|
I can't think of any reason to post this other than to try and diminish the nature and impact of northern racism. I mean, otherwise what's the point? Both areas are extremely racist to such an extent that it's completely pointless to squabble over which is worse.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I can't think of any reason to post this other than to try and diminish the nature and impact of northern racism. I mean, otherwise what's the point? Both areas are extremely racist to such an extent that it's completely pointless to squabble over which is worse. I dunno, I mean there's a great opportunity for a cross-cultural exchange here. Southerners learn how to set up neighborhood school districts and reroute planned highway projects to destroy black neighborhoods, and Rudy Giuliani gets to say on national tv with utmost sincerity that white police officers are the only thing keeping the savage blacks from murdering each other in fits of primal jungle rage. Really, it's a win-win all around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:I dunno, I mean there's a great opportunity for a cross-cultural exchange here. Southerners learn how to set up neighborhood school districts and reroute planned highway projects to destroy black neighborhoods, and Rudy Giuliani gets to say on national tv with utmost sincerity that white police officers are the only thing keeping the savage blacks from murdering each other in fits of primal jungle rage. Really, it's a win-win all around. Oregonians can teach you how to open up boutique cupcake shops in traditional black neighborhoods until the black people have to move to Portland's lovely suburbs! ...at least that is the joke, but that is not what I really think. I guess that is what I used to think, that things like gentrification were just another type of racism. Because, as a conscientious person raised in the Pacific Northwest, I kind of grew up with self-doubt as an important principle. But, as this thread would suggest, I am kind of breaking away from that: I just can't look at things like gentrification as racist in the way that Alabama putting "Anti-Sharia Law" in their constitution is racist, or Tom Cotton claiming that Mexican drug cartels are going to start working with ISIS. Basically, I am tired of being overly "fair" and trying to pretend that these things are equivalent. The racism I saw in Oregon was usually from condescending and ignorance, and I just don't think it is the same as the attempt by southern politicians to outcrazy each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates would argue that gentrification is part of the same racism which leads to Tom Cotton or Steve King or anti-Sharia laws, and that you can't separate the two kinds of acts to declare one worse than the other without removing all meaning from the term. And he'd be right. In fact if you haven't, you should read his article on reparations, especially the section on property.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Basically, I am tired of being overly "fair" and trying to pretend that these things are equivalent. The racism I saw in Oregon was usually from condescending and ignorance, and I just don't think it is the same as the attempt by southern politicians to outcrazy each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:I dunno, I mean there's a great opportunity for a cross-cultural exchange here. Southerners learn how to set up neighborhood school districts and reroute planned highway projects to destroy black neighborhoods, and Rudy Giuliani gets to say on national tv with utmost sincerity that white police officers are the only thing keeping the savage blacks from murdering each other in fits of primal jungle rage. Really, it's a win-win all around. It looks like controlling for % of the population, more black people are killed outside of the South:  glowing-fish posted:Oregonians can teach you how to open up boutique cupcake shops in traditional black neighborhoods until the black people have to move to Portland's lovely suburbs! If we're going historical, they can also show you the merits of banning black people from the state entirely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates would argue that gentrification is part of the same racism which leads to Tom Cotton or Steve King or anti-Sharia laws, and that you can't separate the two kinds of acts to declare one worse than the other without removing all meaning from the term. And he'd be right. How is gentrification the same as racism? It is a couple steps removed from any specifically hateful or fearful act- an effect of such racism rather than a manifestation of it. It seems to me that at this point we need another, better word for the effects that racism has on society. That word as of now of course, is racism, but if opening a cupcake shop in a black neighborhood is racism then how are you ever gonna get people to take the problem seriously? It is true that fear based racism and systemic racism are intimately linked, but to deny any distinction between the two seems like a mistake born out of idealism. Ultimately, nothing will get better until white American moderates become more comfortable talking about race, and an overly broad conceptualization of racism which extends from lynchings to gentrification seems like a bad way to achieve this goal. e: yes I've read the article Miltank fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Oregonians can teach you how to open up boutique cupcake shops in traditional black neighborhoods until the black people have to move to Portland's lovely suburbs! I can emphasize with you from a NW standpoint of self-doubt. As a straight guy working for an LGBT organization I've found myself having to justify my support for a cause I don't directly relate to. How I have chosen to deal with these sorts of situations is to refer to things in class conscious ways. I can make arguments about racial inequality till the cows come home, but as straight white man those arguments will fall flat, and the most I can do is throw my support 100% behind those are making the arguments from the proper backgrounds