Chicago on the Make: Power and Inequality in a Modern City

by Andrew J. Diamond

"Effectively details the long history of racial conflict and abuse that has led to Chicago becoming one of America's most segregated cities. . . . A wealth of material." — New York Times

Winner of the 2017 Jon Gjerde Prize, Midwestern History Association
Winner of the 2017 Award of Superior Achievement, Illinois State Historical Society
Heralded as America’s quintessentially modern city, Chicago has attracted the gaze of journalists, novelists, essayists, and scholars as much as any city in the nation. And, yet, few historians have attempted big-picture narratives of the city’s transformation over the twentieth century. Chicago on the Make traces the evolution of the city’s politics, culture, and economy as it grew from an unruly tangle of rail yards, slaughterhouses, factories, tenement houses, and fiercely defended ethnic neighborhoods into a truly global urban center. Reinterpreting the familiar narrative that Chicago’s autocratic machine politics shaped its institutions and public life, Andrew J. Diamond demonstrates how the grassroots politics of race crippled progressive forces and enabled an alliance of downtown business interests to promote a neoliberal agenda that created stark inequalities. Chicago on the Make takes the story into the twenty-first century, chronicling Chicago’s deeply entrenched social and urban problems as the city ascended to the national stage during the Obama years.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Race, Politics, 21st Century, American History

435 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 1, 2017

Reviews

[Michael Finocchiaro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Caveat emptor: I know the author personally (another baseball dad), but I still feel I can give an objective review of this excellent book.

In Chicago on the Make, Andrew Diamond gives a sweeping history of the great city of Chicago and the matrix of power and racism that undergirds it. Starting in the early 20th century and bringing it up to 2016, we learn of how the corridors of power were consistently white and how the minority populations were coopted time and time again. He does an excellent job of explaining the sociological origins of the ghettos and hyperghettos as well as explanations for the incredible violence in them. Having been to Chicago as one of the white businessmen he describes, I'll have to admit to have missed seeing all the seediness that is carefully hidden from view. In the chapter "White and Black", his analysis of the musical scene is quite nuanced and a bit heartbreaking. I thought that I was seeing the blues at the Kingston Mines and Buddy Guy's Blues club, but apparently, I was seeing a "floating signifier" instead because these clubs were all moved purposefully away from their original locations in black neighborhoods to "safe" white neighborhoods in order to bring in naive tourists like me. -Sigh-
I did really appreciate however his discussion of Okeh records and the story of Eric Dolphy. This is just one example though of the depth with which Diamond treats the subject of Chicago as both object and character in this book.

A lot of time is spent describing the two Daley machines and it is shocking how long the level of shenanigans went on and yet one realizes that superficially, it was successful in making Chicago look superficially successful and attractive despite the massive social costs. I also appreciated the tidbits about Obama's time in Chicago - even if they add some surprising and disappointing insight into some of the decisions he made as President.

I highly recommend this book as a history of Chicago and particularly a study of the nuances of racism and how issues are manipulated to maintain repressive systematic segregation albeit under different names.

[Jeanette · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's better than a 3, possibly 3.5 stars but I'm not the person to rate this book. Too many things or events he states as happened one way, I saw with my own eyes coming or going in quite other directions that if all become told were quite different. Especially within "after" consequences for the union workers, neighbors, people who were there in the park etc. And why did he start the history in the era he did? Why not before the fire (1871)? So many "eyes" questions for me here. He does not hold Chicago "eyes" for witness or context but one which has a nearly rote liberal toward progressive edge to both definition and explanations. And that often doesn't notice or see underpinnings of what's there in the there. And essential. Only in a 2 or 3 sentence "opposed" idea refrain at the end of any particular 7 or 8 page structural connection to cause/form does he begin to conceptualize the negatives for public housing and the welfare system over decades, for instance. Nor does he begin to cite all the issues that have become for many of us with the "eyes" unforgettable for the eminent domain, property losses and other dire, dire outcomes never addressed for any redress for massive South side communities or even mildly acknowledged here. Especially with the Italian neighborhoods that were decimated by the expanded U. of I. campus plus constructions.

But that was not my primary concern for the last 3 or 4 decades in this book- any of that. This following was. How in the heck could you do a history of Chicago and the very real consequences of nearly every aspect or access when you do not have Michael Madigan in the book sections of research, citing information, indexing that follows the book. And also only have Dick Mel in two different page references. HUH??? This made me question many other assumed structural definitions here of cause and effect in this book for the places North I have not experienced. Because doing a book that has POWER in the title and not having those two as core for the last 3 to 4 decades?

