[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47944278]White people and housing boards weren't allowed to kick folks out based on their skin color anymore, but racism was fresh and strong, and they certainly didn't want to live next to black people if they could help it.[/QUOTE]
Is there any real evidence that white people moved out because they were racist and didn't want to live by black people as opposed to moving out because of the changing culture and growth of suburbia?
[QUOTE=sgman91;47944400]Is there any real evidence that white people moved out because they were racist and didn't want to live by black people as opposed to moving out because of the changing culture and growth of suburbia?[/QUOTE]
Uh, yeah. About a hundred years of documented history.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight[/url]
De-industrialization and the growth of suburbia certainly played a role in setting the right conditions for White Flight, but to pretend like the racial aspect has been historically over-exaggerated, or worse, to deny it completely? That's just absurd.
[QUOTE=Nikota;47939772]
Man where I grew up it was fucking funny at how strong the contrast was. Like there's an immediate shift to "Oh fuck", and this wasn't even supposed to be a bad area. The ghetto cropped up immediately outside the University grounds on one side.[/QUOTE]
There's an intersection at the edge of my town. Turn right and you head into downtown and Upper-Upper-Middle Class neighborhoods, well-cultivated lawns, McMansions, real mansions, and boutiques. The kind of place where minor celebrities live, like retired actors and moderately successful writers. Turn left, and in three minutes you're crossing a rusty (oxidized copper?) bridge into run-down factory buildings, suspicious vans, graffiti, grimy convenience stores, and one of the biggest heroin-addicted cities on the East coast. My cozy middle class bubble town has few enough black citizens that I can count them with my fingers. My dad used to live in the town to the left, back in the 50's, before his family were the last white people on his block. The city used to be a respected center of industry, but now it's more or less a tragic shithole. It's because people of color advanced in social class enough to live near Polish and Lithuanian immigrant families, but those white folk didn't like their new neighbors, so they got out of there. The disappearance of working class white families turned the city into a poor, problem area.
The contrast is really astounding to see. There's a supermarket a little down the road to the left and it's open 24 hours, and I needed to go there at 11 last night with my mom. She was afraid to take the house keys with her.
[editline]13th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47941246]This leads to the real problems being swept under the rug, because it's easier to blame black people than it is to accept that there's something deeply wrong with the way that this country treats its economic lower class.[/QUOTE]
African slaves were given numerous offensive stock character types in the 19th century in minstrel shows, ingraining a long-standing set of racial stereotypes that are just as present today as they were fifty years ago. They were freed from slavery and promptly placed in the lowest social class in the country. They couldn't really advance because of the prejudice upper-class folk had on them from Blackface stereotypes, and therefore those same stereotypes were blamed for their inability to advance in social standing. They assume that a black man isn't poor because society makes it impossible for him to stop being poor, but that he's poor because of the classic "coon" stereotype: the dim-witted lower-class black man who wants to act and be treated as high-class but refuses to actually do any work. This is not necessarily true of this man, but people are applying this stereotype to him subconsciously, blaming it on the man rather than his situation. There's a specific psychological name for this phenomenon but it escapes me at the moment.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47944278]It's not just pre-civil rights conditions we need to consider, either. Ghettos as we know them in the US started forming during the mid and late 1900's, with much of the worst damage done after the civil rights movement.
In a nutshell, de-industrialization set the stage by hurting the economy and making urban residential areas less attractive for wealthy families. Weakened the foundations, so to speak. Then, MLK did his groove thang, and emboldened black Americans began moving into those urban areas, because despite the economy having taken a downturn, these were nice and central places that had previously been off-limits to them.
White people and housing boards weren't allowed to kick folks out based on their skin color anymore, but racism was fresh and strong, and they certainly didn't want to live next to black people if they could help it. So, as new black people moved in, the established white people moved out. As they did, they took their businesses and economic power with them, dealing a fatal blow to the already damaged local economies. White Flight, "there goes the neighborhood." Property values plummeted, businesses died, jobs dwindled. The economy was shattered and poverty set in.
And we already know what poverty brings. Desperation. Crime, drugs, violence, prostitution, gangs, you name it. When people have nothing, they'll resort to whatever they need to do to get theirs. After a while, it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle.
