The History of Racism in American Govt Housing Policy...

[flacaltenn]

Racially segregated neighborhoods aren't limited to Blacks. Until the late '60s, it was perfectly acceptable to put 'Christians Only Need Apply' -- meaning No Jews -- in a real estate listing. Asians and Hispanics faced similar discrimination in California in my lifetime. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 removed all legal basis for such discrimination but it took decades of court challenges to reduce the tacit discrimination that still existed.

Today, our American cities and suburbs are more racially integrated than at any time in the past.

You mean laws passed by the govt. actually have a positive effect over time, and govt. has an important role in society even though it is imperfect? Well I'll be damned.

Yeah. There's a long history of CREATING and MAINTAINING problems, that get fixed only when when they stink up the place.

There are Jewish Asian Mexican communities that WANT to stay that way.. And Black communities as well.. Govt still works constantly against THOSE interests. They do it when they harass Hair Braiding Shops about licensing at the same time they are planning to move SuperCuts in. Or in eminent domain cases in declaring "blight". Or taxing Jewish communities for public schools that they never use.

It's not like "hey dude" -- it's not a problem anymore..

 

[flacaltenn]

THere's been discussion in this forum about Govt policies that CONDONED and REQUIRED segregation and discrimination against Black Americans. But it's nowhere as simple as pointing to "redlining" of mortgages. Indeed it far nastier and sinister than all that.

Interview with a guy who KNOWS this history, is an NAACP fellow --- and (shocker) -- he's white and Jewish..

Best 45 minutes on Race you'll spend this week. You'll be appalled at how YOUR GOVT contributed to racial segregation up until the 70s or so... Excepts below -- the interview is at the link given..


How the Government Created Housing Segregation [Reason Podcast]

Nick Gillespie: The first part of your argument is that, and I'm quoting from you, "African-Americans were unconstitutionally denied the means and rights to integration in middle class neighborhoods." That this was in large part due to local, state, and federal policies, that really weren't outlawed or banned in full by the federal government until 1968. Describe some of the early policies coming out of The Depression and World War II that enforced ... I mean, they didn't create housing segregation, but they really exacerbated it and made de facto, or I guess de jure segregation, de facto segregation.

Richard Rothstein: Well, yes. In some cases, in many cases actually, the federal government did create it. Created segregation in metropolitan areas and in cities that have never known segregation before. In other cases, as you say, it did reinforce segregation that was already in existence, but the country was much, much more segregated as a result of these federal policies than it was before, or would be today without them. The new deal and as you say was the main force in creating residential segregation across the north, the west, the midwest, and the south as well. There were two chief policies that I think were the most powerful, although there were many others. One was the public housing program. We typically think today of public housing as being a place where low income families, particularly African-Americans, Hispanics as well, unemployed's, single parents, single mothers live. That's not how public housing began, and it's quite the opposite of how public housing began.


Public housing began for civilians during the New Deal, at the very beginning of the New Deal. It was an attempt to house white, lower-middle class families who lost housing during the depression. There were some African-Americans who were accommodated, but mostly it was a program for white middle class families, and it was segregated everywhere. There were separate projects for African-Americans, and separate projects for whites. I'll give you an example of how the government actually created segregation, not merely reinforced it. Langston Hughes, in his autobiography, called The Big Sea talks about how he grew up in Cleveland in an integrated neighborhood. Many neighborhoods in many cities were integrated at that time, much more than they are today, simply because workers didn't have automobiles, and the only way they could get to work was by walking or taking very short rides on buses.

You had neighborhoods that were comprised of Irish immigrants and Italian immigrants and Jewish immigrants and African-Americans and white workers who had come from rural areas, all living in the same general neighborhoods and walking to work. This is not to say that every other house was occupied by an African-American, but broadly these neighborhoods were integrated. Well, in 1933, the Public Works Administration of the New Deal began building public housing, and in Cleveland, it demolished. It razed the neighborhood where Langston Hughes lived, and instead built two separate public housing projects. One for whites, one for blacks, creating segregation where it had never been known before.

This became much more forceful during World War II. When workers, both blacks and whites, flocked to cities to take jobs in the defense industry. In some cases, they took jobs in defense industries in cities where there had been no African-American population previously. One of the examples I focus on in my book is Richmond, California, which later became a black ghetto. One of the poorest and most segregated communities in California. Before World War II, there were virtually no African-Americans living in Richmond. About 250, mostly domestics working for white families, but Richmond became a center of ship-building. It had a deep water port across the bay from San Francisco, and tens of thousands of workers came to work in those shipyards. 100,000 actually. Beginning of World War II, there were, as they say, a handful of African-Americans in Richmond. By the end of World War II, there were 15,000. The population as a whole of Richmond grew from 10 to 15,000 to over 100,000 during the war.



