Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Slick Vik

FDR's redlining policies helped cause white flight

Recommended Posts

It really started after the Great Depression. So in the early to mid '30s, the federal government realized that home ownership was going to be a major way to build and fortify the middle class. So the Roosevelt administration starts to back loans. And so you only had to put down 20%. And this is when the practice of redlining actually began. The federal government was the one who introduced redlining.

It was not just about whether a neighborhood was black or not, but whether that neighborhood was integrated, and the government wanted to provide a disincentive to live in an integrated neighborhood. So if you were a white homeowner who didn't mind living in an integrated neighborhood, you could not get a loan. And if you owned a home in an integrated neighborhood, you knew that you could not resell your home to other white folks, so you had to sell your home to black people and get the hell-- oops, excuse me-- get the heck out of there. Because your property values were absolutely going to go down. It had nothing to do with whether the black people in your neighborhood could afford to pay their mortgage

Right, exactly, not keeping their properties up. It was about the fact that the government was deeming these neighborhoods as less valuable. And so your property values were going to go down because the government had decided that black and integrated neighborhoods were automatically less valuable.

And what ultimately happens, of course, between 1934 and 1964, 98% of the home loans that are insured by the federal government go to white Americans, building up the white middle class by allowing them to get home ownership. And black Americans are largely left out of that process. And, if there's one thing that's amazing about all of this, is how efficient the federal government was in creating segregation.

Around 1930, most black Americans in Northern cities are living in neighborhoods that are about 30% black. By the '60s, the neighborhoods of African Americans in the industrial Northeast are 74% percent black and higher.

No other racial or ethnic group has ever been that segregated. Even when you had large groups of immigrants coming from Ireland or Poland or Italy, even in places where they had Little Italys and things like that. So by 1960, cities have largely been abandoned by white Americans, you have massive public housing projects, where nearly everyone in there is black and poor, and even if you're middle class and black, you can't move out of those neighborhoods. You're still forced to live in those very dead neighborhoods.
 

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/512/house-rules

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

600+ views but not a single response? This is one of the most fascinating things I've ever come across. Shameful and sad but explains why neighborhoods are so segregated to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the government back then realized that home ownership would keep people "calm" or less prone to protest or revolt. So Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, etc were born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the government back then realized that home ownership would keep people "calm" or less prone to protest or revolt. So Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, etc were born.

 

The problem is loans weren't available to non whites so that is a big part of the race riots of the late 60's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is loans weren't available to non whites so that is a big part of the race riots of the late 60's

Gee, is that what they teach in schools these days? The Detroit riots, specifically, were started when the police raided an unlicensed bar, and it radiated out from there. Eventually mob mentality takes over, and you have people of all races standing at their homes and businesses with guns to protect themselves and their property. Same thing happened with the Koreans in the LA riots in the early 1990s. 

 

As for Detroit, the media was the first to call it to a race riot, deliberately pitting people against each other (they STILL do that type of thing, see Trayvon Martin case). With things like bussing kids across town to go to schools, and the elected Coleman Young demonizing anyone who wasn't black.

 

But of course, that's not what really happened. The cause for the race riots and subsequent outflow of people from Detroit were solely due to the advents of freeways (boo! hiss!).   <_<

Edited by IronTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is loans weren't available to non whites so that is a big part of the race riots of the late 60's

That's a statement that's not rooted in reality. I've never seen a reputable reference that mentioned redlining as a contributing factor to race riots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original topic is actually quite fascinating and a self fulfilling prophecy. It was a different time and place. Fears were that neighborhoods of mixed color would drop in price. They fulfilled that prophecy by not lending to anyone that wanted to buy houses in those neighborhoods, and (shocker) the values dropped.

 

Speaking of shock and race, I was quite shocked on Wednesday when I went to Jury Duty and when I filled out that slip of paper it explained that filling in my race was a state law. Now why would that be? Why is the government insistent upon caring about what I say my race is? I very happily ignored that box, and got a stern warning from the clerk that the judge might not find it amusing. I wasn't trying to make a joke.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, is that what they teach in schools these days? The Detroit riots, specifically, were started when the police raided an unlicensed bar, and it radiated out from there. Eventually mob mentality takes over, and you have people of all races standing at their homes and businesses with guns to protect themselves and their property. Same thing happened with the Koreans in the LA riots in the early 1990s. 

