2 ms·

> The idea that the arrival of black people in a homogenous white neighborhood is a harbinger of intractable crime problems is itself an example of systemic rac

> The idea that the arrival of black people in a homogenous white neighborhood is a harbinger of intractable crime problems is itself an example of systemic racism. I don't care if you feel it's justifiable racism. Actual crime arrived in those neighborhoods. There is no shortage of statistics to prove this.

tptacek 10y ago
Of course it did. Wealthier racist white people turned those neighborhoods into ghettos.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Wealthy people do not turn their own neighborhoods into ghettos.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    By leaving them en masse and ravaging their tax base, yes, they did.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      They did not leave before the crime came to their neighborhoods. They left after the crime came. You need to get your cause and effect in order.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        No, they did not. This is well studied. Crime rose in neighborhoods that were endogenously majority-black, but suburbanization of white residents did not track crime in previously white, then integrating neighborhoods: it was a reaction to the perception that crime in those integrating neighborhoods would track the rates of crime in endogenously black neighborhoods. People saw high crime in all-black neighborhoods created by the great migration, lost their shit, and moved to escape the black people. In doing so, they fucked up the tax base for their previous cities, and created new ghettos. Predictably, crime followed their exodus, (falsely) confirming the predictions of the fleeing white people, creating a cascade. (High crime in endogenously black neighborhoods is also not hard to explain: well-integrated neighborhoods in the Chicagoland MSA have low crime rates, but crime rates in places like Englewood are sky-high; this is a legacy of disadvantage and lack of opportunity and mobility that traces directly from virulent racism. Simply put: you systemically disfavor a population, and the areas inhabited primarily by the disfavored population have poorer outcomes. Who'd have thunk it?)
        twblalock 10y ago
        Are you arguing that crime would not have increased in the newly-integrated neighborhoods if the white residents had not moved away?
        tptacek 10y ago
        Could you respond to my comment? It refutes your argument about causality.
        twblalock 10y ago
        Your explanation of crime in endogenously black neighborhoods is reasonable, but it only explains why crime existed in the first place, not why it increased so much in the 1960s through the early 1990s. The endogenously black neighborhoods did not experience erosion of the tax base due to white flight, because there were few, if any, whites living there in the first place. So, why did crime increase dramatically in the endogenously black neighborhoods during the time period we are talking about? Whatever the reason is, why wouldn't it be the same reason crime increased in the areas subject to white flight? I find it very unlikely that the endogenously black neighborhoods experienced an increase in crime for one reason, and the nearby white flight neighborhoods experienced an increase in crime for a totally different reason (such as erosion of the tax base after white people left). Obviously the erosion of the tax base made things worse, but unless that caused all of the increase in crime, something else was going on. If you are going to argue that crime increases after white flight were a self-fulfilling prophecy and would not have occurred without white flight, that's a pretty extraordinary claim.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I'm sorry, I think I made it sound like I was speculating. No, I was reciting the literature on this question. Your claim, that the causality of crime and white flight were reversed, is false. Can you address that (or just concede it) before moving on to new arguments?

tptacek 10y ago

Of course it did. Wealthier racist white people turned those neighborhoods into ghettos.

twblalock 10y ago
Wealthy people do not turn their own neighborhoods into ghettos.
- tptacek 10y ago
  By leaving them en masse and ravaging their tax base, yes, they did.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    They did not leave before the crime came to their neighborhoods. They left after the crime came. You need to get your cause and effect in order.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      No, they did not. This is well studied. Crime rose in neighborhoods that were endogenously majority-black, but suburbanization of white residents did not track crime in previously white, then integrating neighborhoods: it was a reaction to the perception that crime in those integrating neighborhoods would track the rates of crime in endogenously black neighborhoods. People saw high crime in all-black neighborhoods created by the great migration, lost their shit, and moved to escape the black people. In doing so, they fucked up the tax base for their previous cities, and created new ghettos. Predictably, crime followed their exodus, (falsely) confirming the predictions of the fleeing white people, creating a cascade. (High crime in endogenously black neighborhoods is also not hard to explain: well-integrated neighborhoods in the Chicagoland MSA have low crime rates, but crime rates in places like Englewood are sky-high; this is a legacy of disadvantage and lack of opportunity and mobility that traces directly from virulent racism. Simply put: you systemically disfavor a population, and the areas inhabited primarily by the disfavored population have poorer outcomes. Who'd have thunk it?)
      - twblalock 10y ago
        Are you arguing that crime would not have increased in the newly-integrated neighborhoods if the white residents had not moved away?
        tptacek 10y ago
        Could you respond to my comment? It refutes your argument about causality.
        twblalock 10y ago
        Your explanation of crime in endogenously black neighborhoods is reasonable, but it only explains why crime existed in the first place, not why it increased so much in the 1960s through the early 1990s. The endogenously black neighborhoods did not experience erosion of the tax base due to white flight, because there were few, if any, whites living there in the first place. So, why did crime increase dramatically in the endogenously black neighborhoods during the time period we are talking about? Whatever the reason is, why wouldn't it be the same reason crime increased in the areas subject to white flight? I find it very unlikely that the endogenously black neighborhoods experienced an increase in crime for one reason, and the nearby white flight neighborhoods experienced an increase in crime for a totally different reason (such as erosion of the tax base after white people left). Obviously the erosion of the tax base made things worse, but unless that caused all of the increase in crime, something else was going on. If you are going to argue that crime increases after white flight were a self-fulfilling prophecy and would not have occurred without white flight, that's a pretty extraordinary claim.
        tptacek 10y ago
        I'm sorry, I think I made it sound like I was speculating. No, I was reciting the literature on this question. Your claim, that the causality of crime and white flight were reversed, is false. Can you address that (or just concede it) before moving on to new arguments?