1
White Metropolis
In "White Metropolis: Race, Ethnicity, and Religion in Dallas, 1841–2001," Michael
Phillips investigates the intentional establishment of racial hierarchies in Dallas, Texas. He
uncovers how the city's white elite fused systemic racism with economic aspirations to
marginalize African Americans. Phillips contends that the leaders of Dallas employed subtle yet
harmful tactics of oppression, utilizing urban planning, religious organizations, and economic
strategies to uphold white supremacy while projecting an image of modernity and progress.
Additionally, he characterizes Dallas as distinct from other Southern cities in its handling of race
relations, presenting it as a unique case study of systemic racism intertwined with capitalism.
This essay will examine Phillips' portrayal of race relations in Dallas, pinpoint the pivotal
developments and figures that have shaped the African American narrative, and evaluate the
distinctiveness of the city's history as presented by Phillips.
The Characterization of Race Relations in Dallas
According to Phillips, Dallas' white elite purposefully created the city's racial relations to
foster a culture in which economic prosperity and racial domination coexist. He claims that to
draw in businesses and settlers, Dallas officials fostered a system that kept African Americans
out of positions of political and economic influence while also promoting a sanitized picture of
racial harmony (Phillips, 5). Phillips demonstrates how the white power structure in Dallas
actively employed cultural and religious institutions to uphold the idea of white supremacy,
demonstrating that this was not just the outcome of Jim Crow legislation or post-Civil War
policies.
One of the major methods cited by Phillips is the taking over of Protestant Christianity as
a means for racial and social domination. More specifically, the religious bodies of Dallas,
2
mainly Baptist and Methodist, were the platforms that gave moral affirmation for segregation
and injustice. White ministers instilled a spirit of benevolence among white and black people,
whereby racial subordination was looked at as being preordained by God (Phillips, 5). The
combination of religion and racism, in this case, made segregation not only a law but also a
strong cultural product in the community.
Moreover, Phillips emphasizes how economic policies have maintained racial inequality.
Business leaders in Dallas intentionally barred African Americans from benefiting from the city's
economic growth. Despite modernization efforts throughout the 20th century, African Americans
remained restricted to low-wage jobs and were denied educational opportunities and housing that
could enable upward mobility (Phillips, 10). These limitations perpetuated racial inequality even
as the city presented itself as progressive and thriving.
Key Developments and Figures
Various key developments and figures defined the African American experience in
Dallas. One such figure was A. Maceo Smith, a prominent civil rights leader who also played an
essential role in challenging segregation and boosting the rights of African Americans (Phillips,
12). Smith organized pivotal boycotts and legal drives for desegregation and equal opportunity
for African Americans.
Another critical improvement was the triumph of the Dallas Citizens Council, a dominant
group of businessmen who forced their way into the city's political and economic affairs
(Phillips, 12). Although the Council happened to promote economic growth and urban
development, it also aided racial segregation by ensuring that African Americans would be the
ones without possessing any meaningful share in the city's economic prosperity.
3
The desegregation of public schools in Dallas marked a significant point in the city's
racial dynamics. This gradual and often contentious journey underscored the opposition from
white residents while showcasing the resolve of African American parents and activists (Phillips,
12). Although the Supreme Court's 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education acted as a trigger
for desegregation initiatives, carrying this out in Dallas encountered substantial resistance,
revealing deeply entrenched racial tensions within the city.
The Uniqueness of Dallas History
Phillips contends that the historical dynamics of race relations in Dallas are distinct
within the Southern framework, largely due to its emphasis on modernity and capitalism. In
contrast to other Southern cities that depended on agricultural economies and explicit racial
violence, Dallas established itself as a center of commerce and innovation (Phillips, 15). This
self-perception necessitated the city to convey an image of stability and advancement, which it
accomplished by minimizing visible racial conflict while perpetuating systemic inequality.
The most remarkable aspect of Phillips's argument is his claim that Dallas's elite had
chosen more covert forms of oppression over the violent displays of racial relations that are
typical of southern cities like Memphis or Birmingham (Phillips, 15). For instance, Dallas's
leadership implemented policies and practices that systematically excluded African Americans
from public places and economic prospects rather than relying solely on murders and racial
profiling to demoralize the populace. While white supremacy remained uncontested, this strategy
produced the appearance of racial peace.
However, Phillips argues that Dallas, nevertheless, was not devoid of racial violence. He
lists the cases of police tortures, mob assaults, and the Klan's activities; however, he points out
that they were mostly pushed into the background by the city's special regard for modernization
4
and economic development (Phillips, 15). Phillips argues that the conflict between these two
sides makes Dallas different from other Southern cities, and its racial history is a distinctive
tangible source from which to learn.
Evaluating the Argument
Michael Phillips presents a compelling argument in White Metropolis, particularly in his
examination of the deliberate tactics employed by Dallas’s white elite to sustain systemic racism
while simultaneously projecting an image of advancement. His insights into urban planning,
religious institutions, and economic policies as mechanisms for racial control are particularly
striking, especially his analysis of Freedman’s Town and its subsequent destruction under the
pretext of modernization (Phillips, 20). These instances effectively illustrate how Dallas
intertwined modernity with oppression, establishing a model of white supremacy that, while less
overtly violent, was profoundly ingrained. The thorough evidence and nuanced exploration of
these strategies significantly bolstered his argument and enhanced my understanding of the
intricate dynamics of race relations in Dallas.
I was not entirely convinced by his claim that Dallas is singular. Even though Phillips
highlights the unique ways in which Dallas enforced racism, many of the practices he mentions
— like displacing African American communities through urban renewal — also occurred in
cities such as Atlanta and Houston. In reality, the effects of systemic racism—economic
disenfranchisement and social exclusion—are consistent throughout Southern cities, no matter
how they are implemented (Phillips, 20). While it may be commendable that Dallas maintained
its racial hierarchies with modernity and subtlety, I believe Phillips exaggerates its
distinctiveness within Southern history at large.
Conclusion
5
Michael Phillips offers a perceptive, in-depth analysis of racial relations in Dallas in
White Metropolis. The white elite of the city established a racial hierarchy that coupled
institutional oppression with economic desire. His depiction of the African American experience
highlights Black communities' and leaders' resilience and generosity in the face of great
suffering. In addition, his analysis of Dallas's larger past highlights a nuanced relationship
between the city and modernity with racial implications. In the larger framework of Southern
history, Phillips' case for uniqueness is undoubtedly less compelling despite being thought-
provoking. The work is nevertheless a valuable addition to the body of knowledge on race,
power, and identity in the American South.
