6 ms·

> It's also hard to escape the fact that many, if not most of these suburbs were explicitly set up to keep out blacks, latinos, Jews, and other undesirable grou

by anamax 15y ago

> It's also hard to escape the fact that many, if not most of these suburbs were explicitly set up to keep out blacks, latinos, Jews, and other undesirable groups. Actually, it's pretty easy to escape that "fact" because it simply isn't true. Yes, there were some covenants like that, but they were relatively rare. And, most of the housing stock is newer than that, so even if such covenants were somewhat common and were still in force, they'd cover a small fraction of the population. Since they haven't been in force for decades.... > Canada shares a lot of the basic educational structure as the US, and sadly a good share of the racial baggage as well, but our cities are far more monolithic than most American cities. More "monolithic" is right. Canada is about as diverse as Minnesota.

gamble 15y ago
Restrictive covenants were not rare, especially in the post-war suburbs. The first modern suburb, Levittown, NY, was racially segregated. It wasn't called 'white flight' because the people fleeing the inner city wanted to live with blacks. Restrictive covenants didn't end up the Supreme Court because no one was interested in enforcing them.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Restrictive covenants were not rare, especially in the post-war suburbs. The first modern suburb, Levittown, NY, was racially segregated. Pointing to an instance doesn't make the "not rare" case. Levittown takes good pictures, but it isn't representative of post WWII housing development. Moreover, you're still ignoring the fact that even if covenants were't rare before, the affected housing is a very small part of today's housing stock. As a result, covenants which haven't been enforceable for 50 years can't have much, if any, effect today.
ojbyrne 15y ago
I was mostly with you till that Canada/Minnesota comment. Perhaps Minnesota is exceptionally diverse... Because Canada is very definitely more diverse than the US.
- Turing_Machine 15y ago
  Wikipedia puts the "Visible Minority" population of Canada at 16.2% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_minorities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_... and the (at least partially) non-"White" population of the U.S at 27.6%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stat...
  - halostatue 15y ago
    The absolute numbers don't tell the whole story, and illustrate part of the difference between the U.S. and Canada on this. The Wikipedia article on Canada is horrible on one point: "Black" isn't a single minority group in Canada. We have people from the Caribbean and people from many different regions in Africa and, yes, like U.S. we also have descendants of black slaves (in sometimes surprising places). But while they often share similar skin colourings, that is often the only thing they share in common. Many of the Ghanaians, Nigerians, South Africans, and Caribbeans I know have nothing in common except their skin colour—and their love of partying, at least the ones that I've come into contact with over the last ten years. So, the 2.5% Canadian "black" population is a substantially more diverse population than the 12.6% U.S. "black" population, which is primarily descended from black slaves. This group may be less diverse, but it's also something that the U.S. must come to grips with as much as Canada must come to grips with its treatment of its Aboriginals (which, to be honest, the U.S. must do, too, but they're not as visible to most Americans).
    - anamax 15y ago
      > So, the 2.5% Canadian "black" population is a substantially more diverse population than the 12.6% U.S. "black" population, which is primarily descended from black slaves. Maybe half of the US black population is descended from slaves. The rest, which is about 6% (from your numbers) comes from the same places Canada gets its 2.5%. And then there are all of the different groups under the hispanic label.
      - 15y ago

by anamax 15y ago

gamble 15y ago

Restrictive covenants were not rare, especially in the post-war suburbs. The first modern suburb, Levittown, NY, was racially segregated. It wasn't called 'white flight' because the people fleeing the inner city wanted to live with blacks. Restrictive covenants didn't end up the Supreme Court because no one was interested in enforcing them.

anamax 15y ago
> Restrictive covenants were not rare, especially in the post-war suburbs. The first modern suburb, Levittown, NY, was racially segregated. Pointing to an instance doesn't make the "not rare" case. Levittown takes good pictures, but it isn't representative of post WWII housing development. Moreover, you're still ignoring the fact that even if covenants were't rare before, the affected housing is a very small part of today's housing stock. As a result, covenants which haven't been enforceable for 50 years can't have much, if any, effect today.

ojbyrne 15y ago

I was mostly with you till that Canada/Minnesota comment. Perhaps Minnesota is exceptionally diverse... Because Canada is very definitely more diverse than the US.

Turing_Machine 15y ago
Wikipedia puts the "Visible Minority" population of Canada at 16.2% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_minorities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_... and the (at least partially) non-"White" population of the U.S at 27.6%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stat...
- halostatue 15y ago
  The absolute numbers don't tell the whole story, and illustrate part of the difference between the U.S. and Canada on this. The Wikipedia article on Canada is horrible on one point: "Black" isn't a single minority group in Canada. We have people from the Caribbean and people from many different regions in Africa and, yes, like U.S. we also have descendants of black slaves (in sometimes surprising places). But while they often share similar skin colourings, that is often the only thing they share in common. Many of the Ghanaians, Nigerians, South Africans, and Caribbeans I know have nothing in common except their skin colour—and their love of partying, at least the ones that I've come into contact with over the last ten years. So, the 2.5% Canadian "black" population is a substantially more diverse population than the 12.6% U.S. "black" population, which is primarily descended from black slaves. This group may be less diverse, but it's also something that the U.S. must come to grips with as much as Canada must come to grips with its treatment of its Aboriginals (which, to be honest, the U.S. must do, too, but they're not as visible to most Americans).
  - anamax 15y ago
    > So, the 2.5% Canadian "black" population is a substantially more diverse population than the 12.6% U.S. "black" population, which is primarily descended from black slaves. Maybe half of the US black population is descended from slaves. The rest, which is about 6% (from your numbers) comes from the same places Canada gets its 2.5%. And then there are all of the different groups under the hispanic label.
    - 15y ago