Racism in 21st Century America

[Ragerunner]

I would like to continue the discussion about racism in America. My goal of this thread to provide information on how racism still shows itself in American society. 
This is not a thread to discuss CRT. 

Biased appraisals and the devaluation of housing in Black neighborhoods

https://www.brookings.edu/research/biased-appraisals-and-the-devaluation-of-housing-in-black-neighborhoods/?amp

How we can help?

One way is too work with local, State and National leaders to ensure that rules are in place that monitors how the appraisal process is implemented.

Why is this a big problem?

One of the main conduits to establishing wealth for current and future generations in the US is through the holding/selling of real estate. When certain segments of society have their access to this wealth building impeded, (compared to other) we create a noticeable short and long term wealth gap. Which can build over several generations.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I would like to continue the discussion about racism in America. My goal of this thread to provide information on how racism still shows itself in American society. 
This is not a thread to discuss CRT. 

Biased appraisals and the devaluation of housing in Black neighborhoods

https://www.brookings.edu/research/biased-appraisals-and-the-devaluation-of-housing-in-black-neighborhoods/?amp

How we can help?

One way is too work with local, State and National leaders to ensure that rules are in place that monitors how the appraisal process is implemented.

Why is this a big problem?

One of the main conduits to establishing wealth for current and future generations in the US is through the holding/selling of real estate. When certain segments of society have their access to this wealth building impeded, (compared to other) we create a noticeable short and long term wealth gap. Which can build over several generations.

What you are speaking of is actually part of a much larger populist problem in which most ordinary people cannot afford a mortgage and cannot afford to rent.  Why?  Because decades have gone by in which the middle class has not received adequate wage increases (good-paying industrial jobs have largely gone overseas), while inflation has made education and property acquisition out of reach.  The consequence is loss of a huge middle class, which used to be the bulwark of American success.

Concern about the appraisal process and red-lining is good, but it really amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  We have much bigger fish to fry, and there is no guarantee we will be able to wriggle our way out of this problem.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What you are speaking of is actually part of a much larger populist problem in which most ordinary people cannot afford a mortgage and cannot afford to rent.  Why?  Because decades have gone by in which the middle class has not received adequate wage increases (good-paying industrial jobs have largely gone overseas), while inflation has made education and property acquisition out of reach.  The consequence is loss of a huge middle class, which used to be the bulwark of American success.

I wonder if there is an additional factor: Zoning and land use laws as hindering construction of affordable housing.  See, e.g. here:

And here:

Hmm.  The impact on those of socioeconomically modest means is particularly potent because it has such a dampening effect on their quality of life, their ability to graduate from renting to owning, and so on.

Also, my understanding is that zoning laws had their origins in . . . racial segregation.  Oi.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Concern about the appraisal process and red-lining is good, but it really amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  We have much bigger fish to fry, and there is no guarantee we will be able to wriggle out way out of this problem.

More affordable housing, such as apartments, starter homes, duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, mother-in-law apartments, etc., could have a very big impact on the housing market overall. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 24, 2022 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

More affordable housing, such as apartments, starter homes, duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, mother-in-law apartments, etc., could have a very big impact on the housing market overall.

Plenty of duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes all over Utah.  Usually polygamists getting around zoning.  I pass a huge one on the Bangerter highway regularly.

 

[Ragerunner]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What you are speaking of is actually part of a much larger populist problem in which most ordinary people cannot afford a mortgage and cannot afford to rent.  Why?  Because decades have gone by in which the middle class has not received adequate wage increases (good-paying industrial jobs have largely gone overseas), while inflation has made education and property acquisition out of reach.  The consequence is loss of a huge middle class, which used to be the bulwark of American success.

Concern about the appraisal process and red-lining is good, but it really amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  We have much bigger fish to fry, and there is no guarantee we will be able to wriggle our way out of this problem.

While American’s housing has many issues the focus of this in depth report show how racism is still alive in some areas of the country, through the appraisal and real estate system.

[Ragerunner]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if there is an additional factor: Zoning and land use laws as hindering construction of affordable housing.  See, e.g. here:

And here:

Hmm.  The impact on those of socioeconomically modest means is particularly potent because it has such a dampening effect on their quality of life, their ability to graduate from renting to owning, and so on.

