|
Post by Don on Mar 22, 2019 10:44:23 GMT -5
I didn't want to hijack the 2020 election thread, but there was some interest in housing segregation as it applies to reparations, so I though this article might prove interesting to some. The Federal Government Was the Primary Catalyst of Housing SegregationThe article describes the Home Owners Loan Corporation, the evolution of redlining, the discriminatory policies of the Federal Housing Administration, the enforced segregation in public housing projects, attempts to integrate the Housing Act of 1949, and why the Fair Housing Act was too little, too late. It also briefly touches on discriminatory employment policies enshrined in legislation such as the Wagner Act of 1935 and the Davis-Bacon Act, but the focus is on housing. Throw in "urban planning" and its impact on inner cities, add the War on Drugs, with its disproportionate impact on minorities, and it's clear that both state and local governments waged a racial war for decades, always under the guise of acting for the "greater good." That none of these war criminals are even widely recognized as such is a crime in itself. But I'm not convinced that there's a way to make this crime right; taking from Peter to pay Paul simply compounds the crime, IMO. And as somebody mentioned up thread, native americans have first claim, IMO. And look how government has "helped" them.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 24, 2019 14:25:35 GMT -5
I didn't want to hijack the 2020 election thread, but there was some interest in housing segregation as it applies to reparations, so I though this article might prove interesting to some. The Federal Government Was the Primary Catalyst of Housing SegregationThe article describes the Home Owners Loan Corporation, the evolution of redlining, the discriminatory policies of the Federal Housing Administration, the enforced segregation in public housing projects, attempts to integrate the Housing Act of 1949, and why the Fair Housing Act was too little, too late. It also briefly touches on discriminatory employment policies enshrined in legislation such as the Wagner Act of 1935 and the Davis-Bacon Act, but the focus is on housing. Throw in "urban planning" and its impact on inner cities, add the War on Drugs, with its disproportionate impact on minorities, and it's clear that both state and local governments waged a racial war for decades, always under the guise of acting for the "greater good." That none of these war criminals are even widely recognized as such is a crime in itself. But I'm not convinced that there's a way to make this crime right; taking from Peter to pay Paul simply compounds the crime, IMO. I read the link and while the author makes many solid points, his heavy-handed prejudices are all too apparent for me.
That part is true. The Davis-Bacon Act did discriminate against Black construction workers. However, this paragraph short-circuits the argument against housing segregation by arguing for it. This is missing the point about housing segregation and how it works. It's not as though there are Whites Only signs displaying that a suburban neighborhood is off-limits to Blacks. That would invite demonstrations and lawsuits. It's easier to steer unwanted groups away from those neighborhoods entirely and make sure they never get the chance to integrate them. If I have the means to buy any home in any neighborhood, why should I allow myself to be steered to a less desirable one and away from another because the other homeowners have self-segregated? Sorry, but that's crap. The author's animus against FDR's New Deal is obvious as he doesn't even consider what was about it that converted Blacks from lifelong Republicans to Democrats.The feds were not all good, enlightened White folk. They had their own way of interacting with Blacks and other groups of color and it was standard operating procedure to slow-walk and drag feet when it came to protecting them from White racist violence. The New Deal was not manna from heaven as much as it was an attempt to put Americans back to work and back on their feet following the Great Depression. Much was wrong about it, but as a whole, FDR has been proven to be right. From my own family story, I can attest how high in regard my mother and father held Roosevelt and without all that Franklin and Eleanor did to elevate the lives of African-Americans, I daresay the United States would have languished even longer in the darkness of state-sponsored segregation.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 25, 2019 15:12:30 GMT -5
But I'm not convinced that there's a way to make this crime right; taking from Peter to pay Paul simply compounds the crime, IMO. And as somebody mentioned up thread, native americans have first claim, IMO. And look how government has "helped" them. In regards to the first sentence I quoted from your post, there is never a wrong time to do the right thing. There is no statue of limitations on making restitution.
Secondly, it's offensive to say "Native Americans have first claim." What's that supposed to mean? If there's no Blacks who came over in The Middle Passage to be sold in slave markets in Virginia, it is equally certain there are no living Indians who walked the Trail of Tears or survived Wounded Knee. This first claim b.s. pits one group that got fucked over by racist White supremacists against another group that got fucked over by racist White supremacists.
To go by your way of redress, the German government would have to say to the Poles they didn't get it as bad as the Slavs or the gypsies or the Jews, so wait your turn for reparations. It's not about who suffered more. It is not about who can catch first the crumbs brushed from the dinner table before they hit the floor.
It's not an either/or issue, Don. It's both.
|
|