That's why most ghettos are in cities, and usually in or around old industrial areas, or the suburbs bordering them. That's what's up with Saint Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. Fixing these problems requires a huge and unified effort, because once things have been allowed to fall as hard as East Saint Louis and the like, they are long past the point of any hope of a natural economic recovery.[/QUOTE]
Oh, that's what I was referring to as well. I was being real general with my racism, since people at that time would find any way to disallow black people into their communities.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47944531]Uh, yeah. About a hundred years of documented history.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight[/URL]
De-industrialization and the growth of suburbia certainly played a role in setting the right conditions for White Flight, but to pretend like the racial aspect has been historically over-exaggerated, or worse, to deny it completely? That's just absurd.[/QUOTE]
Like I've said in many threads: I take nothing at face value. Too many times these old theories end up being totally exaggerated when one looks at actual data. Since you didn't actually provide any evidence (that wikipedia just lists a bunch of different reasons without giving evidence for them) I went and attempted to look some up for myself. My Google search string was "causes for white flight." I tried to be as unbiased as possible with the question in order to find the best research, no matter what results I got.
The very first thing that came up was a study from the late 70's that argues, from actual data, that non-racial arguments for white flight were much stronger than racial arguments, although some racial issues did exist ([URL]http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc32a.pdf[/URL]). Here's a quote from the text:
"By far the largest total effect on white suburban movement... can be attributed to the extent of postwar suburban development, although in these newer and more rapidly growing cities there tend to be large counterstreams that balance and to some extent mitigate the effects of the outflow of whites. Next in influence was the percentage of the city population that was black, a factor that to some extent measures the degree of daily contact between blacks and whites in the central city. We cannot, therefore, wholly discount racial factors in our analysis of the causes of white flight. Of equal influence, however, were the suburb/city tax differential, and the degree to which employment opportunities had recently moved to the suburbs (measured by the percentage of city dwellers commuting to the suburbs to work). Some recent studies purport to show that school desegregation, as carried out in the 1970s, may under certain circumstances have spurred extensive white suburbanization. Because there has been no census since 1970 it is not possible to apply Frey's methodology to a thorough evaluation of post-1970 migration patterns. His findings based on the 1970 census, are, however, quite clear. School desegregation ranked as the least significant factor in this analysis; racial disturbances were very nearly as unimportant. The term "white flight," viewed in this context, appears to be somewhat of a misnomer."
It seems too many times people feel like even questioning the line taught on college campuses is equivalent to bigotry, even though there's almost always more to the story than those college classes tend to talk about.
[editline]12th June 2015[/editline]
With that said, I'm going to keep looking up everything I can find to get a better picture.
[editline]12th June 2015[/editline]
After a bit more research I've found one theoretical study that put more blame on white dislike of racial diversity, but the study only looked at home prices as an alternate reasoning ([URL]http://www.econ.ucla.edu/lboustan/research_pdfs/research02_whiteflight.pdf[/URL]), and I found another study that puts almost no weight on racial reasoning. It argues that whites leaving to suburbia lowered housing prices, which allowed black home ownership in urban areas. ([URL]http://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2010/10/Pages-from-YJUEC-D-11-00201R31.pdf[/URL])
man I'm pretty ashamed of some people in here
the ignorance is pretty sad
little bit late to the conversation but I'd like to point out that NAACP isn't specifically for blacks
advancement of [b]colored people[/b]
around when it was founded, Jews were considered non-white, which explains [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1470546&p=47939831&viewfull=1#post47939831]this[/url]
so trying to see this in the context of "she only got the position because she identified as black" is somewhat ignorant, from what I know it does seem to focus more on blacks but it's an association dedicated to ethnic minorities in general
the more you know
[QUOTE=sgman91;47944872]Like I've said in many threads: I take nothing at face value. Too many times these old theories end up being totally exaggerated when one looks at actual data. Since you didn't actually provide any evidence (that wikipedia just lists a bunch of different reasons without giving evidence for them) I went and attempted to look some up for myself. My Google search string was "causes for white flight." I tried to be as unbiased as possible with the question in order to find the best research, no matter what results I got.
The very first thing that came up was a study from the late 70's that argues, from actual data, that non-racial arguments for white flight were much stronger than racial arguments, although some racial issues did exist ([URL]http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc32a.pdf[/URL]). Here's a quote from the text:
"By far the largest total effect on white suburban movement... can be attributed to the extent of postwar suburban development, although in these newer and more rapidly growing cities there tend to be large counterstreams that balance and to some extent mitigate the effects of the outflow of whites. Next in influence was the percentage of the city population that was black, a factor that to some extent measures the degree of daily contact between blacks and whites in the central city. We cannot, therefore, wholly discount racial factors in our analysis of the causes of white flight. Of equal influence, however, were the suburb/city tax differential, and the degree to which employment opportunities had recently moved to the suburbs (measured by the percentage of city dwellers commuting to the suburbs to work). Some recent studies purport to show that school desegregation, as carried out in the 1970s, may under certain circumstances have spurred extensive white suburbanization. Because there has been no census since 1970 it is not possible to apply Frey's methodology to a thorough evaluation of post-1970 migration patterns. His findings based on the 1970 census, are, however, quite clear. School desegregation ranked as the least significant factor in this analysis; racial disturbances were very nearly as unimportant. The term "white flight," viewed in this context, appears to be somewhat of a misnomer."