Also, my understanding is that zoning laws had their origins in . . . racial segregation.  Oi.

More affordable housing, such as apartments, starter homes, duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, mother-in-law apartments, etc., could have a very big impact on the housing market overall. 

Thanks,

-Smac

This is another issue that I will post more info on. Segregation through housing types, zoning, land use and home sizes is still a practiced system to keep ‘certain people’ out of certain neighborhoods in some communities. 
It’s was used as a indirect means of segregation back in the 50s and still has its roots in those racial goals.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Ragerunner said:

This is another issue that I will post more info on. Segregation through housing types, zoning, land use and home sizes is still a practiced system to keep ‘certain people’ out of certain neighborhoods in some communities. 
It’s was used as a indirect means of segregation back in the 50s and still has its roots in those racial goals.

"Has its roots in those racial goals" covers a lot of ground, including what could be called "legacy segregation."  It is, of course, illegal for city governments, developers, etc. to discriminate in housing based on race.  Any such de jure segregation effort would be catnip for civil rights groups, attorneys, politicians, etc., any of whom would likely file lawsuits galore.

As it happens, though, we don't really have de jure segregation, but rather de facto segregation, which is markedly more messy and complex, and hence more difficult to address and improve.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

De facto segregation is the separation of people that occurs “by fact,” rather than by legally imposed requirements. For example, in medieval England, people were customarily segregated by social class or status. Often driven by fear or hate, de facto religious segregation existed in Europe for centuries. In the United States today, the high concentration of Black people in certain neighborhoods sometimes results in public schools with mostly Black students, despite laws prohibiting intentional racial segregation of schools. 

Key Takeaways: De Facto Segregation

• De facto segregation is the separation of groups that happens because of fact, circumstances, or customs. 
• De facto segregation differs from de jure segregation, which is imposed by law. 
• Today, de facto segregation is most often seen in the areas of housing and public education.

De Facto Segregation Definition

De facto segregation is the separation of groups that happens even though it is not required or sanctioned by law. Rather than an intentionally legislated effort to separate the groups, de facto segregation is the result of custom, circumstance, or personal choice. So-called urban “white flight” and neighborhood “gentrification” are two modern examples. 

In the white flight de facto segregation of the 1960s and ‘70s, millions of White people who chose not to live among Black people left urban areas for the suburbs. The satirical phrase “There goes the neighborhood” reflected the fear of White homeowners that the value of their property would fall as Black families moved in.

Today, as more minorities move to the suburbs themselves, many White people are either moving back into the cities or to new “exurbs” built beyond the existing suburbs. This reverse white flight often results in another type of de facto segregation called gentrification.

Gentrification is the process of renovating urban neighborhoods by an influx of more affluent residents. In practice, as wealthier people flow back into once-low-income neighborhoods, longtime minority residents are forced out by higher rents and property taxes based on higher home values.

De Facto vs. De Jure Segregation

In contrast to de facto segregation, which happens as a matter of fact, de jure segregation is the separation of groups of people imposed by law. For example, the Jim Crow laws legally separated Black and White people in almost all aspects of life throughout the southern United States from the 1880s to 1964.

De jure segregation can breed de facto segregation. While the government can prohibit most forms of de jure segregation, it cannot change people’s hearts and minds. If groups simply don’t want to live together, they are free to choose not to do so. The aforementioned “white flight” segregation illustrates this. Even though the Civil Rights Act of 1968 banned most forms of racial discrimination in housing, white residents simply chose to move to the suburbs rather than live with Black residents.

De Facto Segregation in Schools and Other Current Examples

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the 1954 case of Brown vs. Board of Education, coupled with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, effectively banned de jure segregation in education. However, de facto racial segregation continues to divide many of America’s public school systems today. 

