6 ms·

Nothing stopping Blacks or Hispanics from moving to the suburbs except for the laws of supply and demand. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantag

by ta2164 5y ago

Nothing stopping Blacks or Hispanics from moving to the suburbs except for the laws of supply and demand. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs. By definition not racist.

raldi 5y ago
The laws of supply and demand are being manipulated by the powerful: They're suppressing the ability of supply to rise to meet demand, which has the effect of granting windfall profits to the haves while keeping the have-nots away from areas of opportunity.
- ta2164 5y ago
  Not arguing that, but that is decidedly not racist. It's why educated Blacks in the US are moving back to red Southern states more so than they're moving to blue Northeast and Western ones. It's much cheaper and easier to build new housing in suburban Dallas or Atlanta versus San Francisco, New York, or LA.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    A big thing I've noticed - especially on HN which is mostly white and male - is we perhaps fundamentally disagree on what 'racist' means. To me I view racism as a larger umbrella. Includes bias, both on the surface but also more broadly what has been cultivated as a society. Context is very important in my definition viewpoint. centuries of historic oppression, which led to unequal wealth, opportunity, and more. ongoing bias which discriminates in hiring and opportunity and more. I view this context as a kind of 'prior' (to use a ML term I don't fully understand lol) when assessing whether or not something is 'racist.' While on the other hand it seems like some view racism as solely a person knowingly and vocally treating one ethnicity differently and discriminating openly. To me I agree with parent and I hold the larger viewpoint. Because of centuries of oppression BIPOC have less money, less opportunity, own less housing, communities are segregated don't have nearly as much ownership in the 'single family neighborhoods' & that community which drives the policy we are talking about. I don't think one can ignore that context, and its implicit bias, when looking at why these laws, regulations, zoning were (and are) being passed. And plus many times it's also explicitly racist like the latter viewpoint; like the language Trump & Republicans use about 'invading' the suburbs.
    - ta2164 5y ago
      You don't get to magically redefine what "racist" is because the current definition doesn't match up with your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist. No one is stopping any race of people from moving to the suburbs, no law is stopping any members of any race from moving to the suburbs, etc. You can definitely make the claim that suburbs are classist, but racist? No.
      - dillondoyle 5y ago
        Seriously? If this was reddit i'd say fck off. That's not what I was saying. I'm pointing out that you for instance, could benefit from some perspective in understanding why there is disagreement between because we fundamentally have different word-views / disagree on the language of this argument. It's like trying to argue about bikes, if your definition of bike is a self powered two wheel and mine is a motorized machine.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        ta2155 5y ago
        >I'm pointing out that you for instance, could benefit from some perspective in understanding why there is disagreement between because we fundamentally have different word-views / disagree on the language of this argument. There's objective reality, and then there's narrative safe delusions. I guess you're right, my world-view is objective reality, apparently yours isn't. >It's like trying to argue about bikes, if your definition of bike is a self powered two wheel and mine is a motorized machine. Poor example. What constitutes the definition of a bike is codified in law LOL! There's that de jure and reality striking again.
JamilD 5y ago
A law can be "not racist", but still be crafted with certain intentions in mind; it's easy to exploit certain correlations to achieve a certain end result. I don't think anyone would argue that there's something innate about one's skin color that would make them predisposed to living in apartments! But if you want to exclude certain people from your neighborhood, and those people happen to often be from a certain culture/socioeconomic class… It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/how-1800s-racism-birthed-chinatown-japantown-other-ethnic-enclaves-n997296 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/how-1800s-racism-... It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs.
- ta2164 5y ago
  >A law can be "not racist", but still be crafted with certain intentions in mind; it's easy to exploit certain correlations to achieve a certain end result. Correlation does not imply causation. >But if you want to exclude certain people from your neighborhood, and those people happen to often be from a certain culture/socioeconomic class… No doubt, no one wants to live around low class riff raff. That's not race specific, and so, is by definition not racist. >It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown Now you're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants) all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff. >It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs. Same for whites. Many/most were locked away in perpetual poverty in rural areas.
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    You don't think we have laws that are currently racist?
cheriot 5y ago
"Hey, we've economically oppressed minorities and made our neighborhood too expensive for them. Not racist!" No, our nation's history guarantees that economic segregation is racial segregation. These laws were literally designed to create racial segregation. Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.
- shard972 5y ago
  blacks and mexicans being lazy is racist lol
- ta2164 5y ago
  You're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants), etc. all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff. >Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome. Correlation does not imply causation. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs. They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist.
  - cheriot 5y ago
    "They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist" You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so. Example: "More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-segregation-study-university-of-california-berkeley https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se... "Correlation does not imply causation." The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-fight-to-desegregate-berkeley/ https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f... When the origin and outcome are both racist then policy itself is clearly racist.

