5 ms·

Here is an interesting observation. If we take a look at how different nations are distributed across big cities, we can see that many neighborhoods are race sp

Here is an interesting observation. If we take a look at how different nations are distributed across big cities, we can see that many neighborhoods are race specific. A lot of cities have chinese, jewish, russian, mexican, etc. neighborhoods, meaning that people _naturally_ want to live with _similar_ people. What's more important, it happens organically. It's not like some organization or government forces people to move there. There are no incentives, no financial benefits. Nothing. People are free to live anywhere they want, but they still create those communities and prefer to live among their own kind. From this specific observation, it seems like racism is more like a biological thing, the product of evolution.

davidgay 6y ago
> _naturally_ want to live with _similar_ people You are forgetting that those kinds of neighborhoods have developed in part because other people have taken mild-to-extreme steps to prevent "those" people from living with them. Known steps in the US include at the very least: - rules preventing "those" people from living in some places - mild-to-extreme actions against "those" people when they move in - people leaving when too many of "those" people move in I.e., "People are free to live anywhere they want" is completely wrong, even in living memory.
- zosima 6y ago
  So all of these groups choose to live in separate neighborhoods, because they all are racist to each other? Not because they want to be around people that are similar to themselves? And the fact that the same pattern shows up basically everywhere. In Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and to some extent South America, does not change your perception?
  - watwut 6y ago
    Is there something about European or Asian or American history that would make it reasonable to assume that racism was not factor shaping societies? Europe had pogroms before it had WWII. United States were racially legally segregated long after WWII. The Asian history does not lack racism either.
    - zosima 6y ago
      Why did you not mention African history? In this respect, it's certainly not less "racist" than any other continent's history. If you by racism means tribal or national sentiment to live together with others from the same tribe or nation. Then yes, what you call "racism" shaped it everywhere. I would hesitate to call it racism however, as it seems to be a universal human trait.
      - watwut 6y ago
        No, by racism I meant specifically racial issues, not just etnical ones and not just national ones. In United States, it would be cleansing of land from natives and rhetoric around it. It would be rhetoric of slavery and later Jim crow and so on. In Europe it would be very eacial ideology of Nazi and previously pogroms and relationships against Jews. In Africa, I am pretty sure colonial history applies. In Asia, check out Rwanda for genocide or Japan for general racism. I missed Africa, because I never really read much about any part of their history, unlike Europe, United States and Rwanda. Not sure why that would be issue.
  - komali2 6y ago
    > So all of these groups choose to live in separate neighborhoods, because they all are racist to each other? No, because the empowered class artificially created ghettos, and either forced racial separation directly or indirectly by removing access to societal resources, forcing communities to form to compensate. Of course Cuban refugees will form Spanish speaking communities in a hostile Florida - everything is in English (which they're still learning), many local whites don't want them there and sometimes make that very apparent, and the community is already filled with people with the same background that "made it work," so can offer useful advice and resources. This doesn't change anything about diversity bringing power, when one can overcome societal biases and racism.
    - zosima 6y ago
      Pray, tell. Why would these repressed Cubans not live together with hispanics, in hispanic ghettos. Speaking the same language and all. After all, that would make them a stronger force, and definitely give them more diversity.
      - komali2 6y ago
        They... Do...? That's why an empowerment movement might focus on Latinx in general, and as you go more local you might find some of the same people at the state Latinx rally as you do at a city's Cuban American resource exchange group or whatever. The point is that self-sorting doesn't by definition mean that humans are inherently racist or that it's natural/ethical to oppress minority populations, which I take as one of the many bad taste implications from this thread.
        zosima 6y ago
        I don't see anybody except you conflate natural and ethical. So the cubans now live side by side with mexicans? And both they and mexicans/south americans self-identify as hispanics/latinx and not cubans, mexicans or something else? And having a Cuban American cultural exchange is just an oddity of history? And is now more the latinx american cultural exchange?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mattm 6y ago
This couldn't be further from the truth and disregards the history of how these areas started. For example, San Francisco's Chinatown: "This, combined with a number of racist and restrictive laws limiting where Chinese were allowed to live within the city, led to the growth of Chinatown, which today comprises 24 square blocks." https://timeline.com/in-pictures-the-making-of-san-franciscos-chinatown-dc9745d53443 https://timeline.com/in-pictures-the-making-of-san-francisco... This video talks about how African-Americans were driven to certain communities by realtors and discriminated against from living in other, more desirable areas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RHppw20Zm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RHppw20Zm8
watwut 6y ago
Quite a few of Jewish neighborhoods developed because they were not allowed to live elsewhere. With regards to Eastern European people living close to each other was when mutual help due to shared struggle was needed. It however spreads out as people get integrated, in the second generation latest. The black/white racial segregation did not happened by random either. At minimum, there was economic motivation to keep street whites only. (Keeping it black only was not as economically advantageous, there is asymmetry there.)
Schweigi 6y ago
I think making this clustering about race is too simplistic. Its about language, religion, food, values, culture. People like to be in familiar environments. Especially after moving to another country. Because of that its natural to end up with clusters of people sharing something in common even when there was no outside pressure. I’m now lived in three countries for a longer period of time and its interesting to feel this connection with people from back home even though you never met them before.
- Baeocystin 6y ago
  I genuinely enjoy travelling and working in other countries and meeting new people. I also fully understand that sometimes it's just plain nice to be able to have a full conversation in English, not have to continuously explain cultural context, and enjoy my lunchtime cheeseburger while talking with another American. There's room for both experiences.
foogazi 6y ago
> People are free to live anywhere they want, but they still create those communities and prefer to live among their own kind I disagree In some some cities in California, a former mexican territory, there were property deeds that explicitly forbade selling to mexicans Where do you think mexicans ended up living? Then someone can come along and point and say look every race prefers to live among their own kind
throwaway_98554 6y ago
You are right. Some of the sibling replies argue the contrary by using a sleight of hand; stating the desire to associate from only one of the two parties. Take for example the relationship between a man and woman. If both want to live with each other, everything is fine. What if the man wants to associate with the woman, but she doesn't? Do we force her to accept the man? Does he have a right to access her? Obviously that's silly. We all know that the relationship is only valid if BOTH parties consent. And yet in regards to neighborhoods the sibling replies act as if only the man's opinion mattered. "That Jew wanted to come in but was refused! People were not free to associate!" They ignore that refusing someone is also part of the freedom of association.
- komali2 6y ago
  The desire to prevent a Jewish person from being your neighbor is unethical and Bad. Such a "freedom" should not be encoded into law (as what happened in San Francisco with Chinese populations), or allowed to encode implicitly into societal norms. People shouldn't be imprisoned or killed for being racist - but they should be scorned, shamed, and cause disgust when their viewpoints are aired.
- davidgay 6y ago
  > They ignore that refusing someone is also part of the freedom of association. And this is undesirable with no restrictions which is why societies constrain the freedom of association, in particular, in the US, via various "Civil Rights" acts.