 

As for Detroit, the media was the first to call it to a race riot, deliberately pitting people against each other (they STILL do that type of thing, see Trayvon Martin case). With things like bussing kids across town to go to schools, and the elected Coleman Young demonizing anyone who wasn't black.

 

But of course, that's not what really happened. The cause for the race riots and subsequent outflow of people from Detroit were solely due to the advents of freeways (boo! hiss!).   <_<

 

President Johnson appointed a commission known as the Kerner Commission, Republicans and Democrats, to look into the riots, which were freaking out the entire country-- no surprise. In debates, some members of Congress argued that civil rights legislation, including a housing law, would reward and encourage rioting. The Kerner Commission's report came out while Congress was debating a fair housing bill for the third time, after it had failed to pass twice before.

 

The report was published as a paperback book-- I'm looking down at a copy right now-- and it's got three questions emblazoned on the front. These are the questions President Johnson had publicly asked the commission to address.

What happened? Why did it happen? What can be done?

 

Nikole Hannah

It sold something like two million copies when it first came out, so Americans were actually really interested--

 

Nancy Updike

That's a bestseller.

 

Nikole Hannah

--in this report. It was definitely a bestseller, and back then it was certainly a bestseller. But you have to understand, there had been four years of rioting in cities all across the country. And so I think many Americans were anxious to read an assessment of why this was.

 

Nancy Updike

The report is more than 600 pages, but its conclusion was simple, and has been famously and repeatedly quoted since. Quote, "Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black and one white, separate and unequal." The commissioners had spent months going to the cities, looking at data, interviewing people, residents, police, politicians, and they concluded that there was one central driving force behind the riots. This is Nikole quoting from the book. She's got her own copy.

 

Nikole Hannah

"Segregation and poverty have created, in the racial ghetto, a destructive environment totally unknown to most white Americans. What white Americans have never fully understood, but what the Negro can never forget, is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it."

 

Nikole Hannah

So I think people tend to think that generally people live like they do. And I think that they took great pains to say, we went into these communities--

 

Nancy Updike

We the commission.

 

Nikole Hannah

Exactly, we the Kerner commission. We're like you. You know, we're a largely white male group, and we went into those communities, and--

 

Nancy Updike

They're not living like us.

 

Nikole Hannah

--we found something-- yeah-- that we did not imagine.

 

Edited by Slick Vik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a statement that's not rooted in reality. I've never seen a reputable reference that mentioned redlining as a contributing factor to race riots.

 

Except the 600 page report written by the Kerner Commission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race is no doubt an endlessly interesting lens, but for some of us the takeaway on this subject is, how very different an instrument a mortgage once was, and vastly less consequential; and how wholly artificial this supposed American "triumph of the city." As usual, thanks, FDR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except the 600 page report written by the Kerner Commission

 

As I expected, your "retort" was nothing more than a copied and pasted chunk from the SAME INTERVIEW YOU ORIGINALLY POSTED IN THE FIRST POST. The Kerner Commission had all sorts of flaws, and these "commission reports" are often flawed anyway. The 9/11 Commission Report, likewise took a bunch of criticism and had flaws in it as well. Do you agree with the latter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I expected, your "retort" was nothing more than a copied and pasted chunk from the SAME INTERVIEW YOU ORIGINALLY POSTED IN THE FIRST POST. The Kerner Commission had all sorts of flaws, and these "commission reports" are often flawed anyway. The 9/11 Commission Report, likewise took a bunch of criticism and had flaws in it as well. Do you agree with the latter?

 

Yes, from someone who has spent years researching the subject, gone into national archives. Very easy for you to simply discredit. Here's some more information for you by the way.  

 

Nancy Updike

 

Around 1930, most black Americans in Northern cities are living in neighborhoods that are about 30% black. By the '60s, the neighborhoods of African Americans in the industrial Northeast are 74% percent black and higher.

 

Nikole Hannah

No other racial or ethnic group has ever been that segregated. Even when you had large groups of immigrants coming from Ireland or Poland or Italy, even in places where they had Little Italys and things like that. So by 1960, cities have largely been abandoned by white Americans, you have massive public housing projects, where nearly everyone in there is black and poor, and even if you're middle class and black, you can't move out of those neighborhoods. You're still forced to live in those very dead neighborhoods.