by ta2164 5y ago

raldi 5y ago

The laws of supply and demand are being manipulated by the powerful: They're suppressing the ability of supply to rise to meet demand, which has the effect of granting windfall profits to the haves while keeping the have-nots away from areas of opportunity.

ta2164 5y ago
Not arguing that, but that is decidedly not racist. It's why educated Blacks in the US are moving back to red Southern states more so than they're moving to blue Northeast and Western ones. It's much cheaper and easier to build new housing in suburban Dallas or Atlanta versus San Francisco, New York, or LA.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  A big thing I've noticed - especially on HN which is mostly white and male - is we perhaps fundamentally disagree on what 'racist' means. To me I view racism as a larger umbrella. Includes bias, both on the surface but also more broadly what has been cultivated as a society. Context is very important in my definition viewpoint. centuries of historic oppression, which led to unequal wealth, opportunity, and more. ongoing bias which discriminates in hiring and opportunity and more. I view this context as a kind of 'prior' (to use a ML term I don't fully understand lol) when assessing whether or not something is 'racist.' While on the other hand it seems like some view racism as solely a person knowingly and vocally treating one ethnicity differently and discriminating openly. To me I agree with parent and I hold the larger viewpoint. Because of centuries of oppression BIPOC have less money, less opportunity, own less housing, communities are segregated don't have nearly as much ownership in the 'single family neighborhoods' & that community which drives the policy we are talking about. I don't think one can ignore that context, and its implicit bias, when looking at why these laws, regulations, zoning were (and are) being passed. And plus many times it's also explicitly racist like the latter viewpoint; like the language Trump & Republicans use about 'invading' the suburbs.
  - ta2164 5y ago
    You don't get to magically redefine what "racist" is because the current definition doesn't match up with your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist. No one is stopping any race of people from moving to the suburbs, no law is stopping any members of any race from moving to the suburbs, etc. You can definitely make the claim that suburbs are classist, but racist? No.
    - dillondoyle 5y ago
      Seriously? If this was reddit i'd say fck off. That's not what I was saying. I'm pointing out that you for instance, could benefit from some perspective in understanding why there is disagreement between because we fundamentally have different word-views / disagree on the language of this argument. It's like trying to argue about bikes, if your definition of bike is a self powered two wheel and mine is a motorized machine.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ta2155 5y ago
        >I'm pointing out that you for instance, could benefit from some perspective in understanding why there is disagreement between because we fundamentally have different word-views / disagree on the language of this argument. There's objective reality, and then there's narrative safe delusions. I guess you're right, my world-view is objective reality, apparently yours isn't. >It's like trying to argue about bikes, if your definition of bike is a self powered two wheel and mine is a motorized machine. Poor example. What constitutes the definition of a bike is codified in law LOL! There's that de jure and reality striking again.

JamilD 5y ago

A law can be "not racist", but still be crafted with certain intentions in mind; it's easy to exploit certain correlations to achieve a certain end result. I don't think anyone would argue that there's something innate about one's skin color that would make them predisposed to living in apartments! But if you want to exclude certain people from your neighborhood, and those people happen to often be from a certain culture/socioeconomic class… It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/how-1800s-racism-birthed-chinatown-japantown-other-ethnic-enclaves-n997296 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/how-1800s-racism-... It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs.

ta2164 5y ago
>A law can be "not racist", but still be crafted with certain intentions in mind; it's easy to exploit certain correlations to achieve a certain end result. Correlation does not imply causation. >But if you want to exclude certain people from your neighborhood, and those people happen to often be from a certain culture/socioeconomic class… No doubt, no one wants to live around low class riff raff. That's not race specific, and so, is by definition not racist. >It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown Now you're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants) all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff. >It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs. Same for whites. Many/most were locked away in perpetual poverty in rural areas.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  You don't think we have laws that are currently racist?

cheriot 5y ago

"Hey, we've economically oppressed minorities and made our neighborhood too expensive for them. Not racist!" No, our nation's history guarantees that economic segregation is racial segregation. These laws were literally designed to create racial segregation. Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.

shard972 5y ago
blacks and mexicans being lazy is racist lol
ta2164 5y ago
You're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants), etc. all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff. >Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome. Correlation does not imply causation. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs. They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist.
- cheriot 5y ago
  "They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist" You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so. Example: "More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-segregation-study-university-of-california-berkeley https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se... "Correlation does not imply causation." The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-fight-to-desegregate-berkeley/ https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f... When the origin and outcome are both racist then policy itself is clearly racist.