For those who care enough to read this far to this reaction, here's the deal. Right now our TV commercials feature 3 other states' governors (Indiana, Wisconsin and Missouri) telling Mike Madigan IN LENGTH that he deserves the high five, great backslap, everlasting thanks for running all the business he has out of Illinois. And it's the truth. Those three other states all won big time, and a couple of them are smoking economies on fire. I'm pretty sure he's (Mike Madigan) in his 4th full decade of power.

And what about all the Obama neighborhood controversies that reigned for years from his neighbors beyond on how it was built (you try building your house on some one else's property and see what happens to you)? Or the facts around the placement and plans for the Obama Presidential Library? This is supposed to be until 2016 this book? Just now it is placed in Jackson Park (U.of Chicago rejected among several others) but the plans have been abbreviated in size and there is considerable protest to get it out of the park completely now. Parks were for people by law from Montgomery Ward onward, not private entity building. People protested enough to get the parking lot plan put underground already. There is not going to be Obama personal record or objects as in the other Presidential libraries either- it's small and an ugly blocking tower shape- opaque walls with no "front" that is discernible. We get these explanations every other night with changes to make it better or acceptable on Channel 11 WTTW (PBS) Chicago Tonight.

So much minutia of every issue and no Dick Mel or Mike Madigan (each would require 3 or 4 books for the kind of detail Andre J. Diamond puts into other much more minor inputs). It's a good book for background but it's not anywhere near a complete picture. And especially not for the South side where most of the people of Chicago live.

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I gave it just three stars, but it's possible I'm being too hard on it. The book wasn't what I expected it to be, and it took me a while to accept what it was. It got better as it went along.

The title made me thing it was going to focus heavily on contemporary Chicago. After all, inequality is a trendy topic nowadays - and add the word "modern" to it -- well, that really sounds like it's going to be recent.

Not quite. This does get into the 21st century, but begins way back in the Progressive Era. Essentially, it's a history of Chicago since 1900. (Why start then? Frankly, I'm not fully sure, other than the Progressive Era was an era of an increasing scope of government and bureacritzation of it).

One other problem I'd say about this book: the rubrics or "power and inequality" are a bit too general. You could fit just about anything into this, so sometimes it felt a little flat to me; more like a general history than a particular point.

OK, for the material itself.....

Chicago seemed to be coming apart in the Progressive Era. It was tops in violence and had as series o bad labor strikes in 1904-05 (stockyards and teamsters). There was racial anxiety. This helped lead to the City Beautiful movement and the Burnham Plan. There was the race riot and later Cermak's election. For Diamond, Cermak was more about making business work than fighting for social justice and his term neutralized anti-capitalist rhetoric. The first chapter thus takes a third of the 20th century.

Black Chicago was emerging with the Defender as its paper. A lot of "policy" betting occurred, and it helped prop up all sorts of black businesses. A. P. Randolph got his union going, but had to overcome the initial opposition of the black churches. Real estate was a growing industry in Bronzeville.

Race in 1940s Chicago cost Ed Kelly the job as mayor. Blacks were part of the machine. Zoot suits became a symbol of a new attitude in the ghetto. Englewood: blacks enter and whites flee. Whites use terror to keep blacks out of a neighborhood.

The 1940s racial violence was largely hidden from the outside world, but it blew up for the nation in Cicero 1951. Blacks were angry at Kennelly. Trumball Park also made national news. Daley took over with the motto, "good government is good politics." Daley handed over planning to Chicago's future development to the city's business community. It's proto-neoliberalism. But patronage was a quasi-Keynesian thing that cut against any neoliberalism. Neighbhorhoods opposed his urban renewal plans.

There was increasing tension between white and black youth gangs. Puerto Ricans began arriving and gangs attacked them. Willis became a hero to the Bungalow Belt in the early 1960s. Black gangs began playing a leading role and MLK tried to win them over. It fell apart as they didn't trust non-violence, especially after Marquette Park's march. Working class blacks often didn't care about open housing. Some top gangs staged plays, helped calm near-riots, led vocational training efforts in the late 1960s.