davidgay 6y ago

> _naturally_ want to live with _similar_ people You are forgetting that those kinds of neighborhoods have developed in part because other people have taken mild-to-extreme steps to prevent "those" people from living with them. Known steps in the US include at the very least: - rules preventing "those" people from living in some places - mild-to-extreme actions against "those" people when they move in - people leaving when too many of "those" people move in I.e., "People are free to live anywhere they want" is completely wrong, even in living memory.

zosima 6y ago
So all of these groups choose to live in separate neighborhoods, because they all are racist to each other? Not because they want to be around people that are similar to themselves? And the fact that the same pattern shows up basically everywhere. In Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and to some extent South America, does not change your perception?
- watwut 6y ago
  Is there something about European or Asian or American history that would make it reasonable to assume that racism was not factor shaping societies? Europe had pogroms before it had WWII. United States were racially legally segregated long after WWII. The Asian history does not lack racism either.
  - zosima 6y ago
    Why did you not mention African history? In this respect, it's certainly not less "racist" than any other continent's history. If you by racism means tribal or national sentiment to live together with others from the same tribe or nation. Then yes, what you call "racism" shaped it everywhere. I would hesitate to call it racism however, as it seems to be a universal human trait.
    - watwut 6y ago
      No, by racism I meant specifically racial issues, not just etnical ones and not just national ones. In United States, it would be cleansing of land from natives and rhetoric around it. It would be rhetoric of slavery and later Jim crow and so on. In Europe it would be very eacial ideology of Nazi and previously pogroms and relationships against Jews. In Africa, I am pretty sure colonial history applies. In Asia, check out Rwanda for genocide or Japan for general racism. I missed Africa, because I never really read much about any part of their history, unlike Europe, United States and Rwanda. Not sure why that would be issue.
- komali2 6y ago
  > So all of these groups choose to live in separate neighborhoods, because they all are racist to each other? No, because the empowered class artificially created ghettos, and either forced racial separation directly or indirectly by removing access to societal resources, forcing communities to form to compensate. Of course Cuban refugees will form Spanish speaking communities in a hostile Florida - everything is in English (which they're still learning), many local whites don't want them there and sometimes make that very apparent, and the community is already filled with people with the same background that "made it work," so can offer useful advice and resources. This doesn't change anything about diversity bringing power, when one can overcome societal biases and racism.
  - zosima 6y ago
    Pray, tell. Why would these repressed Cubans not live together with hispanics, in hispanic ghettos. Speaking the same language and all. After all, that would make them a stronger force, and definitely give them more diversity.
    - komali2 6y ago
      They... Do...? That's why an empowerment movement might focus on Latinx in general, and as you go more local you might find some of the same people at the state Latinx rally as you do at a city's Cuban American resource exchange group or whatever. The point is that self-sorting doesn't by definition mean that humans are inherently racist or that it's natural/ethical to oppress minority populations, which I take as one of the many bad taste implications from this thread.
      - zosima 6y ago
        I don't see anybody except you conflate natural and ethical. So the cubans now live side by side with mexicans? And both they and mexicans/south americans self-identify as hispanics/latinx and not cubans, mexicans or something else? And having a Cuban American cultural exchange is just an oddity of history? And is now more the latinx american cultural exchange?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mattm 6y ago