Since school district assignment depends partly on where students live, cases of de facto segregation can happen. Families usually prefer that their children attend schools near their homes. While this can have positive effects, such as convenience, and safety, it can also result in a lower quality of education in neighborhoods of color. With school budgets dependent on property taxes, lower-income, often predominately made up of people of color, tend to have inferior schools with inferior facilities. In addition, more experienced teachers choose to teach in better-funded schools in more affluent white neighborhoods. While school districts are allowed to—and sometimes do—consider racial balance in their school assignment process, they are not required by law to do so.

Another major component, I think, pertains to economic segregation.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Meanwhile, widening economic inequality has emerged as a new, troubling factor in housing discrimination. As the gap widens between rich and poor, African-Americans, who typically earn far less than whites and already face discrimination in the housing market, are in danger of being left further behind.

"The mixture of class and race is hard to disentangle," says Nela Richardson, chief economist at Redfin, a national real estate brokerage and housing analysis firm. On top of de facto segregation, she says, "There are very few neighborhoods where there's economic integration – they're either all rich or all poor. We don't often see a plumber living next to a lawyer living next to a janitor."

Yet another factor - perhaps controversial - is the "Birds of a Feather" element.  There is already the "economic" feather, namely, that wealthier people tend to want to live by other wealthier people.  But I also suspect that birds of a "cultural" feather also want to flock together.  Hence we have San Francisco as a centerplace for gay folks, the "Mormon Corridor" in Utah and its environs, "Black" and "Hispanic" neighborhoods in New York, and so on.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

New York City has distinct patterns of residential concentration by race and ethnicity. Although a mix of racial groups live in some neighborhoods, each group predominates or is unevenly concentrated in many areas. Asian/PI New Yorkers are concentrated in the Lower East Side, south Brooklyn, and throughout Queens. Black New Yorkers cluster in Central Harlem, the north Bronx, central Brooklyn, and southeast Queens. The Hispanic population predominates in northern Manhattan, the Bronx, Elmhurst/Corona area, north and east Brooklyn, and parts of Staten Island. White New Yorkers predominate in Lower and Upper Manhattan, Riverdale, Staten Island, much of southern Brooklyn, and parts of west Brooklyn.

Since 1990, the share of Asian/PI residents in New York City has doubled, while the share of White residents has declined significantly. The Historical Racial and Ethnic Composition of New York City table below shows New York City’s racial and ethnic composition between 1990 and 2012-16. While the Asian/PI and Hispanic populations have grown significantly in absolute numbers and in population share, the White population has declined both in absolute numbers and as a share of total population. In the same time period, the Black population has been stable in absolute numbers, while declining as a share of total population.

Over the last three decades, it has become less likely that a single racial group will predominate in a neighborhood. The Race and Ethnicity Neighborhood Typology, 1990, 2000, and 2012-2016 maps below show an increase in the number of racially-mixed neighborhoods in New York City and a decline of majority White and majority non-White neighborhoods⁵. Between 1990 and 2012-2016, the number of predominantly White neighborhoods (White population above 75%) declined, particularly on Staten Island and in south Brooklyn, the east part of Manhattan, and western Queens. There was also a decline in the number of non-White neighborhoods, particularly non-White homogenous neighborhoods (single non-White population above 75%) in central Brooklyn and Central Harlem. Finally, the Race and Ethnicity Neighborhood Typology, 2000 and 2012-2016 maps display an increase in multi-racial neighborhoods with a White population between 25% and 50%, particularly in southern and Downtown Brooklyn and eastern Queens.

So while de jure segregation is (mostly) gone, we still need to address, as pertaining to housing, de facto segregation with elements of legacy segregation (vestiges of de jure segregaton, including onerous zoning and land use laws), economic segregation, and so on.

I think there will always be strong elements of self-selection ("Birds of a Feather") as to where people live, both as to geography (state and city) and the particulars (neighborhood and housing types).  But I think we can and ought to remove or reduce impediments to affordable housing overall.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

This is another issue that I will post more info on. Segregation through housing types, zoning, land use and home sizes is still a practiced system to keep ‘certain people’ out of certain neighborhoods in some communities. 
It’s was used as a indirect means of segregation back in the 50s and still has its roots in those racial goals.

This is enough to make me rage, Ragerunner! 🤐

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

While American’s housing has many issues the focus of this in depth report show how racism is still alive in some areas of the country, through the appraisal and real estate system.