SNIP>>>>>

For example, perhaps the best known example of this is Levittown, just east of New York City. 17,000 homes built in the late 1940's by Levit primarily for returning war veterans. The Levit family could never have assembled the capital they needed to build 17,000 homes, for which they had no buyers on their own. It was an enormous undertaking. They did so only because the Federal Housing Administration guaranteed their bank loans for construction purposes on condition, an explicit condition, that no homes in the development be sold to African-Americans, and that every deed in Levittown has a clause in it that prohibited resale to African-Americans.

Again, this wasn't just Levittown. An equally large development south of Los Angeles, Lakewood built by Mark Taper, was similarly restricted by the federal government and in every metropolitan area in between. The Federal Housing Administration subsidized developers of large subdivisions on condition that they do not sale to African-Americans. You had these two policies ...

Nick Gillespie: What was the anxiety about selling to African-Americans that was underscoring both the construction loans, but also mortgages? Who was it in the federal government then that was like, "Okay. We've got to put that in there."?

Richard Rothstein: Well, most people are familiar with the fact that the Federal Housing Administration would not insure mortgages, individual mortgages, to African-Americans in white neighborhoods. That is something that is not a mystery to most people, but what very few people know about today, although it was well known at the time obviously, everybody in Levittown knew that they had those deeds on their homes, is that the more powerful action of the FHA was to create these all white suburbs with the bank loan guarantees that they gave the developers. Their rational was that property values would decline if African-Americans lived in white neighborhoods, but this was a pure figment of the FHA's imagination. In fact, property values increase when African-Americans moved into white neighborhoods at the time, because African-Americans had so few housing options that their supply was constricted, and they were willing to pay more for the same housing than whites were paying. There were studies that were available to the FHA that documented this.

Workers coming to Richmond had to have a place to live. Clearly, the growth of that kind of a city is really unimaginable, and the federal government had to provide housing if they wanted to keep the shipyards working. It built separate projects for African-Americans and for whites. The projects for African-Americans were built along the railroad tracks in the industrial area. The projects for whites were better constructed and built in the residential areas where whites were living, and this is another example of a place where segregation was created where it hadn't previously existed.

I could have told you the same thing flacaltenn, but you would have argued and tried to make it out to be any other reason but racism. But at least you went to research the issue to see for yourself what is true.

From Ferguson to Baltimore: The Fruits of Government-Sponsored Segregation

Racial segregation continues, and even intensifies: Manhattan Institute report heralding the “end” of segregation uses a measure that masks important demographic and economic trends

Actually -- I brought up Ferguson to YOU weeks ago. As primarily a failure to deliver Govt services to economically poorer communities in ways commensurate with their ABILITY to comply with law. You shut me down. And I put up this interview that I have known about for some time to demonstrate that "Govt Housing Discrimination" is FAR more insidious than "mortgage redlining, but you called me a racist. So --I'm doing mine own thing here.

Help me if you like.. It's NOT that I don't know these things fairly well. You just don't know me...

 

[flacaltenn]

Why should good, law-abiding whites that just want to live a peaceful life have to deal with getting raped/robbed/murdered by blacks? Leave us alone! If the jew likes blacks so much, he can put them in his bedroom.

I don't think that's the topic of this thread. The topic is how YOUR govt (assuming you're American) CONTINUED racial segregation as a NATIONAL POLICY -- up thru the 60s. You think that CONTRIBUTES to some of the anger about actual UNEQUAL treatment that YOUR govt promoted even after the CRAct?

MAYBE -- being segregated was welcome on both sides. Maybe it wasn't. But your GOVT shouldn't be promoting those types of projects and policies.

Now MOST of this is up to 60s. But that's just one generation removed.

The govt. was run by citizens that didn't like mixing colors..

The govt was ELECTED by folks who did not like mixing a lot of things. It was a "cultural norm". Cultural norms don't CHANGE by force. If they did --- we wouldn't have the problems that STILL exist..

THere's been discussion in this forum about Govt policies that CONDONED and REQUIRED segregation and discrimination against Black Americans. But it's nowhere as simple as pointing to "redlining" of mortgages. Indeed it far nastier and sinister than all that.

Interview with a guy who KNOWS this history, is an NAACP fellow --- and (shocker) -- he's white and Jewish..


Best 45 minutes on Race you'll spend this week. You'll be appalled at how YOUR GOVT contributed to racial segregation up until the 70s or so... Excepts below -- the interview is at the link given..


How the Government Created Housing Segregation [Reason Podcast]

Nick Gillespie: The first part of your argument is that, and I'm quoting from you, "African-Americans were unconstitutionally denied the means and rights to integration in middle class neighborhoods." That this was in large part due to local, state, and federal policies, that really weren't outlawed or banned in full by the federal government until 1968. Describe some of the early policies coming out of The Depression and World War II that enforced ... I mean, they didn't create housing segregation, but they really exacerbated it and made de facto, or I guess de jure segregation, de facto segregation.