and experiences. I can bolster a minorities argument with my own from a different angle but cannot make that argument myself. IMO politics is a blood sport fueled by self interest, and if your position can't in some way be framed in self-interest you will get nowhere with the more ruthless/racist/sexist/masochist brokers of power. It's why SJW(skeletons) from upper-middle class backgrounds on the interwebs gives everyone such a bad taste in their mouth. They argue from a viewpoint they don't exist in which weakens the case of those arguing from true experience, self-interest. Because I'm poor and come from a working class background I can relate these circumstances to others around me. What I can do is show how decisions made at higher levels of government/corporate policy can affect the poor, which disproportionately falls along racial lines. In the NW I would argue the problem is more class base than race based, but again this is how I've chosen to define my arguments as I can come from a point of strength on my own experiences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Everyone is racist but for most of its political history the South has been ruled by a collection of egregious comic book villains and that's what is unique.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Miltank posted:How is gentrification the same as racism? It is a couple steps removed from any specifically hateful or fearful act- an effect of such racism rather than a manifestation of it. Gentrification is rooted in racist ideals from the mid-20th century that are finally maturing. Gentrification itself isn't explicitly racist but it has a deeply racist legacy. Gentrification in America is the grandchild of White Flight and the great-grandchild of Redlining. If those hadn't happened, there wouldn't be large sections of concentrated black poverty in American cities to exploit. glowing-fish posted:Basically, I am tired of being overly "fair" and trying to pretend that these things are equivalent. The racism I saw in Oregon was usually from condescending and ignorance, and I just don't think it is the same as the attempt by southern politicians to outcrazy each other. The first time in my life I ever went three whole days without seeing a black person was in Portland, Oregon. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Yeah, we get the picture that North was Free, South was Slave, but it was not at all like that. Aside from the border states, it must be remembered that most of the Northern states only began abolishing slavery in the late 1700s/early 1800s. New York state only abolished it in 1828 for instance, with a grace period of indentured servitude.. New Jersey ended it in 1804, but only for children born to slaves, not the slaves themselves, so there may very well have been a few old slaves there when war broke out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Yeah, we get the picture that North was Free, South was Slave, but it was not at all like that. Aside from the border states, it must be remembered that most of the Northern states only began abolishing slavery in the late 1700s/early 1800s. New York state only abolished it in 1828 for instance, with a grace period of indentured servitude.. New Jersey ended it in 1804, but only for children born to slaves, not the slaves themselves, so there may very well have been a few old slaves there when war broke out. That may seem like an important distinction to you, and it might be a more compelling fact if the civil war never happened and the other states just sort of gave up slavery a little later. But in this universe, some of the states started a war that killed thousands upon thousands of Americans because they didn't want to end slavery, and the other ones did not do that. So yes it was at all like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If we're going historical, they can also show you the merits of banning black people from the state entirely. Also, being the birthplace of the 1920s pyramid-scheme KKK iteration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:That may seem like an important distinction to you, and it might be a more compelling fact if the civil war never happened and the other states just sort of gave up slavery a little later. But in this universe, some of the states started a war that killed thousands upon thousands of Americans because they didn't want to end slavery, and the other ones did not do that. So yes it was at all like that. Right. South bad. North good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Miltank posted:How is gentrification the same as racism? It is a couple steps removed from any specifically hateful or fearful act- an effect of such racism rather than a manifestation of it. But it is a manifestation of the same systemic inequality that leads to more violent acts. It can't exist without that inequality. Popular Thug Drink posted:Gentrification is rooted in racist ideals from the mid-20th century that are finally maturing. Gentrification itself isn't explicitly racist but it has a deeply racist legacy. Gentrification in America is the grandchild of White Flight and the great-grandchild of Redlining. If those hadn't happened, there wouldn't be large sections of concentrated black poverty in American cities to exploit. Exactly. The big point is it's still a removal of black agency. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Racism exists in different forms in different regions of the country. There's a quip I heard a while back that rings really true with me, having lived in both the most conservative (deep South) and liberal (NorCal) parts of the country. It goes something along the lines of, 'the south hates the black community but loves the black man, while the north loves the black community but hates the black man.' Southerners might bitch about affirmative action and make thinly veiled (if veiled at all) racist remarks, but I actually think a southerner is probably much more likely to treat a black person as just another person in one on one encounters. I've heard in places like Chicago white people are basically mortified of interactions with black people, and I can say from experience living in a mixed neighborhood in California that there's some minor interaction between the white and black communities, but they're still very isolated from each other, despite living amongst each other. If you're a young black professional and you want to have a career and middle class lifestyle with the least amount of prejudicial barriers, in my mind you move to D.C. or Atlanta, not the Northeast or West Coast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:
In general, if an issue like this is class based rather than race based, it's only because there's not a lot of that particular minority in the area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
The reasons for the higher rates in segregation in housing in the North as opposed to the South has more to do with the way poor minorities moved into the north after WWII. In the south segregation developed naturally from the old slave and sharecropper systems. There were always black people in these places mixed in with whites. Black vs. White neighborhoods didn't develop all at once but slowly over time. This creates a much more confusing checkerboard of segregation in the south. Enabled by higher wages and drawn by hopes that northerners would treat them better, a lot of black people tried to move north after WWII. But because of deficiencies in US mortgage laws they were unable to get proper mortgages in the nicer areas where they wanted to buy houses. Instead they had to take predatory loans from sleazy loan companies, whose extremely inequitable terms forced black families into increasing amounts of debt. Ultimately this led to them being unable to pay these debts without resorting to working extreme extra hours or taking other jobs. Consequently their homes fell into disrepair, and their children were often without supervision. At this point the loan companies moved back in and offered to buy the white peoples homes. Most refused, but a few accepted. So the predatory loan companies repeated this process bringing in more black families, and offering to buy out white ones. But when they came back to the white families they told them their property had devalued and offered them less. So the whites sold out afraid their property would soon be worthless. Soon whole neighborhoods were black and in debt. And they began expanding block by block. The white people didn't understand any of this. All they saw was black people move in, property values go down, they are forced to sellout for less then half of the properties value. But until US mortgage laws were modified in the 70's these segregated neighborhoods were the only place poor black people could find housing in Northern cities. By that point it had become obvious to the black community that the north wasn't some magical solution to racism, so the migration had slowed. The North and South are both racist. There is a subtle racism of assumptions and apathy that is present both North and South. This is the "bad neighborhood' crowd or the "black on black crime" crowd's domain. Also the criminal justice system is broken regardless of whether you are north or south of the Mason/Dixon line. The main difference between North and South is in the ways overt racism shows up outside of those contexts. It tends to be based more on individual attitudes and actions in the North, while in the South it tends to be ingrained within a larger cultural consensus. In the North you get the loudmouth who thinks black people are lazy and loves the word friend of the family and doesn't get why everyone thinks it's inappropriate. In the South you get segregated proms. A better way of putting it might be that Northerners treat blacks like foreigners who are 'invading,' while Southerners treat them more like second-class citizens whom they have become resigned to living besides. These are broad generalizations of course. You see all of these things to some degree in all areas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
caleramaen posted:But because of deficiencies in US mortgage laws they were unable to get proper mortgages in the nicer areas where they wanted to buy houses. i dunno if you can call something a deficiency when it's deliberately engineered into the system caleramaen posted:Instead they had to take predatory loans from sleazy loan companies, whose extremely inequitable terms forced black families into increasing amounts of debt. Ultimately this led to them being unable to pay these debts without resorting to working extreme extra hours or taking other jobs. Consequently their homes fell into disrepair, and their children were often without supervision. At this point the loan companies moved back in and offered to buy the white peoples homes. Most refused, but a few accepted. So the predatory loan companies repeated this process bringing in more black families, and offering to buy out white ones. But when they came back to the white families they told them their property had devalued and offered them less. So the whites sold out afraid their property would soon be worthless. Soon whole neighborhoods were black and in debt. And they began expanding block by block. The white people didn't understand any of this. All they saw was black people move in, property values go down, they are forced to sellout for less then half of the properties value. But until US mortgage laws were modified in the 70's these segregated neighborhoods were the only place poor black people could find housing in Northern cities. By that point it had become obvious to the black community that the north wasn't some magical solution to racism, so the migration had slowed. i am confused as hell by this and i've written many words about FHLA boner confessor fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