There will always be some racism in Western society, but we overestimate it at our peril.  Soon racism becomes the overarching explanation for everything, thus ignoring the real problems which society faces.  A rising tide lifts all boats.  Currently the ship of state is in real trouble, and a wrong diagnosis means that things can only get worse.  Pretending otherwise is suicidal for everyone, not simply for marginalized groups.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

This is another issue that I will post more info on. Segregation through housing types, zoning, land use and home sizes is still a practiced system to keep ‘certain people’ out of certain neighborhoods in some communities. 
It’s was used as a indirect means of segregation back in the 50s and still has its roots in those racial goals.

Wrong again.  It is not so much marginalized groups who cannot afford both high rental and high housing purchase, but the masses who cannot afford either.  When I was young, anyone could afford to buy a home.  All he needed was a good paying job, and now they are in short supply -- for everyone.  Indeed, the great Black Migration from the South back in the 30s and 40s resulted in millions of intact Black families moving into the industrial north to fill the ranks of the automobile assembly lines in places like Detroit.  Even an explicit racist like Henry Ford was an author of Black economic salvation.  Why?  Because he was a capitalist much more than a racist.

Motown sang America in all its glory.  I spent 20 years in L.A., and I noticed that many of my Black colleagues had done well financially and moved their families out of the ghetto into White suburbia so that their children could go to school with White neighbors and have a real shot at the American dream.  I noticed that I had more and more Black, Hispanic, and Asian bosses.  Some of my doctors were Black, and it was just normal.

The corporate elites want it all.  They are the privileged few, and they call all the shots -- legal and otherwise.  They love it when systemic racism is blamed, instead of their unremitting greed and avarice.  They buy all the property for cash and then jack up the price so that no one can afford to get a leg up.  They run the regional planning commissions in order to maximize their profits.  Your focus should be on them.

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Ragerunner]

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Wrong again.  It is not so much marginalized groups who cannot afford both high rental and high housing purchase, but the masses who cannot afford either.  When I was young, anyone could afford to buy a home.  All he needed was a good paying job, and now they are in short supply -- for everyone.  Indeed, the great Black Migration from the South back in the 30s and 40s resulted in millions of intact Black families moving into the industrial north to fill the ranks of the automobile assembly lines in places like Detroit.  Even an explicit racist like Henry Ford was an author of Black economic salvation.  Why?  Because he was a capitalist much more than a racist.

Motown sang America in all its glory.  I spent 20 years in L.A., and I noticed that many of my Black colleagues had done well financially and moved their families out of the ghetto into White suburbia so that their children could go to school with White neighbors and have a real shot at the American dream.  I noticed that I had more and more Black, Hispanic, and Asian bosses.  Some of my doctors were Black, and it was just normal.

The corporate elites want it all.  They are the privileged few, and they call all the shots -- legal and otherwise.  They love it when systemic racism is blamed, instead of their unremitting greed and avarice.  They buy all the property for cash and then jack up the price so that no one can afford to get a leg up.  They run the regional planning commissions in order to maximize their profits.  Your focus should be on them.

 

Before you say ‘wrong again’ did you take the time to read the research report I post? Which is very extensive.

As I said on your previous post. There are a host of challenged and issues related to housing, zoning, etc. But, pointing those out doesn’t negate the very clear racial issues that blacks and (in this case Hispanic) experience with this issue in many areas of the US. And it has a profound effect on wealth creation. Which impacts almost all aspects of life in a capitalist environment.

In my field of work I have personally seen this issue play out all over the US. It is widespread.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Ragerunner
Reduce combative discussion

[Robert F. Smith]

55 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

 

Before you say ‘wrong again’ did you take the time to read the research report I post? Which is very extensive.

As I said on your previous post. There are a host of challenged and issues related to housing, zoning, etc. But, pointing those out doesn’t negate the very clear racial issues that blacks and (in this case Hispanic) experience with this issue in many areas of the US. And it has a profound effect on wealth creation. Which impacts almost all aspects of life in a capitalist environment.

....................

I have personally seen this issue play out all over the US. It is wide spread.