 

Edited by Slick Vik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's some more information that I copied and pasted from the same article I already mentioned twice.

 

Fixed it for ya.  ;)

 

By the way, you never answered my question. Is the 9/11 Commission Report also a true, unadulterated report of what really happened? If no, then there's going to be obvious errors in your Kerner Commission as well which you refuse to address. If yes, then you're perhaps too trusting of information.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fixed it for ya.  ;)

 

By the way, you never answered my question. Is the 9/11 Commission Report also a true, unadulterated report of what really happened? If no, then there's going to be obvious errors in your Kerner Commission as well which you refuse to address. If yes, then you're perhaps too trusting of information.

 

 

The two reports are totally different. Here's a quote from former president nixon as well.

 

In a private memo to his advisers, Nixon wrote, quote, "Even if I should become convinced, and I don't think it would be possible to convince me, that forced integration of education and housing was in the best interests of blacks and not too detrimental to whites, I could not possibly support it in good conscience."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguably, while we're on the subject, I would say that it was LBJ that did the most damage with his "Great Society" programs. Here's a quote for you that he said on record: "I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years." He was in office from 1963 to 1968. Hey, guess when the race riots happened? That's right, during LBJ's tenure.

 

The two reports are totally different.

You're evading the question, as you desperately want to avoid facing the fact, nay, even possibility that your prized report is wrong.

Edited by IronTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguably, while we're on the subject, I would say that it was LBJ that did the most damage with his "Great Society" programs. Here's a quote for you that he said on record: "I'll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years." He was in office from 1963 to 1968. Hey, guess when the race riots happened? That's right, during LBJ's tenure.

 

You're evading the question, as you desperately want to avoid facing the fact, nay, even possibility that your prized report is wrong.

 

Why don't you listen to the show, and get back to me? And think through the consequences of the actions, to this day redlining have had, because of the policy, and the complete lack of reintegration policy since George Romney. Heck even the separation of College Station and Bryan are great evidence of segregation.

 

Also, LBJ passed a lot of civil rights legislation, including the fair housing act, which tried to reverse segregationist policies.

 

And your analogy is off base. I've actually read through some of this report, have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck even the separation of College Station and Bryan are great evidence of segregation.

No, they're really not. They're separate cities, much like Dallas and Fort Worth (except on a far smaller scale). Bryan tended to get more of the short end of the stick, but various city policies kept Bryan down, leading to College Station being a more favorable place for new residents to live. Bryan's total population also never decreased, it increased, albeit slowly. College Station is not some overgrown suburb: as the university was out in the middle of nowhere and miles away from Bryan, it sprung up to provide commercial services and residences for those who lived and worked at A&M.

 

Also, "white flight" didn't start until after desegregation was started. While it was a good and noble effort, many government efforts at that time (i.e. bussing kids across town) only made the problem worse instead. It's what they say about government. Who knows what further "integration" they wanted to try.

 

 

Edited by IronTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they're really not. They're separate cities, much like Dallas and Fort Worth (except on a far smaller scale). Bryan tended to get more of the short end of the stick, but various city policies kept Bryan down, leading to College Station being a more favorable place for new residents to live. Bryan's total population also never decreased, it increased, albeit slowly. College Station is not some overgrown suburb: as the university was out in the middle of nowhere and miles away from Bryan, it sprung up to provide commercial services and residences for those who lived and worked at A&M.

Also, "white flight" didn't start until after desegregation was started. While it was a good and noble effort, many government efforts at that time (i.e. bussing kids across town) only made the problem worse instead. It's what they say about government. Who knows what further "integration" they wanted to try.

White flight didn't start until the late 60's? That's false. It started with redlining, which basically encouraged white flight, since even if you were white in certain (inner city) neighborhoods, you were not (or no longer) eligible for a loan, and never would be, so your best bet was to sell it to a black person for whatever you could get and leave.

Also, desegregation was a noble and righteous thing to do. George Romney actually forced cities that accepted federal dollars to reintegrate. Once Nixon found out he fired him and changed the wording of the fair housing act. And HUD has had little power since.