I would say the difference is active malice vs passive apathy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Because, as a conscientious person raised in the Pacific Northwest how many asians died building railroads round your parts and had their grandchildren sent to internment camps Seriously how does a thread about racism completely ignore anything besides blacks v whites. JeffersonClay posted:Racism in American history you might be discounting: Rodatose fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Yea, the title itself is a bad question. Racism is a problem. Full stop. Racism is a problem in the Southern US. Full stop. Racism is a problem in America. Full stop. There is no where an 'or' should go between any of those statements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i dunno if you can call something a deficiency when it's deliberately engineered into the system Popular Thug Drink posted:i am confused as hell by this and i've written many words about FHLA Yeah it's drat confusing, and I tried finding the book it was based on before I posted, but no such luck. I read it a few years ago after author came and spoke at my school. I can't even remember the name now. It basically describes a vicious cycle between predatory lenders who give economically crippling loans to black families with one hand, and buy up houses belonging to neighboring whites with the other. The key component of the loans was that if the lendee missed even a single payment they would lose the house and any money they had previously paid. And since the same company now owned the houses they could keep doing this over and over again. So to pay the loans and their very high interest rates many black families had to work multiple jobs. They had no time to do things like mow the lawn or do basic home maintenance. This fed into pre-existing white stereotypes of black people being lazy and motivated more whites in the neighborhood into selling to those same lenders who were now offering less money. And threatening to pay less the next time they came around. These neighborhoods became the nuclei around which the massive black ghettos would grow in the north.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
The book I read about it was called A Consumers' Republic. What you said was pretty much spot on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
Gentrification is a class-driven issue. The tying of race to class through economic discrimination makes it seem like a race-driven issue but the practice of driving up property values by the gentry to expropriate/drive out the poor predates the racial era; that was how rural landlords drove peasants from the land in order to convert feudal agriculture to fall under the capitalist-industrial mode of production. It also had the effect of forcing people to no longer be able to work the land and have to sell their labor in cities. Recently, cities like London or Rio de Janero have used sports tournaments like the world cup or the olympics as an excuse to renovate and force out citizens from poorer areas that are seen as a blight on their precious image on TV cameras and tourist postcards. Though the newham london area being one of the Least White areas in britain and the favelas being 68.4% mixed race or black vs a 47.7% mixed race or black composition of all of Rio de Janero does beg the question of what motivates it nowadays: are poors the undesireables or are wrongblooded folks the undesireables in politicians' eyes? Rodatose fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Khorne posted:The north east's racism, ouside of really poor areas or genuine racists which exist everywhere, is more like an expectation of racial tension than it is hating a person/race for being a race. At least in MA that's what I have experienced, and it's usually diffused by one or both parties being friendly. When I spent time in arizona/florida/alabama, a bunch of people I met were just openly racist when not in public. Spouting ridiculous poo poo about how all of a certain race were this or that and should be this or that. It was ridiculous, and it's not something you hear up north at all even amongst people I'd consider racist up here. If you think there's no racism in MA, try talking to a white person about Dorchester or the Orange Line. I guess "expectation of racial tension" is your way of referring to the common belief among Northerners that venturing into a predominantly-black neighborhood (or even a subway line passing through those neighborhoods) will probably get you murdered? In my experience, Northerners are pretty racist too, it's just that the way in which that racism manifests and is expressed happens in different ways for cultural and environmental reasons. In the south, the relatively high minority population means that people are more apt to be openly racist, whereas in the highly segregated north, "bad neighborhood" is the preferred code word for poo poo-talking minorities and social policies can often be targeted against those specific neighborhoods. Systematic racism (discrimination by cops, teachers, lawyers, judges, and potential employers) is equally prevalent loving everywhere, regardless of whether or not the practitioners are overtly racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
caleramaen posted:Yeah it's drat confusing, and I tried finding the book it was based on before I posted, but no such luck. no i get the concept the sequence of words is confusing in the 1950's roughly, white real estate agents would simultaneously sell properties to black families while brokering the sale of homes between white families and black families. all you had to do was sell one house to a black family. don't worry, everyone on the block would notice. it was in your interest for them to notice. once a single black family moved in, you could convince all the other white people that the days of sodom were here, there goes the neighborhood, might as well sell to me now. so you got a bunch of houses for cheap, because everyone on the block was selling. you'd turn around and sell these houses to black families, at a markup, using said predatory lenders because if you weren't a WASP you legally couldn't get a good mortgage thanks FHLA like you can track neighborhoods flipping from predominantly white to predominantly black in the span of 5 years caleramaen posted:So to pay the loans and their very high interest rates many black families had to work multiple jobs. this has more to do with the fact that white people weren't just fleeing the cities as part of suburbanization, jobs were also moving to the suburbs. you can think of the years 1945-1990 as the years in america where white people were busy looting everything good about american cities and building little bullshit disneyland cities in the suburbs Rodatose posted:Recently, cities like London or Rio de Janero wanna point out that cities which weren't subject to automobility pressure in the mid 20th century have completely different methods and processes of gentrification, even though the outcome is exactly the same