Richard Rothstein: Well, yes. In some cases, in many cases actually, the federal government did create it. Created segregation in metropolitan areas and in cities that have never known segregation before. In other cases, as you say, it did reinforce segregation that was already in existence, but the country was much, much more segregated as a result of these federal policies than it was before, or would be today without them. The new deal and as you say was the main force in creating residential segregation across the north, the west, the midwest, and the south as well. There were two chief policies that I think were the most powerful, although there were many others. One was the public housing program. We typically think today of public housing as being a place where low income families, particularly African-Americans, Hispanics as well, unemployed's, single parents, single mothers live. That's not how public housing began, and it's quite the opposite of how public housing began.


Public housing began for civilians during the New Deal, at the very beginning of the New Deal. It was an attempt to house white, lower-middle class families who lost housing during the depression. There were some African-Americans who were accommodated, but mostly it was a program for white middle class families, and it was segregated everywhere. There were separate projects for African-Americans, and separate projects for whites. I'll give you an example of how the government actually created segregation, not merely reinforced it. Langston Hughes, in his autobiography, called The Big Sea talks about how he grew up in Cleveland in an integrated neighborhood. Many neighborhoods in many cities were integrated at that time, much more than they are today, simply because workers didn't have automobiles, and the only way they could get to work was by walking or taking very short rides on buses.

You had neighborhoods that were comprised of Irish immigrants and Italian immigrants and Jewish immigrants and African-Americans and white workers who had come from rural areas, all living in the same general neighborhoods and walking to work. This is not to say that every other house was occupied by an African-American, but broadly these neighborhoods were integrated. Well, in 1933, the Public Works Administration of the New Deal began building public housing, and in Cleveland, it demolished. It razed the neighborhood where Langston Hughes lived, and instead built two separate public housing projects. One for whites, one for blacks, creating segregation where it had never been known before.

This became much more forceful during World War II. When workers, both blacks and whites, flocked to cities to take jobs in the defense industry. In some cases, they took jobs in defense industries in cities where there had been no African-American population previously. One of the examples I focus on in my book is Richmond, California, which later became a black ghetto. One of the poorest and most segregated communities in California. Before World War II, there were virtually no African-Americans living in Richmond. About 250, mostly domestics working for white families, but Richmond became a center of ship-building. It had a deep water port across the bay from San Francisco, and tens of thousands of workers came to work in those shipyards. 100,000 actually. Beginning of World War II, there were, as they say, a handful of African-Americans in Richmond. By the end of World War II, there were 15,000. The population as a whole of Richmond grew from 10 to 15,000 to over 100,000 during the war.



SNIP>>>>>

For example, perhaps the best known example of this is Levittown, just east of New York City. 17,000 homes built in the late 1940's by Levit primarily for returning war veterans. The Levit family could never have assembled the capital they needed to build 17,000 homes, for which they had no buyers on their own. It was an enormous undertaking. They did so only because the Federal Housing Administration guaranteed their bank loans for construction purposes on condition, an explicit condition, that no homes in the development be sold to African-Americans, and that every deed in Levittown has a clause in it that prohibited resale to African-Americans.

Again, this wasn't just Levittown. An equally large development south of Los Angeles, Lakewood built by Mark Taper, was similarly restricted by the federal government and in every metropolitan area in between. The Federal Housing Administration subsidized developers of large subdivisions on condition that they do not sale to African-Americans. You had these two policies ...

Nick Gillespie: What was the anxiety about selling to African-Americans that was underscoring both the construction loans, but also mortgages? Who was it in the federal government then that was like, "Okay. We've got to put that in there."?

Richard Rothstein: Well, most people are familiar with the fact that the Federal Housing Administration would not insure mortgages, individual mortgages, to African-Americans in white neighborhoods. That is something that is not a mystery to most people, but what very few people know about today, although it was well known at the time obviously, everybody in Levittown knew that they had those deeds on their homes, is that the more powerful action of the FHA was to create these all white suburbs with the bank loan guarantees that they gave the developers. Their rational was that property values would decline if African-Americans lived in white neighborhoods, but this was a pure figment of the FHA's imagination. In fact, property values increase when African-Americans moved into white neighborhoods at the time, because African-Americans had so few housing options that their supply was constricted, and they were willing to pay more for the same housing than whites were paying. There were studies that were available to the FHA that documented this.

Workers coming to Richmond had to have a place to live. Clearly, the growth of that kind of a city is really unimaginable, and the federal government had to provide housing if they wanted to keep the shipyards working. It built separate projects for African-Americans and for whites. The projects for African-Americans were built along the railroad tracks in the industrial area. The projects for whites were better constructed and built in the residential areas where whites were living, and this is another example of a place where segregation was created where it hadn't previously existed.

Interesting and coincidence, since I lived in Lakewood Ca., as well as Cleveland in the '50s, never knew about these housing policies from our government.

And I lived in the San Fran area and never knew about Richmond until I left there.

 

[bgrouse]

Why should good, law-abiding whites that just want to live a peaceful life have to deal with getting raped/robbed/murdered by blacks? Leave us alone! If the jew likes blacks so much, he can put them in his bedroom.