I find it alarming that you think the entity that helped segregate America most should make no effort to desegregate. Do you like Nixon not want to make the whites uncomfortable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White flight didn't start until the late 60's? That's false. It started with redlining, which basically encouraged white flight, since even if you were white in certain (inner city) neighborhoods, you were not (or no longer) eligible for a loan, and never would be, so your best bet was to sell it to a black person for whatever you could get and leave.

 

So, why didn't we see things like race riots in the 1930s like in the 1960s?

 

Also, desegregation was a noble and righteous thing to do. George Romney actually forced cities that accepted federal dollars to reintegrate. Once Nixon found out he fired him and changed the wording of the fair housing act. And HUD has had little power since.

 

Didn't say that desegregation was wrong, it's just that the government had no idea how to handle it.

I find it alarming that you think the entity that helped segregate America most should make no effort to desegregate. Do you like Nixon not want to make the whites uncomfortable?

Ah, playing the old "You must be a RACIST!" card that white liberals play when they run out of arguments. The de-segregation policies of the 1960s did do a lot of good: I'm glad that people of all races have the same opprotunities to use facilities that were limited if not right prohibited years ago...but in many ways, they made the problem worse by widening the gap. And how exactly is HUD going to "fix" the problem now? More social engineering and regulation? More public housing projects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, your answer already came with the Community Reinvestment Act which sought to reverse the redlining policies in several aspects. Instead, they not only failed to fix the problem but ended up being the cause of a major recession. Go go government policies! thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, why didn't we see things like race riots in the 1930s like in the 1960s?

Didn't say that desegregation was wrong, it's just that the government had no idea how to handle it.

Ah, playing the old "You must be a RACIST!" card that white liberals play when they run out of arguments. The de-segregation policies of the 1960s did do a lot of good: I'm glad that people of all races have the same opprotunities to use facilities that were limited if not right prohibited years ago...but in many ways, they made the problem worse by widening the gap. And how exactly is HUD going to "fix" the problem now? More social engineering and regulation? More public housing projects?

1. Tensions boil. Your hypothesis that one incident triggered riots is hilarious and sad.

2. How you think desegregation was being handled and what actually took place are two separate things.

3. Widening the gap? A lot of widening was done by the segregationist redlining policies which created ghettos and as a result public housing projects. HUD can fix the problem once it gets greater powers, which hopefully will happen this year or next. Basically, if any city takes federal money for anything, it also has to do something to reintegrate as well. For example, every apartment tower should require a percentage of affordable units. Every freeway expansion should be required to build community centers and plant trees in low income areas. If you make a mess, make some effort to fix it.

Finally, I'm not calling you a racist, but you seem rather indifferent to the lasting result of redlining. It has created areas where you are trapped, and nearly impossible to escape. South side Chicago and areas like it in every city in the country. Like the report says I'm my sure if you're really familiar with what's actually going on in these areas. I know. I go to neighborhoods every day you wouldn't dare step in, for various reasons: eating, haircuts, basketball, boxing. And there's a different reality there. Kids are forced to join gangs. If they don't they are brutally beaten and sometimes die. If they leave they die. One of my friends was killed for leaving a gang. Another has a hit on him for leaving one. People don't even know if they'll make it home from school safely. This is a reality you'll never understand, and the fact that it was created by greater powers and hasn't been reversed except for a few short years of good work by George Romney is sad and pathetic.

Edited by Slick Vik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what you are saying is that if I, as a developer, build a multi-family tower in River Oaks with units averaging 5,000 sq f and priced to rent at $10,000 per month, I have to include a few $800 per month units to satisfy your sense of social justice. That is insane. Or, in a 2,000 house subdivision with average prices of $250,000, I have to offer some $80,000 houses, And once again lose money on the deal. All for some nebulous goal that ignores the fact that people self segregate and that you can't force people to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what you are saying is that if I, as a developer, build a multi-family tower in River Oaks with units averaging 5,000 sq f and priced to rent at $10,000 per month, I have to include a few $800 per month units to satisfy your sense of social justice. That is insane. Or, in a 2,000 house subdivision with average prices of $250,000, I have to offer some $80,000 houses, And once again lose money on the deal. All for some nebulous goal that ignores the fact that people self segregate and that you can't force people to be successful.