Yes, and it will continue to be as long as we apply incorrect diagnoses.  Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will avail us nothing.  It may well be that a focus on the true culprits will not be effective.  After all, the masses seldom listen to the facts anyhow, and the corporate elite already have our coffin nailed shut.  They love it when we mistakenly point our fingers at each other.

[kimpearson]

As can be seen in some of the posts above, racism is viewed by many in this country as not a real issue.  They always will refer to other issues or claim that all the focus on racism is divisive and destructive.  Until enough folks in the United States admit and acknowledge that racism shaped our country into what it is today, good luck on trying to come up with other solutions to racism.  Look at our own church and its racist history that I am willing to bet many of the posters in this group will claim that racism in the church was God's will in some mysterious way.  Most active members and especially Church leadership refuse to apologize or admit that almost all modern prophets including our current prophet were racist and supported the racist policies of the Church.  Also just look at how many members say we aren't racist because we have black members (I am only referring to those in the US) and cherry pick the few who say everything is good and ignore the far larger group of black voices saying there is a problem here.  I don't think you can have a constructive discussion with this group on racism but maybe I will be surprised.

I believe there will be little progress on racism and racist actions such as red lining as long as the very loud voices that deny racism hold sway over so many.  Its another big lie and this country has gone backwards to the 1940's and 1950's.

[Ragerunner]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and it will continue to be as long as we apply incorrect diagnoses.  Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will avail us nothing.  It may well be that a focus on the true culprits will not be effective.  After all, the masses seldom listen to the facts anyhow, and the corporate elite already have our coffin nailed shut.  They love it when we mistakenly point our fingers at each other.

I have no issue with you believing that many corporate elites and others like to misdirect an issue. 
 

But that doesn’t mean that many of these issues aren’t real and being used by many to ‘hide’ racism in their efforts. Many of the examples given are coming from the ground up, not from the top down.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I have no issue with you believing that many corporate elites and others like to misdirect an issue. 
 

But that doesn’t mean that many of these issues aren’t real and being used by many to ‘hide’ racism in their efforts. Many of the examples given are coming from the ground up, not from the top down.

Forest.  Trees.  There is a difference.  A crucial difference.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When I was young, anyone could afford to buy a home.  All he needed was a good paying job,

Isn’t that like saying anyone can afford to buy a house now, they just need a really, really good paying job and rich parents.

When a good portion of the population does not have the ability to get a good paying job, then it is inaccurate to say anyone could buy a home…unless you are claiming anyone in the past could get a good paying job if they wanted to…and if you are I would like to see the evidence.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Calm

[Ragerunner]

59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Forest.  Trees.  There is a difference.  A crucial difference.

With enough trees you create a forest.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

As can be seen in some of the posts above, racism is viewed by many in this country as not a real issue.  They always will refer to other issues or claim that all the focus on racism is divisive and destructive.  Until enough folks in the United States admit and acknowledge that racism shaped our country into what it is today, good luck on trying to come up with other solutions to racism.  Look at our own church and its racist history that I am willing to bet many of the posters in this group will claim that racism in the church was God's will in some mysterious way.  Most active members and especially Church leadership refuse to apologize or admit that almost all modern prophets including our current prophet were racist and supported the racist policies of the Church.  Also just look at how many members say we aren't racist because we have black members (I am only referring to those in the US) and cherry pick the few who say everything is good and ignore the far larger group of black voices saying there is a problem here.  I don't think you can have a constructive discussion with this group on racism but maybe I will be surprised.

I believe there will be little progress on racism and racist actions such as red lining as long as the very loud voices that deny racism hold sway over so many.  Its another big lie and this country has gone backwards to the 1940's and 1950's.

Racism ("tree" in a parallel conversation) is only one form of immorality that in opposition to more ideal values and practices (also "trees" -- e.g., preamble to the Constitution of the US) of the same "forest", shaped our country into what it is today. It is not all bad, but it certainly becomes more challenged as the years go by. Our religion offers insight into the reasons for this and what to expect and what to do about it. But each vice (like racism) and each virtue (like charity), whether civic or religious, is taught in homes, schools and churches. Racism historically has economic and political roots which bleed into and color the views of every other facet of society, including religion. That said, if someone is interested in eliminating redlining, yes, they need to develop a strategy to remove the incentive from the powers that sustain the practice – goes without saying; also, that some strategies are better than others.