I don't think that's the topic of this thread. The topic is how YOUR govt (assuming you're American) CONTINUED racial segregation as a NATIONAL POLICY -- up thru the 60s. You think that CONTRIBUTES to some of the anger about actual UNEQUAL treatment that YOUR govt promoted even after the CRAct?

MAYBE -- being segregated was welcome on both sides. Maybe it wasn't. But your GOVT shouldn't be promoting those types of projects and policies.

Now MOST of this is up to 60s. But that's just one generation removed.

You called segregation nasty and sinister. I disagree. I don't want to get murdered in a Negrohood.
Do you understand how it's on topic now?

No.. I really don't.. Unless you're blaming YOUR Govt for being the architect of those 'hoods'.. Because THAT's the topic here. A large portion of established Black communities are STILL a product of US Govt segregation..

So it's the US government's fault that blacks are violent? Segregation works both ways. Blacks are segregated from whites, but whites are segregated from blacks, too. So how come it's the black hoods that turn to shit?

 

[IM2]

THere's been discussion in this forum about Govt policies that CONDONED and REQUIRED segregation and discrimination against Black Americans. But it's nowhere as simple as pointing to "redlining" of mortgages. Indeed it far nastier and sinister than all that.

Interview with a guy who KNOWS this history, is an NAACP fellow --- and (shocker) -- he's white and Jewish..

Best 45 minutes on Race you'll spend this week. You'll be appalled at how YOUR GOVT contributed to racial segregation up until the 70s or so... Excepts below -- the interview is at the link given..


How the Government Created Housing Segregation [Reason Podcast]

Nick Gillespie: The first part of your argument is that, and I'm quoting from you, "African-Americans were unconstitutionally denied the means and rights to integration in middle class neighborhoods." That this was in large part due to local, state, and federal policies, that really weren't outlawed or banned in full by the federal government until 1968. Describe some of the early policies coming out of The Depression and World War II that enforced ... I mean, they didn't create housing segregation, but they really exacerbated it and made de facto, or I guess de jure segregation, de facto segregation.

Richard Rothstein: Well, yes. In some cases, in many cases actually, the federal government did create it. Created segregation in metropolitan areas and in cities that have never known segregation before. In other cases, as you say, it did reinforce segregation that was already in existence, but the country was much, much more segregated as a result of these federal policies than it was before, or would be today without them. The new deal and as you say was the main force in creating residential segregation across the north, the west, the midwest, and the south as well. There were two chief policies that I think were the most powerful, although there were many others. One was the public housing program. We typically think today of public housing as being a place where low income families, particularly African-Americans, Hispanics as well, unemployed's, single parents, single mothers live. That's not how public housing began, and it's quite the opposite of how public housing began.


Public housing began for civilians during the New Deal, at the very beginning of the New Deal. It was an attempt to house white, lower-middle class families who lost housing during the depression. There were some African-Americans who were accommodated, but mostly it was a program for white middle class families, and it was segregated everywhere. There were separate projects for African-Americans, and separate projects for whites. I'll give you an example of how the government actually created segregation, not merely reinforced it. Langston Hughes, in his autobiography, called The Big Sea talks about how he grew up in Cleveland in an integrated neighborhood. Many neighborhoods in many cities were integrated at that time, much more than they are today, simply because workers didn't have automobiles, and the only way they could get to work was by walking or taking very short rides on buses.

You had neighborhoods that were comprised of Irish immigrants and Italian immigrants and Jewish immigrants and African-Americans and white workers who had come from rural areas, all living in the same general neighborhoods and walking to work. This is not to say that every other house was occupied by an African-American, but broadly these neighborhoods were integrated. Well, in 1933, the Public Works Administration of the New Deal began building public housing, and in Cleveland, it demolished. It razed the neighborhood where Langston Hughes lived, and instead built two separate public housing projects. One for whites, one for blacks, creating segregation where it had never been known before.

This became much more forceful during World War II. When workers, both blacks and whites, flocked to cities to take jobs in the defense industry. In some cases, they took jobs in defense industries in cities where there had been no African-American population previously. One of the examples I focus on in my book is Richmond, California, which later became a black ghetto. One of the poorest and most segregated communities in California. Before World War II, there were virtually no African-Americans living in Richmond. About 250, mostly domestics working for white families, but Richmond became a center of ship-building. It had a deep water port across the bay from San Francisco, and tens of thousands of workers came to work in those shipyards. 100,000 actually. Beginning of World War II, there were, as they say, a handful of African-Americans in Richmond. By the end of World War II, there were 15,000. The population as a whole of Richmond grew from 10 to 15,000 to over 100,000 during the war.



SNIP>>>>>

For example, perhaps the best known example of this is Levittown, just east of New York City. 17,000 homes built in the late 1940's by Levit primarily for returning war veterans. The Levit family could never have assembled the capital they needed to build 17,000 homes, for which they had no buyers on their own. It was an enormous undertaking. They did so only because the Federal Housing Administration guaranteed their bank loans for construction purposes on condition, an explicit condition, that no homes in the development be sold to African-Americans, and that every deed in Levittown has a clause in it that prohibited resale to African-Americans.