So segregation was okay, but reintegrating is not? That mean that the original goal was completed two have two separate societies. And reeks of underlying racism.

Edited by Slick Vik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tensions boil. Your hypothesis that one incident triggered riots is hilarious and sad.

Did we switch minds here? I thought YOU were saying that the 1960s riots were caused by redlining.

How you think desegregation was being handled and what actually took place are two separate things.

Again, please tell me how I'm wrong.

3. Widening the gap? A lot of widening was done by the segregationist redlining policies which created ghettos and as a result public housing projects. HUD can fix the problem once it gets greater powers, which hopefully will happen this year or next. Basically, if any city takes federal money for anything, it also has to do something to reintegrate as well. For example, every apartment tower should require a percentage of affordable units. Every freeway expansion should be required to build community centers and plant trees in low income areas. If you make a mess, make some effort to fix it.

That's not fixing the problem. Public housing tends to keep people poor, and even with food assistance, recipients often sell it off or otherwise abuse it and let their kids go hungry.

Finally, I'm not calling you a racist, but you seem rather indifferent to the lasting result of redlining. It has created areas where you are trapped, and nearly impossible to escape. South side Chicago and areas like it in every city in the country. Like the report says I'm my sure if you're really familiar with what's actually going on in these areas. I know. I go to neighborhoods every day you wouldn't dare step in, for various reasons: eating, haircuts, basketball, boxing. And there's a different reality there. Kids are forced to join gangs. If they don't they are brutally beaten and sometimes die. If they leave they die. One of my friends was killed for leaving a gang. Another has a hit on him for leaving one. People don't even know if they'll make it home from school safely. This is a reality you'll never understand, and the fact that it was created by greater powers and hasn't been reversed except for a few short years of good work by George Romney is sad and pathetic.

I'm not indifferent to poor areas. The biggest problem there is a majority of kids without fathers, and all of them are living in urban areas, where regulation, high taxes, and other factors keep them living "on the plantation".

I especially like your patting yourself on the back for going to (at least purporting you go to) neighborhoods, thinking it somehow gives you privilege on the things to talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we switch minds here? I thought YOU were saying that the 1960s riots were caused by redlining.

Again, please tell me how I'm wrong.

That's not fixing the problem. Public housing tends to keep people poor, and even with food assistance, recipients often sell it off or otherwise abuse it and let their kids go hungry.

I'm not indifferent to poor areas. The biggest problem there is a majority of kids without fathers, and all of them are living in urban areas, where regulation, high taxes, and other factors keep them living "on the plantation".

I especially like your patting yourself on the back for going to (at least purporting you go to) neighborhoods, thinking it somehow gives you privilege on the things to talk about.

 

1. I did say that.

 

2. You are mentioning things like busing kids from one part of town to the other. I am talking about HUD using its power to force cities to reintegrate. Two totally different things.

 

3. This is a factor but you aren't acknowledging the fact neighorhoods were more diverse before the redlining policies took effect. These created the ghettos we see today.

 

4. The commission report did the same thing. White America had no clue on what these poor neighborhoods were actually like. Some of them are like war zones. Did that give them privelage to talk about it? I would rather someone who has actually gone to them and spends time there than an outsider speak on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm pretty sure this is going nowhere. Like your "Remove the Pierce Elevated at any cost" rants, you downplay real causes of what created the problem, you ignore the fact that when the problem was already attempted to fix didn't work, you championed proposed government "re-integration" policies even though previous efforts have been disastrous and worsened the problem, and accused someone of being a racist when they pointed out some obvious flaws of the proposed program.

 

There is no reason to waste my time to someone who continues to scream nonsense that redlining was the sole reason of the race riots and believes some government programs will make everything better.

thumbdown.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm pretty sure this is going nowhere. Like your "Remove the Pierce Elevated at any cost" rants, you downplay real causes of what created the problem, you ignore the fact that when the problem was already attempted to fix didn't work, you championed proposed government "re-integration" policies even though previous efforts have been disastrous and worsened the problem, and accused someone of being a racist when they pointed out some obvious flaws of the proposed program.

 

There is no reason to waste my time to someone who continues to scream nonsense that redlining was the sole reason of the race riots and believes some government programs will make everything better.

thumbdown.gif

 

Listen to the show, read the report, and get back to me. It's very easy to comment without having the same level of research and knowledge of the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very easy to comment without having the same level of research and knowledge of the subject.