I’m not sure why an apology is in order for past racism in the Church, or by her members and leaders: the diversity of paradigms and biases concerning such an imbedded societal issue, and how the members and other interested parties take it, does not change. This is why it is best to “[look] to the future,” as did changing practices with OD2, where the systemic change was instantaneous (and yet the paradigms still did not change!). As far as racism among the members, yes, it exists and our leaders are calling it out. Conversion and a new paradigm in this context come only with experience in keeping the companionship of the Holy Ghost. And as far as racism at BYU (and other Church-owned entities), the same thing is being addressed through institutional improvements. Councils are operating at all levels for those who sustain this inspired approach.

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

With enough trees you create a forest.

I think you are looking for a root cause analysis of one tree (redlining via racism), which is well and good. This takes nothing away from the other trees and may well contribute to the wellbeing of the forest.

Edited March 25, 2022 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

As can be seen in some of the posts above, racism is viewed by many in this country as not a real issue.  They always will refer to other issues or claim that all the focus on racism is divisive and destructive.  Until enough folks in the United States admit and acknowledge that racism shaped our country into what it is today, good luck on trying to come up with other solutions to racism.  Look at our own church and its racist history that I am willing to bet many of the posters in this group will claim that racism in the church was God's will in some mysterious way.  Most active members and especially Church leadership refuse to apologize or admit that almost all modern prophets including our current prophet were racist and supported the racist policies of the Church.  Also just look at how many members say we aren't racist because we have black members (I am only referring to those in the US) and cherry pick the few who say everything is good and ignore the far larger group of black voices saying there is a problem here.  I don't think you can have a constructive discussion with this group on racism but maybe I will be surprised.

I believe there will be little progress on racism and racist actions such as red lining as long as the very loud voices that deny racism hold sway over so many.  Its another big lie and this country has gone backwards to the 1940's and 1950's.

Hate and vilification is probably not the best approach to solving America's (and other countries') ills.  Intemperacy makes absurd demands and seeks to blame everybody.  The problem with that is, if everyone is racist then no one is racist.  It becomes a problem with logic, which is not amenable to hate.

Hate and blame lead to violence.  MLK pushed non-violence for all of those of us who followed his great leadership.  At the same time, Rap Brown had different advice:

Quote

  “I say violence is necessary. Violence is a part of America’s culture. It is as American as cherry pie. Americans taught the black people to be violent. We will use that violence to rid ourselves of oppression if necessary. We will be free, by any means necessary.”  July 27, 1967

Such great Black thinkers as Thomas Sowell and John McWhorter continue to recommend the legacy of MLK.  Others seek to claim that no progress has been made and that all white folk are racists, and that violence is necessary.  For some, CRT is the new religion.

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hate and vilification is probably not the best approach to solving America's (and other countries') ills.  Intemperacy makes absurd demands and seeks to blame everybody.  The problem with that is, if everyone is racist then no one is racist.  It becomes a problem with logic, which is not amenable to hate.

Hate and blame lead to violence.  MLK pushed non-violence for all of those of us who followed his great leadership.  At the same time, Rap Brown had different advice:

Such great Black thinkers as Thomas Sowell and John McWhorter continue to recommend the legacy of MLK.  Others seek to claim that no progress has been made and that all white folk are racists, and that violence is necessary.  For some, CRT is the new religion.

Denzel Washington also has some thoughtful things to say:

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 25, 2022 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn’t that like saying anyone can afford to buy a house now, they just need a really, really good paying job and rich parents.

When a good portion of the population does not have the ability to get a good paying job, then it is inaccurate to say anyone could buy a home…unless you are claiming anyone in the past could get a good paying job if they wanted to…and if you are I would like to see the evidence.