Again, this wasn't just Levittown. An equally large development south of Los Angeles, Lakewood built by Mark Taper, was similarly restricted by the federal government and in every metropolitan area in between. The Federal Housing Administration subsidized developers of large subdivisions on condition that they do not sale to African-Americans. You had these two policies ...

Nick Gillespie: What was the anxiety about selling to African-Americans that was underscoring both the construction loans, but also mortgages? Who was it in the federal government then that was like, "Okay. We've got to put that in there."?

Richard Rothstein: Well, most people are familiar with the fact that the Federal Housing Administration would not insure mortgages, individual mortgages, to African-Americans in white neighborhoods. That is something that is not a mystery to most people, but what very few people know about today, although it was well known at the time obviously, everybody in Levittown knew that they had those deeds on their homes, is that the more powerful action of the FHA was to create these all white suburbs with the bank loan guarantees that they gave the developers. Their rational was that property values would decline if African-Americans lived in white neighborhoods, but this was a pure figment of the FHA's imagination. In fact, property values increase when African-Americans moved into white neighborhoods at the time, because African-Americans had so few housing options that their supply was constricted, and they were willing to pay more for the same housing than whites were paying. There were studies that were available to the FHA that documented this.

Workers coming to Richmond had to have a place to live. Clearly, the growth of that kind of a city is really unimaginable, and the federal government had to provide housing if they wanted to keep the shipyards working. It built separate projects for African-Americans and for whites. The projects for African-Americans were built along the railroad tracks in the industrial area. The projects for whites were better constructed and built in the residential areas where whites were living, and this is another example of a place where segregation was created where it hadn't previously existed.

I could have told you the same thing flacaltenn, but you would have argued and tried to make it out to be any other reason but racism. But at least you went to research the issue to see for yourself what is true.

From Ferguson to Baltimore: The Fruits of Government-Sponsored Segregation

Racial segregation continues, and even intensifies: Manhattan Institute report heralding the “end” of segregation uses a measure that masks important demographic and economic trends

Actually -- I brought up Ferguson to YOU weeks ago. As primarily a failure to deliver Govt services to economically poorer communities in ways commensurate with their ABILITY to comply with law. You shut me down. And I put up this interview that I have known about for some time to demonstrate that "Govt Housing Discrimination" is FAR more insidious than "mortgage redlining, but you called me a racist. So --I'm doing mine own thing here.

Help me if you like.. It's NOT that I don't know these things fairly well. You just don't know me...

And you don't know me. I don't like discussing Ferguson with whites. And when someone starts talking to me about Jesse Jackson and shakedowns, well I kinda get my back arched up.

Last I was not just talking abut housing. You dissed the reality of wealth accumulation that I presented and stated that the study was not relevant to you that's I cited about the causes for wealth accumulation. Instead you dismissed the fact that whites had 15c times the accumulated wealth o flacks because of policy an decided it was because of new jobs and technologies blacks/hispanics needed to get prepared for.

 

[Coyote]

Why should good, law-abiding whites that just want to live a peaceful life have to deal with getting raped/robbed/murdered by blacks? Leave us alone! If the jew likes blacks so much, he can put them in his bedroom.

I don't think that's the topic of this thread. The topic is how YOUR govt (assuming you're American) CONTINUED racial segregation as a NATIONAL POLICY -- up thru the 60s. You think that CONTRIBUTES to some of the anger about actual UNEQUAL treatment that YOUR govt promoted even after the CRAct?

MAYBE -- being segregated was welcome on both sides. Maybe it wasn't. But your GOVT shouldn't be promoting those types of projects and policies.

Now MOST of this is up to 60s. But that's just one generation removed.

You called segregation nasty and sinister. I disagree. I don't want to get murdered in a Negrohood.
Do you understand how it's on topic now?

Then I suggest you buy a 300 acre farm with no close neighbors

 

[Coyote]

Why should good, law-abiding whites that just want to live a peaceful life have to deal with getting raped/robbed/murdered by blacks? Leave us alone! If the jew likes blacks so much, he can put them in his bedroom.

I don't think that's the topic of this thread. The topic is how YOUR govt (assuming you're American) CONTINUED racial segregation as a NATIONAL POLICY -- up thru the 60s. You think that CONTRIBUTES to some of the anger about actual UNEQUAL treatment that YOUR govt promoted even after the CRAct?

MAYBE -- being segregated was welcome on both sides. Maybe it wasn't. But your GOVT shouldn't be promoting those types of projects and policies.

Now MOST of this is up to 60s. But that's just one generation removed.

You called segregation nasty and sinister. I disagree. I don't want to get murdered in a Negrohood.
Do you understand how it's on topic now?

No.. I really don't.. Unless you're blaming YOUR Govt for being the architect of those 'hoods'.. Because THAT's the topic here. A large portion of established Black communities are STILL a product of US Govt segregation..