Good advice, maybe you should try it yourself sometime.

-

Clearly by listening to one radio show, you become an expert on the subject. We all bow down to your supreme knowledge.majesty.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, I'm not calling you a racist, but you seem rather indifferent to the lasting result of redlining. It has created areas where you are trapped, and nearly impossible to escape. South side Chicago and areas like it in every city in the country. Like the report says I'm my sure if you're really familiar with what's actually going on in these areas. I know. I go to neighborhoods every day you wouldn't dare step in, for various reasons: eating, haircuts, basketball, boxing. And there's a different reality there. Kids are forced to join gangs. If they don't they are brutally beaten and sometimes die. If they leave they die. One of my friends was killed for leaving a gang. Another has a hit on him for leaving one. People don't even know if they'll make it home from school safely. This is a reality you'll never understand, and the fact that it was created by greater powers and hasn't been reversed except for a few short years of good work by George Romney is sad and pathetic.

 

Which neighborhoods, specifically, are you visiting and why do you tink that redlining that happened years ago and has been illegal for a long time is trapping everyone who lives in them?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which neighborhoods, specifically, are you visiting and why do you tink that redlining that happened years ago and has been illegal for a long time is trapping everyone who lives in them?

 

 

Third ward, fifth ward, gulfton.

 

The point is that reintegration, reversing of the segregation was blocked by Nixon and thus we have de facto segregation.

Good advice, maybe you should try it yourself sometime.

-

Clearly by listening to one radio show, you become an expert on the subject. We all bow down to your supreme knowledge.majesty.gif

 

I've read through much of the commission's report as well. It's good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third ward, fifth ward, gulfton.

 

The point is that reintegration, reversing of the segregation was blocked by Nixon and thus we have de facto segregation.

 

I've read through much of the commission's report as well. It's good stuff.

 

So you were saying, then, that everyone who lives in the Third and Fifth Wards and the Gulfton area are trapped?  Or was that just hyperbole?

 

And without practices of the past, like redlining, there would be no poor neighborhoods, no crime ridden areas, no white flight?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you were saying, then, that everyone who lives in the Third and Fifth Wards and the Gulfton area are trapped?  Or was that just hyperbole?

 

And without practices of the past, like redlining, there would be no poor neighborhoods, no crime ridden areas, no white flight?

 

 

I would say most of them are.

 

There would not be this level of segregation and stark difference between neighborhoods. They were much more diverse before the practice started. I don't think there would have been white flight either without the government giving only white people loans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say most of them are.

 

There would not be this level of segregation and stark difference between neighborhoods. They were much more diverse before the practice started.

 

Oh, so the crowded slum immigrant neighborhoods in the east never existed. I've been taught a lie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say most of them are.

 

There would not be this level of segregation and stark difference between neighborhoods. They were much more diverse before the practice started. I don't think there would have been white flight either without the government giving only white people loans.

 

Redlining was horrible public policy, but folks with money ususally seek to live away from those without it, regardless of race.  For instance, did you grow up in these neighborhoods or did your parents choose to live out in the suburbs where the schools were better and the incomes higher?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say most of them are.

There would not be this level of segregation and stark difference between neighborhoods. They were much more diverse before the practice started. I don't think there would have been white flight either without the government giving only white people loans.

You must not be aware that Gulfton was the in place to live in the early 80's, and was home to a bunch of young professionals. It went downhill after the bust of the mid 80's. Redlining was never a factor in the growth of the poor there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must not be aware that Gulfton was the in place to live in the early 80's, and was home to a bunch of young professionals. It went downhill after the bust of the mid 80's. Redlining was never a factor in the growth of the poor there.

 

Yup. I was going to say that the "redlining is the cause of woes" theory may have worked in the 1960s but then doesn't work for neighborhoods that were built since and subsequently deteriorated.

 

This is all the more hilariously sad when I listed other legitimate causes of why neighborhoods stay poor and you brushed them off for a reason that didn't actually exist in that case. Classy.

 

Also, your "white flight started in the 1930s" is kind of right, kind of wrong. The "white flight" was the rich (who happened to be white) moving out of the city because cities were polluted, dirty, and full of crime (that's how things were). Streetcars and other rail-based systems enabled this.

