3 ms·
>They don’t say that. >The benefits and burdens of our transportation system – highways, roads, bridges, sidewalks, and public transit – have been planned, dev
by underlipton 2y ago
>They don’t say that.
>The benefits and burdens of our transportation system – highways, roads, bridges, sidewalks, and public transit – have been planned, developed, and sustained to pull resources from Black communities that are subsequently deployed and invested to the benefit of predominantly white communities and their residents.
>Again, we know that’s not true because highways were built through cities that had no significant minority populations.
You said this about Seattle and Portland, supposing (incorrectly) that there were no minority neighborhoods to raze. It suggests one of two conclusions:
a) There were minority (if not racial, then ethnic, or class) populations that were displaced in order to build the highways in Cairo, and Dusseldorf, and Tokyo, the histories of which we're not privy to due to some combination of a language barrier wrt applicable sources, and an incentive on the part of local historians not to include that history in the foreign-facing record (for diplomatic and face-saving reasons). To disprove this, general demographic statistics aren't enough; you would need specific information about the geographic locations in question - in particular, demographic history and qualitative information about that demography. I don't think you have that.
b) The American history of highway construction is singular, if not at least abnormal. This is the more likely option, because of America's globally abnormal geographic and population size, demographic history, history of municipal development, history of transit development, and automobile-related policy. To put it simply: most other countries don't have the incentives and means to use redevelopment as an explicit tool of displacement. (China does, and unsurprisingly: https://www.fmreview.org/destination-europe/dube https://www.fmreview.org/destination-europe/dube).
>trying to project an America-centric racial narrative onto something that was a global phenomenon driven by people’s preferences for the low density living enabled by cars.
You're projecting an America-centric narrative about the role of the auto in the average person's life onto populations with very different circumstances and outlooks. You're categorically wrong, and it might be more useful for you to ask why you're clinging to this incorrect assessment of America's racial and political history.