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Also re: antebellum racism, it's important to note that while everywhere was racist Northerners really weren't down with literally owning black people like the South and part of big issue was Southerners exerting their political power to be able to enforce their institution in northern territories, even to the point of turning non-slave states into enforces of rounding up blacks to bring back to the South as slaves. I think using our modern lens of "what's racist" really kind of dilutes the dynamics at play of the time. U.S. Grant gives a pretty good summary of what the "moderate position" of the North was at the time of the buildup to Civil War I think: quote:THE CAUSE of the great War of the Rebellion against the United Status will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that “A state half slave and half free cannot exist.” All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true. http://www.bartleby.com/1011/101.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:wanna point out that cities which weren't subject to automobility pressure in the mid 20th century have completely different methods and processes of gentrification, even though the outcome is exactly the same agreed. I shoulda said that that was a recent example of one way it goes down, not The Way, sorry for unclearness Another recent example: a repost (from some thread about how now first ring suburbs are being abandoned with civil services going into disrepair from lack of funding as wealthier folks move back into cities to gentrify them) about gentrification of east harlem: [post]My point was more that East Harlem being gentrified so it's becoming increasingly unaffordable to old locals yet new yuppies can afford the raising prices in harlem so the makeup of the place is changing: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/realestate/harlem-back-after-a-short-nap.html quote:During the same period, the median price in Central Harlem — the area from Morningside Avenue to the west and Fifth Avenue to the east, and from 110th Street north to 125th Street — jumped by nearly 18 percent, to $536,635. In East Harlem, from 97th Street to 125th Street east of Fifth Avenue, the median price increased by nearly 5 percent, to $440,000, in 2011. quote:Census data maps show significant drops in the African-American population in traditional strongholds like Harlem and Central Brooklyn from 2000 to 2010. And between 2010 and 2011, the median housing prices in central Harlem jumped by over 18 percent, The New York Times reported. http://thesource.com/2014/02/22/gentrification-from-an-east-harlem-perspective/ quote:Building owners usually stop artists from having art studios, so some buildings have beautiful art and murals on them. The tragedy of an artist is to make a neighborhood so beautiful that they themselves cannot live there. Neighborhood notoriety affects existing businesses in the area as well. Small businesses have no protection. For example, on one commercial strip in East Harlem, five businesses got kicked out in the span of 30 days. The landlord wanted more rent and made it hard on them and that’s an endemic problem. East Harlem is full of culture and there is also Central Harlem and the whole Harlem Renaissance that people created. You may have their pictures in a café, but the residents no longer live there. The people outside the neighborhood are benefiting from gentrification. http://thegrio.com/2013/12/16/harlem-race-and-gentrification-black-gentrifiers-reflect-on-their-role-in-the-changing-harlem-landscape/2/ quote:Yes, Harlem is becoming more chic and culturally stimulating due to an array of influences powered by monied African-Americans. Yet, restaurants and related entertainments there are still a very big business — and surprisingly political in their operation. “Forty-four percent of the businesses that are part of Harlem Park to Park are in the food and drink industry,” said Hendricks. and this whole article is a parade of first world yuppie complaints quote:Many neighbors agree that their genteel enclave of brownstones in the heart of Harlem does need a shop where they can pick up, say, a good cabernet for a dinner party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Unsurprisingly, a nation founded on the corpses of natives and the backs of african slaves might struggle with racism even after 200 years have passed. The North/South dichotomy is overblown. It also paints an incomplete picture of discrimination against minority groups that are not black. Concentration camps built to contain Japanese Americans in World War II, for instance, were a travesty. They were also motivated by irrational racial concerns instead of homeland security, because the FBI at the time, who had made a point of observing the JA community since the turn of the century, swore up and down that they were not a threat. The Japanese government considered them "unreliable". But I guess we couldn't afford a concentration camp gap and lose to the Nazis,so here we are. Or, for a more contemporary example, discrimination against the Arab American community after 9/11 was quite severe (and is still a sizable problem.) Prejudice against latinos and other immigrants is rampant in California, which is not typically considered a southern state. The doctrine of white supremacy is coded into the law of the land, and while a lot of it has been grandfathered in, the harsh resistance to removing it is a good indication that we still have a lot