So it's the US government's fault that blacks are violent? Segregation works both ways. Blacks are segregated from whites, but whites are segregated from blacks, too. So how come it's the black hoods that turn to shit?

We have shitty white hoods here that you really don't want to enter (cue dueling banjos). Point is government imposed segregation is unjust.

 

[bgrouse]

Why should good, law-abiding whites that just want to live a peaceful life have to deal with getting raped/robbed/murdered by blacks? Leave us alone! If the jew likes blacks so much, he can put them in his bedroom.

I don't think that's the topic of this thread. The topic is how YOUR govt (assuming you're American) CONTINUED racial segregation as a NATIONAL POLICY -- up thru the 60s. You think that CONTRIBUTES to some of the anger about actual UNEQUAL treatment that YOUR govt promoted even after the CRAct?

MAYBE -- being segregated was welcome on both sides. Maybe it wasn't. But your GOVT shouldn't be promoting those types of projects and policies.

Now MOST of this is up to 60s. But that's just one generation removed.

You called segregation nasty and sinister. I disagree. I don't want to get murdered in a Negrohood.
Do you understand how it's on topic now?

No.. I really don't.. Unless you're blaming YOUR Govt for being the architect of those 'hoods'.. Because THAT's the topic here. A large portion of established Black communities are STILL a product of US Govt segregation..

So it's the US government's fault that blacks are violent? Segregation works both ways. Blacks are segregated from whites, but whites are segregated from blacks, too. So how come it's the black hoods that turn to shit?

We have shitty white hoods here that you really don't want to enter (cue dueling banjos). Point is government imposed segregation is unjust.

Let's just ignore the importance of statistics, as usual.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why should good, law-abiding whites that just want to live a peaceful life have to deal with getting raped/robbed/murdered by blacks? Leave us alone! If the jew likes blacks so much, he can put them in his bedroom.

I don't think that's the topic of this thread. The topic is how YOUR govt (assuming you're American) CONTINUED racial segregation as a NATIONAL POLICY -- up thru the 60s. You think that CONTRIBUTES to some of the anger about actual UNEQUAL treatment that YOUR govt promoted even after the CRAct?

MAYBE -- being segregated was welcome on both sides. Maybe it wasn't. But your GOVT shouldn't be promoting those types of projects and policies.

Now MOST of this is up to 60s. But that's just one generation removed.

You called segregation nasty and sinister. I disagree. I don't want to get murdered in a Negrohood.
Do you understand how it's on topic now?

No.. I really don't.. Unless you're blaming YOUR Govt for being the architect of those 'hoods'.. Because THAT's the topic here. A large portion of established Black communities are STILL a product of US Govt segregation..

So it's the US government's fault that blacks are violent? Segregation works both ways. Blacks are segregated from whites, but whites are segregated from blacks, too. So how come it's the black hoods that turn to shit?

Why do think THEY don't want out? That's the bigger question.. And if you start looking at why THEY want to stay -- you'll find the answer..

IMO -- A lot of it is -- they support governments that abuse them. The local govts have them by the gonads in terms of legal entanglements, welfare and services, and the fact that Dad CANT LEAVE because he's on parole.

There are so many warrants. Both righteous and not. So many paroles that restrict family movement. So many family members that need help --- that they are not mobile. Don't KNOW that they're getting a screwed deal. They love them some "Big Government". And Govt is their keeper. It's Stockholm Syndrome quality.

Because they could live BETTER in lower cost, lower crime places. OWN --- instead of rent for LESS MONEY. But haven't "gotten out out" enough to KNOW how "costs of living work" .. Or how housing value is BETTER outside the world they stay in.

MOSTLY -- it's a belief that they can't "transport their culture" outside their neighborhoods. That was true in the 60s. Here comes the racism that I carry and have been called out for. There was a PROUD heritage of Civil Rights Successes and military service in the wars and HISTORICALLY great communicators, and quest for INTEGRATION and achievement and recognition. But sometime after after all that great cultural achievement, a NEW cultural perspective arrived. And it was given the same cred and honor of the long road struggle. And that doesn't transport well at all outside of the 'hoods' . That sadisti c NEW culture is honored in Academia. Celebrated in the Arts. LAUDED by their leftist masters.. And it's narrowing their their life choices and retarding their progress.

I actually haven't said anything NEAR as "racist" as the Black scholars who explained all this to me..... Some of you know where I get my awful Black"racial bias " from.... The others wouldn't care....

 

[Coyote]

I don't think that's the topic of this thread. The topic is how YOUR govt (assuming you're American) CONTINUED racial segregation as a NATIONAL POLICY -- up thru the 60s. You think that CONTRIBUTES to some of the anger about actual UNEQUAL treatment that YOUR govt promoted even after the CRAct?

MAYBE -- being segregated was welcome on both sides. Maybe it wasn't. But your GOVT shouldn't be promoting those types of projects and policies.

Now MOST of this is up to 60s. But that's just one generation removed.

You called segregation nasty and sinister. I disagree. I don't want to get murdered in a Negrohood.
Do you understand how it's on topic now?

