2 ms·
Not even the link you provide supports your argument. Maybe at some times or for some time it was a motivating factor, but it is really stretching the narrative
by bubblewrap 7y ago
Not even the link you provide supports your argument. Maybe at some times or for some time it was a motivating factor, but it is really stretching the narrative a lot to claim it is the determining factor.
Is that seriously your world view? I think then you are too eager to swallow simplistic explanations.
And even if "white flight" were the determining factor, it would be another step to claim the goal was "racial homogeneity". People might simply have wanted to move into nicer neighborhoods. (see checkerboard experiment, described in you linked Wikipedia article). White people might have been more likely to be wealthy enough to afford the "flight" (wasn't that what rich people always did throughout the centuries). Even if they were more wealthy because of racism (which would in itself be worthy of debate), it doesn't imply their flight was driven by desire for racial homogeneity.
I live in a country where such race relations are not an issue, and people moved to the countryside here, too. It was also subsidized or used to be subsidized, for various reasons. Also simply mass availability of cars might have been a factor. Remember, cars were not available to everybody for most of human history.
Cities being inexpensive - a lot of factors play into it, probably. Pollution could have made them unattractive and therefore cheap, in the early days of industrialization. One example. Housing restrictions - OK, but also more people moving there. Better job availability. And so on. Your world view is too simplistic imo.