1968 brought riots. Nixon's Law&Order backlash fit perfectly with Daley. Chicago was a backlash city before the term caught on. Red Squad stifled local leftist activity. Blackstone Rangers didn't support Fred Hampton. Cops killed him and Mark Clark. In the 1970s, Chicago lost 15% of the retail stores, 25% of its factories and 14% of jobs. Also: a skyscraper boom at the same time. Downtown was developed while parts failed. Late Daley had an even closer connection to business, which was needed as federal funds waned. Then came Harold Washington and the book's great "what if?" moment. He seemed genuinely interested in improving the neighborhoods. But he had Council Wars and then he died.

The 1995 heat wave showed where the city's priorities were. Hundreds die of a "natural disaster" that local policies made worse. The elderly and poor were ignored. This was after decades of Loop-fixation by City Hall. By 2000, the city's aggregate numbers were going up and it kept its middle class, but a "second Chicago" was emerging. White households had a median income of $49K, but it was just $37K for Latinos and $29K for blacks. Gangs had crack wars instead. Gang membership skyrocketed from 70K in 2000 to 125K in 2006. Lack of opportunity. Education reform created a multi-tiered school system. Talk of charter schools often went along with less local input into the decision-making process. Daley still won half of minority votes, though. The book really likes Bobby Rush's 1999 "2 Chicagos" campaign, but he lost badly, even with blacks. Daley gave HUGE subsidies to Boeing and United and focused on touristy parts of the city (sports stadiums, Navy Pier). Meanwhile, 137 were tortured into confessions at South Side Area 2 police station and the hired truck scandal occurred. 100,000 manufacturing jobs were lost from 1986-2000 but constrution jobs let him keep support in minority efforts. Entertainment helped there, too, as kids focused on Michael Jordan instead of social justice. Budget problems worsened after 2008. A backlash against Daley began in 2006. Unions took him on in 2007 city elections. Still, class and ethnoracial problems often butted into each other, making broad-based support harder to get. Gentrification occurred, where mostly whites dipsplaced mostly poor minorities. Some minorities also gentrify, though. (Note: Asians? Does this book ever get into them at all? Not nearly as much as it should in the latter part). Ethnic solidarity was a way to rally support against gentrification. Middle-income places went up, but in reality the property owners (white gentrified) were the ones who had all the power in the areas, leaving the poorer people there powerless in their communities. The better off also opposed efforts at integration. Mexicans, Indians, and Poles made up a lot of immigrants.

Rahm Emmanuel campaign as a voice for change, but it's largely the same old Daley playbook. Cuts in mental health facilities were harder on minority areas. Ditto CTA cutbacks. TIF funds keep going to Loop projects, even though they were meant more for working/poor neighborhoods. In 2014, 47% of the blacks aged 20-24 were neither in school nor employed. (Compare: it's "only" 31% for blacks in LA and NYC). So that's why the murder rate skyrocketed. But the city didn't do anything about that. Instead, it spent $155 million for a DePaul sports arena. The aldermen were compliant so whatever anger was out there wasn't expressed at the polls. There was more anger at "Mayor 1%" as the teachers struck. Black protest was up after Ferguson and especially after Laquan McDonald. Not only do most whites not express support for BLM, but neither do Hispanics. In fact, only 33% of Hispanics express any support for it, compared to 40% for whites. There is black versus Hispanic problems. Chicago is still ethnoracially balkanized.

The back half of the book is great, but the front half feels like a prologue that goes on for far too long.

[Rob Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite some inaccuracies (Nelson Algren's famous piece is *not* a poem) and occasionally awkward prose, this is a decisive and often lacerating overview of Chicago history. And quite evenhanded as well--he points out Richard J. and Richard M.'s true achievements even while decrying the myriad side effects of those achievements. Well worth reading.