Perhaps you missed my major point, which was that America was once an industrial marvel -- such that anyone could get a good job and make enough money to support a wife and a family.  Stay-at-home moms were normal.  That was our post-WW II world, the Boomer generation.  You may be too young to recall the G.I. Bill.  However, you don't have to be a graduate of the Wharton School to know that things have changed markedly since then.  Industry has been shipped overseas, and both married parents flipping burgers won't pay the bills or allow a couple to get ahead.  These are problems which go far beyond race, and dealing with racism will not solve them.  We do a much bigger favor to marginalized groups here and abroad by improving our overall economy.  A high tide lifts all boats.

Again, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will not solve our main problem -- the ship is sinking !!!  Yammering about the iceberg now is not going to help anyone.

Lashing out at Dr Russell Nelson for being a racist is typical of that ideological mindset.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

such that anyone could get a good job and make enough money to support a wife and a family.

No, I didn’t miss your main point, I am just wondering if it was really as inclusive as you are presenting it (“anyone”) or if you intend to present it that way.

When you say anyone, are you including those who were living near or below the poverty level at the time? (Which if I read the census report correctly was 50% of nonwhite families and 15% of white families in 1959)

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1968/demographics/p60-54.pdf

Edited March 26, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you missed my major point, which was that America was once an industrial marvel -- such that anyone could get a good job and make enough money to support a wife and a family.  Stay-at-home moms were normal.  That was our post-WW II world, the Boomer generation.  You may be too young to recall the G.I. Bill.  However, you don't have to be a graduate of the Wharton School to know that things have changed markedly since then.  Industry has been shipped overseas, and both married parents flipping burgers won't pay the bills or allow a couple to get ahead.  These are problems which go far beyond race, and dealing with racism will not solve them.  We do a much bigger favor to marginalized groups here and abroad by improving our overall economy.  A high tide lifts all boats.

Again, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will not solve our main problem -- the ship is sinking !!!  Yammering about the iceberg now is not going to help anyone.

Lashing out at Dr Russell Nelson for being a racist is typical of that ideological mindset.

I don't think anyone is asking people to ignore, or stop trying to improve our overall economy and focus only on racist issues. 

It feels like criticizing someone for their efforts in picking up liter in a national park, or for focusing their efforts on clean water issues, because that will do nothing to stop global warming (the ship we are all sinking on). 

I think we all have different skill sets and interests and can lift and make an impact where we stand.  I don't see anything wrong with that.    

If the ship can be saved, I think there is enough interest and talent to save it.  Rearranging the deck chairs now in preparation for a brighter future is a good thing.   If it is too late, might as well rearrange the deck chairs to allow for black people to have tea with us as we sink to our demise.   Either way, rearranging the deckchairs gives some people who have no ability or skills to save the ship a purpose as they improve their condition where they stand, and while they still can stand...

Edited March 25, 2022 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you missed my major point, which was that America was once an industrial marvel -- such that anyone could get a good job and make enough money to support a wife and a family.  Stay-at-home moms were normal.  That was our post-WW II world, the Boomer generation.  You may be too young to recall the G.I. Bill.  However, you don't have to be a graduate of the Wharton School to know that things have changed markedly since then.  Industry has been shipped overseas, and both married parents flipping burgers won't pay the bills or allow a couple to get ahead.  These are problems which go far beyond race, and dealing with racism will not solve them.  We do a much bigger favor to marginalized groups here and abroad by improving our overall economy.  A high tide lifts all boats.

Again, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will not solve our main problem -- the ship is sinking !!!  Yammering about the iceberg now is not going to help anyone.

Lashing out at Dr Russell Nelson for being a racist is typical of that ideological mindset.

Are you suggesting that race has no impact on an individual's or group's level of involvement or contribution to the economy, no matter how crummy or robust it is?

I understand the correlation between the post-WWII economy and the Civil Rights acts, but all the Black kids I played with on the Lower East Side were a lot poorer than I was, even 10+ years later in college (the malaise years of the 70s), when there were a lot fewer Black friends around, and then in the 80s when they were almost nowhere to be found in my "circle" (middle class) despite the recovery. And so forth; they never seemed to be able to catch up. Must be something more to racism than race-neutral or anti-racist economic and social policy.

Edited March 25, 2022 by CV75