It seems too many times people feel like even questioning the line taught on college campuses is equivalent to bigotry, even though there's almost always more to the story than those college classes tend to talk about.
[editline]12th June 2015[/editline]
With that said, I'm going to keep looking up everything I can find to get a better picture.
[editline]12th June 2015[/editline]
After a bit more research I've found one study that put more blame on white dislike of racial diversity, but the study only looked at home prices as an alternate reasoning ([URL]http://www.econ.ucla.edu/lboustan/research_pdfs/research02_whiteflight.pdf[/URL]), and I found another study that puts almost no weight on racial reasoning. It argues that whites leaving to suburbia lowered housing prices, which allowed black home ownership in urban areas. ([URL]http://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2010/10/Pages-from-YJUEC-D-11-00201R31.pdf[/URL])[/QUOTE]
Curses, you figured it all out! Fine, I admit it: the racial narrative of White Flight is a conspiracy perpetrated by the liberal media and the college elites meant to fool hardworking white people into thinking that they aren't socially and genetically pure! Just like the bad parts of slavery, we made it all up! In a time period when [URL="http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/central-high-school-integration"]black students had to be escorted to class by the army to protect them from both other students and from the state government itself[/URL], when [URL="http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice5.html"]young black boys would be brutally murdered for looking at white women[/URL], when a [URL="https://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/rosaparks/story.asp"]woman could be arrested for sitting in a white man's seat[/URL], when [URL="http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_freedom_rides/"]black travelers would be attacked by mobs for trying to use "white" facilities[/URL], when [URL="http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/161573289/integrating-ole-miss-a-transformative-deadly-riot"]a black student registering at a college prompted a riot that took almost 30000 soldiers to subdue[/URL], when the [URL="http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-medgar-evers"]murderer of an NAACP field worker couldn't be convicted for thirty years because it was too difficult to find an impartial jury[/URL], when [URL="http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice3.html"]black churches used for civil rights meetings are bombed during services[/URL], when [URL="http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/civil-rights-workers-disappear"]civil rights workers are murdered by POLICE officers and the Ku Klux Klan for trying to register black voters[/URL], when [URL="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/eyewitness/html.php?section=2"]peaceful marches for equality are set on by police officers wielding clubs and whips[/URL], and when [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia"]the Supreme Court itself had to rule that interracial marriages could not be restricted to prevent the otherwise legal imprisonment of interracial couples[/URL] the concept that racism was first and foremost in peoples' minds during White Flight, which ran alongside all of this, is obviously just [I]black propaganda.[/I] And we would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling racists!
You say you take nothing at "face value," when the only thing that you're being asked to accept are the documented historical facts of the situation. Do you also doubt the motivations behind the Holocaust? You can't change history by denying it. Racism was the driving force behind White Flight; it was a social resistance to the idea that black people were equals. However, even setting that aside, I have to ask what point the point of denying that even is? Pretending that White Flight [I]wasn't[/I] about race doesn't change the end result of it: black people were segregated into economically shattered neighborhoods, and this is the cause of today's Ghettos. The best case scenario of your weaseling around would be to convince somebody that society only [I]accidentally[/I] fucked over minorities (this time), which does nothing to change our current situation or what needs to be done about it. Of course, this isn't the case, so it's a moot point anyway.
I really didn't know this was in my town until the news talked about it the other day.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47941246]Obviously I gave an oversimplified explanation of the problem. Setting aside the specific policies that are needed for a moment, the ultimate goal here needs to be producing programs and policies that make upward mobility much more realistic across the country. In today's environment, being born poor usually means [I]staying[/I] poor. This is especially true for minorities. I'm not trying to propose that wealthy people come in and rebuild the ghettos for themselves, I'm trying to say that we need to empower the lower classes with the tools, resources, and help needed to improve things from the ground up.