 

Even by your own words, then, you affirm that your beloved streetcars enabled white flight, which you also accused your hated freeways of doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say most of them are.

 

There would not be this level of segregation and stark difference between neighborhoods. They were much more diverse before the practice started. I don't think there would have been white flight either without the government giving only white people loans.

 

And they are trapped by redlining or other discriminatory practices?  Or are they trapped by their own bad choices (like many people are, not just the poor or minorities)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they are trapped by redlining or other discriminatory practices? Or are they trapped by their own bad choices (like many people are, not just the poor or minorities)?

They are trapped because of the situation they are in. When you're worried about life and death every day then it's a different life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. I was going to say that the "redlining is the cause of woes" theory may have worked in the 1960s but then doesn't work for neighborhoods that were built since and subsequently deteriorated.

This is all the more hilariously sad when I listed other legitimate causes of why neighborhoods stay poor and you brushed them off for a reason that didn't actually exist in that case. Classy.

Also, your "white flight started in the 1930s" is kind of right, kind of wrong. The "white flight" was the rich (who happened to be white) moving out of the city because cities were polluted, dirty, and full of crime (that's how things were). Streetcars and other rail-based systems enabled this.

Even by your own words, then, you affirm that your beloved streetcars enabled white flight, which you also accused your hated freeways of doing.

Streetcars sent people a short distance away, not the all out sprawl that came later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so the crowded slum immigrant neighborhoods in the east never existed. I've been taught a lie!

As the commission report states none of those immigrant neighborhoods were as segregated as neighborhoods after redlining. NONE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking and choosing your arguments again, I see:

 

They are trapped because of the situation they are in.

I agree. The "Plantation" is a destructive lifestyle.

 

As the commission report states none of those immigrant neighborhoods were as segregated as neighborhoods after redlining. NONE

Once again, hinging your entire argument on a flawed report is really dangerous. This is the same reason why using the Bible as a defense in debates is a bad idea, even if you believe in your heart of hearts that it's 100% true. Yes, I know you're scoffing: "The Bible was mistranslated by monks over centuries, and thus flawed data. This right here is REAL FACTS WITHOUT ANYTHING WRONG!"

 

Streetcars sent people a short distance away, not the all out sprawl that came later.

Sure they did. We don't see as Montrose and the Heights as suburbs today because the city engulfed them and spread out further. But there's a reason why they were called streetcar suburbs, and the large houses that still remain are a testament to the fact. However, even after pointing your old condemnations of white flight (thus, sprawl) you exonerate streetcars for all wrongdoing.

Moreover, you ignored the "neighborhoods built after the 1930s" flaw that punches a pretty large hole in your theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking and choosing your arguments again, I see:

I agree. The "Plantation" is a destructive lifestyle.

Once again, hinging your entire argument on a flawed report is really dangerous. This is the same reason why using the Bible as a defense in debates is a bad idea, even if you believe in your heart of hearts that it's 100% true. Yes, I know you're scoffing: "The Bible was mistranslated by monks over centuries, and thus flawed data. This right here is REAL FACTS WITHOUT ANYTHING WRONG!"

Sure they did. We don't see as Montrose and the Heights as suburbs today because the city engulfed them and spread out further. But there's a reason why they were called streetcar suburbs, and the large houses that still remain are a testament to the fact. However, even after pointing your old condemnations of white flight (thus, sprawl) you exonerate streetcars for all wrongdoing.

Moreover, you ignored the "neighborhoods built after the 1930s" flaw that punches a pretty large hole in your theory.

You basically endorse redlining by saying reintegration efforts are pointless. Also, neighborhoods built in the redline areas, even after 1930, were held to the same standards.

 

Yes and I trust a 600 page report over your unsubstantiated opinions. You haven't listened to the show or read the report.

 

And you joking comparing living in the hood to living on a plantation is a disgusting and blatantly racist remark.

Edited by Slick Vik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You basically endorse redlining by saying reintegration efforts are pointless

Wow, you not only missed my point but you managed to drastically oversimplify it: "You basically endorse genocide by saying U.S. should not enter/pull out of Country X" would be another drastic oversimplification.