This couldn't be further from the truth and disregards the history of how these areas started. For example, San Francisco's Chinatown: "This, combined with a number of racist and restrictive laws limiting where Chinese were allowed to live within the city, led to the growth of Chinatown, which today comprises 24 square blocks." https://timeline.com/in-pictures-the-making-of-san-franciscos-chinatown-dc9745d53443 https://timeline.com/in-pictures-the-making-of-san-francisco... This video talks about how African-Americans were driven to certain communities by realtors and discriminated against from living in other, more desirable areas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RHppw20Zm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RHppw20Zm8

watwut 6y ago

Quite a few of Jewish neighborhoods developed because they were not allowed to live elsewhere. With regards to Eastern European people living close to each other was when mutual help due to shared struggle was needed. It however spreads out as people get integrated, in the second generation latest. The black/white racial segregation did not happened by random either. At minimum, there was economic motivation to keep street whites only. (Keeping it black only was not as economically advantageous, there is asymmetry there.)

Schweigi 6y ago

I think making this clustering about race is too simplistic. Its about language, religion, food, values, culture. People like to be in familiar environments. Especially after moving to another country. Because of that its natural to end up with clusters of people sharing something in common even when there was no outside pressure. I’m now lived in three countries for a longer period of time and its interesting to feel this connection with people from back home even though you never met them before.

Baeocystin 6y ago
I genuinely enjoy travelling and working in other countries and meeting new people. I also fully understand that sometimes it's just plain nice to be able to have a full conversation in English, not have to continuously explain cultural context, and enjoy my lunchtime cheeseburger while talking with another American. There's room for both experiences.

foogazi 6y ago

> People are free to live anywhere they want, but they still create those communities and prefer to live among their own kind I disagree In some some cities in California, a former mexican territory, there were property deeds that explicitly forbade selling to mexicans Where do you think mexicans ended up living? Then someone can come along and point and say look every race prefers to live among their own kind

throwaway_98554 6y ago

You are right. Some of the sibling replies argue the contrary by using a sleight of hand; stating the desire to associate from only one of the two parties. Take for example the relationship between a man and woman. If both want to live with each other, everything is fine. What if the man wants to associate with the woman, but she doesn't? Do we force her to accept the man? Does he have a right to access her? Obviously that's silly. We all know that the relationship is only valid if BOTH parties consent. And yet in regards to neighborhoods the sibling replies act as if only the man's opinion mattered. "That Jew wanted to come in but was refused! People were not free to associate!" They ignore that refusing someone is also part of the freedom of association.

komali2 6y ago
The desire to prevent a Jewish person from being your neighbor is unethical and Bad. Such a "freedom" should not be encoded into law (as what happened in San Francisco with Chinese populations), or allowed to encode implicitly into societal norms. People shouldn't be imprisoned or killed for being racist - but they should be scorned, shamed, and cause disgust when their viewpoints are aired.
davidgay 6y ago
> They ignore that refusing someone is also part of the freedom of association. And this is undesirable with no restrictions which is why societies constrain the freedom of association, in particular, in the US, via various "Civil Rights" acts.