In my opinion, some of the more specific actions we need to consider in order to achieve this goal include restructuring our predatory healthcare and insurance system, tossing away financial policies that fund public school facilities based on performance, placing a greater emphasis on training our police forces in public relations and community outreach, rethinking our lower-level judicial system so that it is more fair and efficient and less focused on simply raising revenues from fines and petty criminal charges, and re-imagining our "War on Drugs," to name a few things. That's only the tip of the iceberg. This is a huge issue. For the time being, the first and most crucial step towards fighting poverty is for people to simply accept that [I]things need to be done,[/I] and racism is a huge roadblock towards that effort. Prejudice and ignorance causes people to draw unfair and inaccurate links between race and crime, completely ignoring the much more important link: [I]POVERTY[/I] and crime. This leads to the real problems being swept under the rug, because it's easier to blame black people than it is to accept that there's something deeply wrong with the way that this country treats its economic lower class.
Prejudice and poverty feed on each other. Reducing prejudice will help reduce poverty. Reducing poverty will help reduce prejudice. That's the point I've been trying to make.[/QUOTE]
If you were a politician and I was an american citizen, I would vote for you.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47946987]Curses, you figured it all out! Fine, I admit it: the racial narrative of White Flight is a conspiracy perpetrated by the liberal media and the college elites meant to fool hardworking white people into thinking that they aren't socially and genetically pure! Just like the bad parts of slavery, we made it all up! In a time period when [URL="http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/central-high-school-integration"]black students had to be escorted to class by the army to protect them from both other students and from the state government itself[/URL], when [URL="http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice5.html"]young black boys would be brutally murdered for looking at white women[/URL], when a [URL="https://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/rosaparks/story.asp"]woman could be arrested for sitting in a white man's seat[/URL], when [URL="http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_freedom_rides/"]black travelers would be attacked by mobs for trying to use "white" facilities[/URL], when [URL="http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/161573289/integrating-ole-miss-a-transformative-deadly-riot"]a black student registering at a college prompted a riot that took almost 30000 soldiers to subdue[/URL], when the [URL="http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-medgar-evers"]murderer of an NAACP field worker couldn't be convicted for thirty years because it was too difficult to find an impartial jury[/URL], when [URL="http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice3.html"]black churches used for civil rights meetings are bombed during services[/URL], when [URL="http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/civil-rights-workers-disappear"]civil rights workers are murdered by POLICE officers and the Ku Klux Klan for trying to register black voters[/URL], when [URL="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/eyewitness/html.php?section=2"]peaceful marches for equality are set on by police officers wielding clubs and whips[/URL], and when [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia"]the Supreme Court itself had to rule that interracial marriages could not be restricted to prevent the otherwise legal imprisonment of interracial couples[/URL] the concept that racism was first and foremost in peoples' minds during White Flight, which ran alongside all of this, is obviously just [I]black propaganda.[/I] And we would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling racists!
You say you take nothing at "face value," when the only thing that you're being asked to accept are the documented historical facts of the situation. Do you also doubt the motivations behind the Holocaust? You can't change history by denying it. Racism was the driving force behind White Flight; it was a social resistance to the idea that black people were equals. However, even setting that aside, I have to ask what point the point of denying that even is? Pretending that White Flight [I]wasn't[/I] about race doesn't change the end result of it: black people were segregated into economically shattered neighborhoods, and this is the cause of today's Ghettos. The best case scenario of your weaseling around would be to convince somebody that society only [I]accidentally[/I] fucked over minorities (this time), which does nothing to change our current situation or what needs to be done about it. Of course, this isn't the case, so it's a moot point anyway.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to be a bit annoying here and pretty much say that what you have done here is really dishonest.
You went off on a long winded tangent that details racisms greatest hits, showing that, yes, there were a lot of racist people then doing racist things. While it ties in, it has nothing to do with his argument. The rest is just waffle.
When you come to the actual part that actually "answers" the question:
[quote]Racism was the driving force behind White Flight; it was a social resistance to the idea that black people were equals. [/quote]
It doesn't actually explain anything. He gave studies and arguments as to why non-racial factors may be more important, whereas you haven't.
You have to show us why he is wrong, and provide evidence which conclusively shows that racial factors were the strongest here. It doesn't matter if they were racist or not, you have to show us that racism is the actual cause, rather than assuming it is.
This stuff is incredibly complicated. For me, being Black is less about being an identity and more about being in a position. What I mean is that to be 'black' is to be seen from the outside and identified as such - and a primary way that one is marked as being black is their skin color.
