5 ms·

There are many, many reasons why this is the case; but they were almost all a product of racist social engineering in the 20th century. And when I say racist, I

There are many, many reasons why this is the case; but they were almost all a product of racist social engineering in the 20th century. And when I say racist, I mean people whose main argument was the genetic inferiority of black people. Progressives consistently caved to their demands under threat of violence. Showing up is hard to do when housing policy explicitly forbids black people from living within a 2 hour commute of the few places that would hire them. It's hard to do when you have to work 2 jobs because the few neighborhoods you are allowed to live in are expensive. It's hard to do when under constant police harassment. The erosion of the family fabric of black communities in America was malicious, intentional, and far more recent than many are willing to believe (which is why this comment will probably be downvoted to hell). And there's no great conspiracy about it because it was done in the open.

zdragnar 7y ago
> Progressives consistently caved to their demands under threat of violence. Say what? The progressive movement was born of using science to build a better society, including eugenics, abortion and other means of slowing the growing population of blacks. Edit: this was not to say that conservatives were free from prejudice or fault for systemic injustices, only that there were no blameless hands, least of all those involved in the Progressive movement: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_State...
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Pretending the big-P Progressives of the 1890s-1920s are the same as today's progressives is as silly as claiming black people should love modern Republicans because of Lincoln.
whb07 7y ago
And of course the engineering of the powerful Jews and Asians so that they now represent the upper tiers of the income distribution. /s Employment and family stats were vastly better pre 1960s government regulations. This isn’t some grand evil plan but the standard outcomes of a “we need more government help”, also known as “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
- aaomidi 7y ago
  Were they? Red lining was government intervention. Or maybe you think before slavery was made illegal more people had jobs? Because yes. They were slaves.
  - whb07 7y ago
    My point exactly, it was a governmental tool that allowed these things to exist. * the laws on the books calling for discrimination and what’s known in the south as “Jim Crowe” laws (spelling). Set forth by Democrats. * the increase of government payments to lower income groups causing distortions in the nuclear family. Also black youth unemployment say pre WWII was lower than that of whites. This is post civil war, where you attempt to say some slavery reference. Lastly, would you openly say that racism is higher today than say 50 years ago? Of course not, and yet by looking at the metrics of unemployment or family stability, things are worse.
    - wayoutthere 7y ago
      > Lastly, would you openly say that racism is higher today than say 50 years ago? Of course not, and yet by looking at the metrics of unemployment or family stability, things are worse. I would openly say that on the things that really matter, racism today is no better than 50 years ago. It's just had 50 years in between for the negative effects to continue compounding.
      - whb07 7y ago
        Oooooh I’m walking out of this one. Never mind we have a Supreme Court justice and a President who are/were black.
        wayoutthere 7y ago
        I mean, if you think electing one black man president solves racism for all black people I don't know it's going to be a productive discussion anyway.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jpster 7y ago
> Showing up is hard to do when housing policy explicitly forbids black people from living within a 2 hour commute of the few places that would hire them. And yes, the “progressive” Bay Area, too. For anyone who wonders why the Bay has so few black people - the house I live in on the Peninsula was built in 1948. And its original deed forbade “colored people” from living in it. This was eventually overturned, I believe in the 60s. Given the housing values nowadays, how much generational wealth have blacks missed out on due to this? It’s not as though they weren’t here. After all, they’ve been in this country since its inception. Just like whites, blacks came westward. In the Bay they specifically also helped fill the demand for US shipbuilders during WWII. But systematically denied from one of the biggest wealth generating sources America had to offer in the 20th century (Bay real estate). And this also means their descendants are not in the position to benefit from the Bay’s 21st century wealth generation source (tech). Many people do not know this racist history of the “progressive” Bay Area.
- catalogia 7y ago
  It's not "Bay Area in the 1948" that has a reputation for being progressive. It's "Bay Area in the present" that has this reputation. And the later would generally be quick to agree that the former was not very progressive.
- bluedino 7y ago
  There were over twice as many black people in the Bay Area during the 1970's as there are now.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  San Francisco is repeatedly called out as the prime example in The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein -- an absolutely fascinating (and depressing) look at statutory racism in the 2nd half of the 20th century -- specifically because it has a reputation for being "progressive". It was pervasive across the country until well into the 80s. I assume you've read it since he focuses on the narrative of a black man working in the shipyards; but for anyone interested in reading further on the subject, I highly recommend it.
- linguae 7y ago