I did read the transcript, and I found that the part at the beginning was a bit irrelevant to the point they were trying to make. Some people will charge differently based on race. I could go to a heavily Hispanic neighborhood and end up paying more for a taco than other people. Call the government! Force non-Hispanics to move in! I'm being discriminated against!

And you joking comparing living in the hood to living on a plantation is a disgusting and blatantly racist remark.

No, you missed the point. Again. The "Plantation" is a term used in a book on how the welfare system keeps people poor, which was written by an African-American woman who managed to get OUT of welfare and wrote about WHY it is hard to get out. This term is also used on another WOT topic on HAIF which you did participate in. I'm guessing it flew over your head and you misinterpreted it as a racist remark.

Edited by IronTiger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you not only missed my point but you managed to drastically oversimplify it: "You basically endorse genocide by saying U.S. should not enter/pull out of Country X" would be another drastic oversimplification.

I did read the transcript, and I found that the part at the beginning was a bit irrelevant to the point they were trying to make. Some people will charge differently based on race. I could go to a heavily Hispanic neighborhood and end up paying more for a taco than other people. Call the government! Force non-Hispanics to move in! I'm being discriminated against!

No, you missed the point. Again. The "Plantation" is a term used in a book on how the welfare system keeps people poor, which was written by an African-American woman who managed to get OUT of welfare and wrote about WHY it is hard to get out. This term is also used on another WOT topic on HAIF which you did participate in. I'm guessing it flew over your head and you misinterpreted it as a racist remark.

 

I think the show made sense. It began with talking about schools, and went into redlining. Also, for the record, I've never been charged more for a taco in a hispanic neighborhood. And I have been to a lot of taco trucks.

 

I didn't oversimplify anything, you said reintegration efforts were pointless. In fact, in this thread, I'm the only person who is even pushing for them. But god forbid we bring back the blacks we got away from back in to our neighborhoods! Who wants to be around darker peoples?!

 

You can choose to use plantation in a particular context if you want, but to me it as a racist connotation and especially in the way that you said it. Too late to cover it up now.

Edited by Slick Vik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After he became president, “Nixon, with an eye toward his suburban constituency, kept

the issue of open housing away from the White House.” When a White House task force

on low income housing recommended linking federal aid to suburban racial integration,

Nixon wrote: “I am absolutely opposed to this. Knock it in the head now.”

 

http://www.prrac.org/pdf/RoismanHistoryExcerpt.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local authorities, with federal encouragement and consent, segregated public housing and then, as whites left the projects for all-white suburbs, placed new projects only in black neighborhoods to ensure continued segregation. Federal urban-renewal funds were used to bulldoze black neighborhoods to make space available for white residential and business expansion; resulting displacements further overcrowded the ghettos. Suburbs adopted exclusionary zoning laws requiring large lot sizes and banning multiunit developments, often with the barely disguised purpose of ensuring that no African Americans could afford to become neighbors.

 

Federal and local officials in the 1950s and 1960s routed highways through black communities to force residents to move to ghettos farther from white residences and businesses. The executive director of the American Association of State Highway Officials, himself deeply involved in the congressional design of the program, later acknowledged that “some city officials expressed the view in the mid-1950s that the urban interstates would give them a good opportunity to get rid of the local ‘______town.’”

 

http://prospect.org/article/cost-living-apart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Michigan, the city of Hamtramck was typical. An overwhelmingly Polish American enclave surrounded by Detroit, Hamtramck had a small number of black residents, for whom the city’s 1959 master plan intended a “program of population loss.” With federal funds, the city began in 1962 to demolish its black residential neighborhoods to create vacant land for a Chrysler plant expansion. Federal funds were next used to raze more (mostly black) homes for construction of an expressway to serve the plant. No replacement housing was provided, and because white neighborhoods were closed to them, the displaced blacks were forced deeper into Detroit’s ghettos. A federal appeals court concluded that HUD officials “must have known of the discriminatory practices which pervaded the private [Hamtramck] housing market and the indications of overt prejudice among some of the persons involved in carrying out the urban renewal projects of the City.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At his Senate confirmation hearing to be secretary of housing and urban development, Romney denounced the Federal Housing Administration, saying that it has “built a high-income white noose basically around these inner cities, and the poor and disadvantaged, both black and white, are pretty much left in the inner city.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...