of work to do if we want to create society where everyone is actually equally protected under the law. So do many other countries, of course, but the question was about America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:Unsurprisingly, a nation founded on the corpses of natives and the backs of african slaves might struggle with racism even after 200 years have passed. The North/South dichotomy is overblown. It also paints an incomplete picture of discrimination against minority groups that are not black. Keep in mind that while California, and other south western states, have mixed histories during the Civil War, their acquisition after the war with Mexico was largely viewed as an expansion of the slave power in the South. Like, we conquered a country and walked away with half its territory largely for the perceived benefit of slave holders (though it didn't end up panning out that way and partly led to the Civil War) Edit: saying north/south divide is overblown is lazy, oversimplification of history. "Overblown" divide doesn't lead to something like the american civil war Double edit: like its incredible someone can just handwave away north/south divides than bring up Mexican War conquests as an example and not pause in thought of doing so Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Keep in mind that while California, and other south western states, have mixed histories during the Civil War, their acquisition after the war with Mexico was largely viewed as an expansion of the slave power in the South. Like, we conquered a country and walked away with half its territory largely for the perceived benefit of slave holders (though it didn't end up panning out that way and partly led to the Civil War) Yeah, so for two years California technically was a Southern
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Gentrification is a class-driven issue. The tying of race to class through economic discrimination makes it seem like a race-driven issue but the practice of driving up property values by the gentry to expropriate/drive out the poor predates the racial era; that was how rural landlords drove peasants from the land in order to convert feudal agriculture to fall under the capitalist-industrial mode of production. It also had the effect of forcing people to no longer be able to work the land and have to sell their labor in cities. Right. The gentrification process is topically race-blind. However, there is a fairly tight correlation between race and and socioeconomic status in the US, and any discussing of class issues necessarily must consider race as well. It's for this reason that race-based affirmative action is a blunt and unnecessarily objectionable too to use, when economic affirmative action would accomplish the desired end of racial integration without constitutionally-problematic racial discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Dazzling Addar posted:Unsurprisingly, a nation founded on the corpses of natives and the backs of african slaves might struggle with racism even after 200 years have passed. The North/South dichotomy is overblown. It also paints an incomplete picture of discrimination against minority groups that are not black. Then why is it that the United States is much more advanced in race relations than European nations? At least in the US, open expressions of racism lead to social leprosy in most circles, and the legislature and judiciary recognize integration as a goal. Compare this to French or Spanish attitudes toward Maghrebins, or British attitudes toward (South) Asians, or German attitudes toward Turks, and the US comes out looking absolutely enlightened. Don't even get me started on the open, blatant racism of developed countries like Japan or South Korea. The US has a long way to go on racial issues. At the same time, there are no nations on the planet that are more progressive on race than the US and Canada.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Right. The gentrification process is topically race-blind. However, there is a fairly tight correlation between race and and socioeconomic status in the US, and any discussing of class issues necessarily must consider race as well. It's for this reason that race-based affirmative action is a blunt and unnecessarily objectionable too to use, when economic affirmative action would accomplish the desired end of racial integration without constitutionally-problematic racial discrimination. Your second sentence actually contradicts your third there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Your second sentence actually contradicts your third there. Conclusory statements are unpersuasive without detailing the why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
The major difference is that Southern Racism got backed up institutionally. Northern Racism just prevented blacks/latinos from getting good jobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Korak posted:The major difference is that Southern Racism got backed up institutionally. Northern Racism just prevented blacks/latinos from getting good jobs. What do you think "institutionally" means?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Conclusory statements are unpersuasive without detailing the why. Yes, I agree. That's why this statement: quote:It's for this reason that race-based affirmative action is a blunt and unnecessarily objectionable too to use, when economic affirmative action would accomplish the desired end of racial integration without constitutionally-problematic racial discrimination. Is entirely unpersuasive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Yea, the title itself is a bad question. Though how you deal with each situation would be different. In the Northeast you have to find a way to reintegrate communities post White-flight. Some of that is being taken care of as Gen X and Y move back into the cities but then we run into the gentrification problem. In the South, you have to overhaul the political culture that uses blacks as scapegoats to the problem and I am not sure how you do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 16:11
|
|