zdragnar 7y ago

> Progressives consistently caved to their demands under threat of violence. Say what? The progressive movement was born of using science to build a better society, including eugenics, abortion and other means of slowing the growing population of blacks. Edit: this was not to say that conservatives were free from prejudice or fault for systemic injustices, only that there were no blameless hands, least of all those involved in the Progressive movement: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_State...

ceejayoz 7y ago
Pretending the big-P Progressives of the 1890s-1920s are the same as today's progressives is as silly as claiming black people should love modern Republicans because of Lincoln.

whb07 7y ago

And of course the engineering of the powerful Jews and Asians so that they now represent the upper tiers of the income distribution. /s Employment and family stats were vastly better pre 1960s government regulations. This isn’t some grand evil plan but the standard outcomes of a “we need more government help”, also known as “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

aaomidi 7y ago
Were they? Red lining was government intervention. Or maybe you think before slavery was made illegal more people had jobs? Because yes. They were slaves.
- whb07 7y ago
  My point exactly, it was a governmental tool that allowed these things to exist. * the laws on the books calling for discrimination and what’s known in the south as “Jim Crowe” laws (spelling). Set forth by Democrats. * the increase of government payments to lower income groups causing distortions in the nuclear family. Also black youth unemployment say pre WWII was lower than that of whites. This is post civil war, where you attempt to say some slavery reference. Lastly, would you openly say that racism is higher today than say 50 years ago? Of course not, and yet by looking at the metrics of unemployment or family stability, things are worse.
  - wayoutthere 7y ago
    > Lastly, would you openly say that racism is higher today than say 50 years ago? Of course not, and yet by looking at the metrics of unemployment or family stability, things are worse. I would openly say that on the things that really matter, racism today is no better than 50 years ago. It's just had 50 years in between for the negative effects to continue compounding.
    - whb07 7y ago
      Oooooh I’m walking out of this one. Never mind we have a Supreme Court justice and a President who are/were black.
      - wayoutthere 7y ago
        I mean, if you think electing one black man president solves racism for all black people I don't know it's going to be a productive discussion anyway.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jpster 7y ago

> Showing up is hard to do when housing policy explicitly forbids black people from living within a 2 hour commute of the few places that would hire them. And yes, the “progressive” Bay Area, too. For anyone who wonders why the Bay has so few black people - the house I live in on the Peninsula was built in 1948. And its original deed forbade “colored people” from living in it. This was eventually overturned, I believe in the 60s. Given the housing values nowadays, how much generational wealth have blacks missed out on due to this? It’s not as though they weren’t here. After all, they’ve been in this country since its inception. Just like whites, blacks came westward. In the Bay they specifically also helped fill the demand for US shipbuilders during WWII. But systematically denied from one of the biggest wealth generating sources America had to offer in the 20th century (Bay real estate). And this also means their descendants are not in the position to benefit from the Bay’s 21st century wealth generation source (tech). Many people do not know this racist history of the “progressive” Bay Area.

catalogia 7y ago
It's not "Bay Area in the 1948" that has a reputation for being progressive. It's "Bay Area in the present" that has this reputation. And the later would generally be quick to agree that the former was not very progressive.
bluedino 7y ago
There were over twice as many black people in the Bay Area during the 1970's as there are now.
wayoutthere 7y ago
San Francisco is repeatedly called out as the prime example in The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein -- an absolutely fascinating (and depressing) look at statutory racism in the 2nd half of the 20th century -- specifically because it has a reputation for being "progressive". It was pervasive across the country until well into the 80s. I assume you've read it since he focuses on the narrative of a black man working in the shipyards; but for anyone interested in reading further on the subject, I highly recommend it.
linguae 7y ago