No.. I really don't.. Unless you're blaming YOUR Govt for being the architect of those 'hoods'.. Because THAT's the topic here. A large portion of established Black communities are STILL a product of US Govt segregation..

So it's the US government's fault that blacks are violent? Segregation works both ways. Blacks are segregated from whites, but whites are segregated from blacks, too. So how come it's the black hoods that turn to shit?

We have shitty white hoods here that you really don't want to enter (cue dueling banjos). Point is government imposed segregation is unjust.

Let's just ignore the importance of statistics, as usual.

I'm pointing out reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why should good, law-abiding whites that just want to live a peaceful life have to deal with getting raped/robbed/murdered by blacks? Leave us alone! If the jew likes blacks so much, he can put them in his bedroom.

I don't think that's the topic of this thread. The topic is how YOUR govt (assuming you're American) CONTINUED racial segregation as a NATIONAL POLICY -- up thru the 60s. You think that CONTRIBUTES to some of the anger about actual UNEQUAL treatment that YOUR govt promoted even after the CRAct?

MAYBE -- being segregated was welcome on both sides. Maybe it wasn't. But your GOVT shouldn't be promoting those types of projects and policies.

Now MOST of this is up to 60s. But that's just one generation removed.

You called segregation nasty and sinister. I disagree. I don't want to get murdered in a Negrohood.
Do you understand how it's on topic now?

No.. I really don't.. Unless you're blaming YOUR Govt for being the architect of those 'hoods'.. Because THAT's the topic here. A large portion of established Black communities are STILL a product of US Govt segregation..

So it's the US government's fault that blacks are violent? Segregation works both ways. Blacks are segregated from whites, but whites are segregated from blacks, too. So how come it's the black hoods that turn to shit?

We have shitty white hoods here that you really don't want to enter (cue dueling banjos). Point is government imposed segregation is unjust.

Hey!! We got banjos in Hillbilly Hollywood where I live. Even a few Black musicians in the Bluegrass bands.
AND indoor plumbing. Dont you go giving a bad name to banjos.....

 

[bgrouse]

You called segregation nasty and sinister. I disagree. I don't want to get murdered in a Negrohood.
Do you understand how it's on topic now?

No.. I really don't.. Unless you're blaming YOUR Govt for being the architect of those 'hoods'.. Because THAT's the topic here. A large portion of established Black communities are STILL a product of US Govt segregation..

So it's the US government's fault that blacks are violent? Segregation works both ways. Blacks are segregated from whites, but whites are segregated from blacks, too. So how come it's the black hoods that turn to shit?

We have shitty white hoods here that you really don't want to enter (cue dueling banjos). Point is government imposed segregation is unjust.

Let's just ignore the importance of statistics, as usual.

I'm pointing out reality.

It's like a guy who who gets told by the doctor that he has lung cancer and replying "but I don't want to go to the hospital because I might get hit by lightning along the way!"

He's totally right in his assessment of reality.
And totally stupid at the same time.

 

[flacaltenn]

No.. I really don't.. Unless you're blaming YOUR Govt for being the architect of those 'hoods'.. Because THAT's the topic here. A large portion of established Black communities are STILL a product of US Govt segregation..

So it's the US government's fault that blacks are violent? Segregation works both ways. Blacks are segregated from whites, but whites are segregated from blacks, too. So how come it's the black hoods that turn to shit?

We have shitty white hoods here that you really don't want to enter (cue dueling banjos). Point is government imposed segregation is unjust.

Let's just ignore the importance of statistics, as usual.

I'm pointing out reality.

It's like a guy who who gets told by the doctor that he has lung cancer and replying "but I don't want to go to the hospital because I might get hit by lightning along the way!"

He's totally right in his assessment of reality.
And totally stupid at the same time.

I think the analogy would be better if you didn't want to let the doctor treat his lung cancer -- because he can't take his Marlboros with him..

 

[bgrouse]

So it's the US government's fault that blacks are violent? Segregation works both ways. Blacks are segregated from whites, but whites are segregated from blacks, too. So how come it's the black hoods that turn to shit?

We have shitty white hoods here that you really don't want to enter (cue dueling banjos). Point is government imposed segregation is unjust.

Let's just ignore the importance of statistics, as usual.

I'm pointing out reality.

It's like a guy who who gets told by the doctor that he has lung cancer and replying "but I don't want to go to the hospital because I might get hit by lightning along the way!"

He's totally right in his assessment of reality.
And totally stupid at the same time.

I think the analogy would be better if you didn't want to let the doctor treat his lung cancer -- because he can't take his Marlboros with him..

I don't know, maybe. Doesn't really matter what would be a better analogy. The point is that statistics, rates, and ratios are important.

 

[Coyote]

We have shitty white hoods here that you really don't want to enter (cue dueling banjos). Point is government imposed segregation is unjust.

Let's just ignore the importance of statistics, as usual.

I'm pointing out reality.

It's like a guy who who gets told by the doctor that he has lung cancer and replying "but I don't want to go to the hospital because I might get hit by lightning along the way!"

