History 14:347-70.

---. 1992. "Racial Violence and Black Migration in the Ameri­can South, 1910 to 1930." American Sociological Review57:103-16.

Trotter, J.W., Jr. 1991. "Black Migration in Historical Perspective:A Review of the Literature." Pp. 1-21 in The Great Migrationin Historical Perspective, edited by J.W. Trotter, Jr. Blooming-

568

ton, IN: Indiana University Press.U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1933. Census ofManufacturers: 1929,

Vol. 3, Reports by States. Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1941. DuBester, National Council ofChurches Census, "Number of Churches and Church MembersReported.i by Religious Group and by County." ICPSR DataTape File.

---. 1963. Historical Statistics of the United States, ColonialTimes to 1957. Series C 25-75. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-

DEMOGRAPHY, VOLUME 36-NUMBER4, NOVEMBER 1999

ment Printing Office.Vickery, W. 1977. The Economics of the Negro Migration, 1900­

1960. New York: Amo Press.Wilson, F.D. 1988. "Aspects of Migration in an Advanced Indus­

trial Society." American Sociological Review 53: 113-26.Yancey, w., E. Ericksen, and R. Juliani. 1976. "Emergent Ethnicity:

A Review and Reformation." American Sociological Review41:391-403.

Zipf, G.K. 1946. "The P\P/D Hypothesis: On Intercity Movementof Persons." American Sociological Review 11 :667-68.