[Joan Buell · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a slow read, but I really enjoyed it. My husband and I worked in youth ministry on Chicago's west side from 1966 to 1985 and lived in the Austin community. We moved there from a Connecticut rural community, as young white twenty-somethings with one child. My husband had graduated from Moody Bible Institute, and had been involved in youth work while there and was invited back.
It was enlightening to read of the history of the city leading up to the 1960's. We of course lived the turmoil that was the next two decades on a very personal level, working with children and youth from the Henry Horner high rise projects on West Lake Street. This book helped me gain the larger picture of what was going on city-wide during those years, as we had a very localised focus. The greatest shock to my white New England mentality at the time was the rampant police discrimination and brutality. I knew policemen as friendly adults you could trust, but not so on West Lake Street in Chicago.
The latter chapters of the book caught me up on what has happened in Chicago since we left in 1985 ( due to family responsibilities back east.) We have read about it from afar, but this gave me the interesting details. We still have many friends in Chicago, most of them former "kids" from the youth center, but when we connect we seldom talk of politics. I returned a couple years ago, rode the buses and witnessed Milennial Park, and the gentrified neighborhoods, and the low rise buildings that replaced the Henry Horner Homes. Unfortunately, Dr. Diamond's book does not end with much hope for a city that is more polarized than ever.
The book may be hard for someone without a connection to Chicago to follow. I knew the street names, and the neighborhood names, which helped me visualize what I was reading. And I still love the city, and enjoyed the book.

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought “Chicago on the make” because I wanted to learn more about the city that I was about to visit. It always puzzled me why Chicago became the dominant mid-West city in the United States, and not Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, or Minneapolis.

The book is a very well researched and comprehensive background of Chicago’s growth in the 20th Century, until 2016. It covered in great detail the Who, What, When, and How, about Chicago’s development - but not so much the reasons Why it developed.

The one thing I learned about why Chicago rose to prominence was its savvy government, and elite business community, who both helped keep this great city growing and together, despite the tremendous racial and ethnic forces that could have pulled it apart. The ruling class of Chicago gave just enough power and money to the minority Black, Mexican and Puerto Rican, Easter European, and Asian communities to keep them from rebelling.

I felt that the book would have been better if it included more context around what helped make Chicago great. This could include history (e.g., the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 that destroyed 17,000 structures and the need to rebuild) geography (Lake Michigan), transportation infrastructure and the world’s technology (e.g., Railroads, Digital infrastructure). that caused it to grow and remain prosperous to this day.

The book was also a bit too dry for my liking.

That said, as a historical record of Chicago, it would be difficult to want more in a book about this interesting city. My criticisms result mostly from my expectations, which were not well aligned with what the book delivers.

I still want to know more why Chicago rose to prominence above its neighbouring cities, and would have also liked some projections about Chicago’s possible future.

Can anyone recommend a good book that would help me with this?

[Viral · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an incredibly comprehensive overview of the political economic development of Chicago, from its origins as an industrial powerhouse to its modern transformation into a starkly unequal city of finance and tourism.

While little in this book was new to me, as someone quite familiar with this story, it was really nice to see it laid out in such clear detail. I would caution that this might not be ideal for all readers, as it does seem to target a more academic audience, it is still nevertheless the most complete analysis of how Chicago does very much represent the story of America. The story of how industrial manufacturing gave way to service and financialization, and the corresponding political order that legitimized this transition by destroying civic engagement and demobilizing people.

This book does end at 2017, so it does miss out on several years of crucial new context since then, but the ending does seem prescient and I believe is still valuable. Still a great recommendation for folks looking to learn more about the history of Chicago.

[Izzy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book helped me to put in context a lot of the history I lived through in Chicago when I lived there between 1959 and 1996, and where my son loves now; the compromises that the Daleys made to grow the Loop and gentrify the areas around it without significantly addressing the disparities experienced by the underclass blacks and latinos. He explains why and how the machine lasted until it finally broke at the end of Rahm’s 2nd term. How Harold W. Was able to win two terms, but died from a combination of too much fast food, cigarettes and political opposition that resounds of the way that Barack was treated by his loyal opposition.” How the Daleys and Rahm kicked the can down the road for 50 years until the threadbare state of the emperor’s clothes became apparent and Rahm realized he’d be better off in Japan. Some very nice ethnographic maps of Chicago.
file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attach...

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.6

[Augustin · Rating 5 out of 5]

A comprehensive, detailed history of the city that is enjoyable to read.

[Katya Vinogradova]

A digital copy of this book was provided to me by University of California Press via NetGalley.

A very comprehensive history of Chicago. Too dry for my taste, especially after reading the wonderful "Up in the cheap seats". I've never been to Chicago nor have I ever been to New York. But after reading "Up in the cheap seats" I feel like I know Broadway better than I know my own neighbourhood. While "Chicago on the make" left me overwhelmed with information but still clueless as to what Chicago really is like.
Not my kind of book, for sure.