He's totally right in his assessment of reality.
And totally stupid at the same time.

I think the analogy would be better if you didn't want to let the doctor treat his lung cancer -- because he can't take his Marlboros with him..

I don't know, maybe. Doesn't really matter what would be a better analogy. The point is that statistics, rates, and ratios are important.

No.

People are important.

They aren't statistics.

They aren't ratios.

They aren't rates.

They are individuals.

You shouldn't lose sight of that.

 

[Coyote]

We have shitty white hoods here that you really don't want to enter (cue dueling banjos). Point is government imposed segregation is unjust.

Let's just ignore the importance of statistics, as usual.

I'm pointing out reality.

It's like a guy who who gets told by the doctor that he has lung cancer and replying "but I don't want to go to the hospital because I might get hit by lightning along the way!"

He's totally right in his assessment of reality.
And totally stupid at the same time.

I think the analogy would be better if you didn't want to let the doctor treat his lung cancer -- because he can't take his Marlboros with him..

I don't know, maybe. Doesn't really matter what would be a better analogy. The point is that statistics, rates, and ratios are important.

No.

People are important.

They aren't statistics.

They aren't ratios.

They aren't rates.

They are individuals.

You shouldn't lose sight of that.

 

[bgrouse]

Let's just ignore the importance of statistics, as usual.

I'm pointing out reality.

It's like a guy who who gets told by the doctor that he has lung cancer and replying "but I don't want to go to the hospital because I might get hit by lightning along the way!"

He's totally right in his assessment of reality.
And totally stupid at the same time.

I think the analogy would be better if you didn't want to let the doctor treat his lung cancer -- because he can't take his Marlboros with him..

I don't know, maybe. Doesn't really matter what would be a better analogy. The point is that statistics, rates, and ratios are important.

No.

People are important.

They aren't statistics.

They aren't ratios.

They aren't rates.

They are individuals.

You shouldn't lose sight of that.

I don't have time to figure out everything about every individual I encounter, so I take a shortcut. It's called prejudice.
If someone throws a grenade at you, are you going to take cover or not? I take cover, even though I have no idea what's inside. It could be a toy for all I know, but I won't take the chance unless there's a good reason for it.

 

[Coyote]

I'm pointing out reality.

It's like a guy who who gets told by the doctor that he has lung cancer and replying "but I don't want to go to the hospital because I might get hit by lightning along the way!"

He's totally right in his assessment of reality.
And totally stupid at the same time.

I think the analogy would be better if you didn't want to let the doctor treat his lung cancer -- because he can't take his Marlboros with him..

I don't know, maybe. Doesn't really matter what would be a better analogy. The point is that statistics, rates, and ratios are important.

No.

People are important.

They aren't statistics.

They aren't ratios.

They aren't rates.

They are individuals.

You shouldn't lose sight of that.

I don't have time to figure out everything about every individual I encounter, so I take a shortcut. It's called prejudice.
If someone throws a grenade at you, are you going to take cover or not? I take cover, even though I have no idea what's inside. It could be a toy for all I know, but I won't take the chance unless there's a good reason for it.

This is not a grenade.

 

[bgrouse]

It's like a guy who who gets told by the doctor that he has lung cancer and replying "but I don't want to go to the hospital because I might get hit by lightning along the way!"

He's totally right in his assessment of reality.
And totally stupid at the same time.

I think the analogy would be better if you didn't want to let the doctor treat his lung cancer -- because he can't take his Marlboros with him..

I don't know, maybe. Doesn't really matter what would be a better analogy. The point is that statistics, rates, and ratios are important.

No.

People are important.

They aren't statistics.

They aren't ratios.

They aren't rates.

They are individuals.

You shouldn't lose sight of that.

I don't have time to figure out everything about every individual I encounter, so I take a shortcut. It's called prejudice.
If someone throws a grenade at you, are you going to take cover or not? I take cover, even though I have no idea what's inside. It could be a toy for all I know, but I won't take the chance unless there's a good reason for it.

This is not a grenade.

It's an analogy. I've already figured out plenty about some of the blacks on here. On an individual (although through the internet) basis.

 

[Coyote]

I think the analogy would be better if you didn't want to let the doctor treat his lung cancer -- because he can't take his Marlboros with him..

I don't know, maybe. Doesn't really matter what would be a better analogy. The point is that statistics, rates, and ratios are important.

No.

People are important.

They aren't statistics.

They aren't ratios.

They aren't rates.

They are individuals.

You shouldn't lose sight of that.

I don't have time to figure out everything about every individual I encounter, so I take a shortcut. It's called prejudice.
If someone throws a grenade at you, are you going to take cover or not? I take cover, even though I have no idea what's inside. It could be a toy for all I know, but I won't take the chance unless there's a good reason for it.

This is not a grenade.

It's an analogy. I've already figured out plenty about some of the blacks on here. On an individual (although through the internet) basis.

I suspect some of them can say the same things about some of the whites on here...you think?