What do I mean that Black isn't so much an identity? What I mean is that ones culture, their habits, or their jobs doesn't really speak so much to being Black in the way we think about it. For example: what does it mean to culturally be black? Like jazz music, listen to Jazz, eat watermellon or fried chicken? Gimmie a break. I don't think so. While we associate those things with being Black (often with consequences), simply put, someone could be a parapaelgic and yet we would still be able to say they are black - just from looking at them. So, for me Rachel 'was' and 'is' Black insofar as she is percieved as such.
As to being TransRacial - it is pretty complicated as an idea, much like transgender is complicated. I think the Backlash to her is a lot more telling than my actual feelings about/for her - the backlash reveals an investment in making black 'MEAN' something more than the fact that people are seen as being Black ... I think that would be my critique of most people critquing her - they try to make being Black something about an identity, when being Black is a structural position.
I feel like what we are calling transracial may actually be transethnic - though in Rachel's case it would seem she was both. At the end of the day we should probably be asking ourselves what UNITES Barrack Obama, Clarrence Thomas, Assata Shakur, and Raven-Symone - and in asking that question we may find Rachel finds herself at home there for one reason or another.
[QUOTE=Deng;47947339]I'm going to be a bit annoying here and pretty much say that what you have done here is really dishonest.
You went off on a long winded tangent that details racisms greatest hits, showing that, yes, there were a lot of racist people then doing racist things. While it ties in, it has nothing to do with his argument. The rest is just waffle.
When you come to the actual part that actually "answers" the question:
It doesn't actually explain anything. He gave studies and arguments as to why non-racial factors may be more important, whereas you haven't.
You have to show us why he is wrong, and provide evidence which conclusively shows that racial factors were the strongest here. It doesn't matter if they were racist or not, you have to show us that racism is the actual cause, rather than assuming it is.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Over the past 25 years, the wealth gap between blacks and whites has nearly tripled, according to research by Brandeis University.
[t]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/140820173854-black-white-divide-wealth-1024x576.png[/t]
Unemployment is also a major problem. [b]The jobless rate for blacks is twice that of whites. The gap has been at least that large for years.[/b]
All of these factors combine to push many blacks into poverty. [B]America's 15% poverty rate masks the underlying racial differences. More than one in four blacks live in poverty, while fewer than one in 10 whites do.[/B][/quote]
[quote]The difference in wealth between typical households in each racial group ballooned to $236,500 in 2009, up from $85,000 in 1984, according to the study, released Wednesday. By 2009, the median net worth of white families was $265,000, while blacks had only $28,500.
...
[B]The home ownership rate for whites is 28% higher than that of blacks.[/B]
"How housing wealth is created in different communities is clearly what's driving this," Shapiro said.
...
[B]Income gains are also a major differentiating factor[/B], even when whites and blacks have similar wage increases. Whites are typically able to put more of their raises towards accumulating wealth because they've already built up a cash cushion. Blacks are more likely to use the money to cover emergencies.
..
[b]Four in five black students graduate with debt, compared to 64% of whites.[/b][/quote]
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/27/news/economy/wealth-whites-blacks/[/url]
You can't say this has nothing to do with racism, whether it be historical or not. What differentiates the races? Inheritance. Why aren't black people inheriting wealth? There wasn't wealth to begin with.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47946987]Curses, you figured it all out! Fine, I admit it: the racial narrative of White Flight is a conspiracy perpetrated by the liberal media and the college elites meant to fool hardworking white people into thinking that they aren't socially and genetically pure! Just like the bad parts of slavery, we made it all up! In a time period when [URL="http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/central-high-school-integration"]black students had to be escorted to class by the army to protect them from both other students and from the state government itself[/URL], when [URL="http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice5.html"]young black boys would be brutally murdered for looking at white women[/URL], when a [URL="https://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/rosaparks/story.asp"]woman could be arrested for sitting in a white man's seat[/URL], when [URL="http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_freedom_rides/"]black travelers would be attacked by mobs for trying to use "white" facilities[/URL], when [URL="http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/161573289/integrating-ole-miss-a-transformative-deadly-riot"]a black student registering at a college prompted a riot that took almost 30000 soldiers to subdue[/URL], when the [URL="http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history-medgar-evers"]murderer of an NAACP field worker couldn't be convicted for thirty years because it was too difficult to find an impartial jury[/URL], when [URL="http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice3.html"]black churches used for civil rights meetings are bombed during services[/URL], when [URL="http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/civil-rights-workers-disappear"]civil rights workers are murdered by POLICE officers and the Ku Klux Klan for trying to register black voters[/URL], when [URL="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/eyewitness/html.php?section=2"]peaceful marches for equality are set on by police officers wielding clubs and whips[/URL], and when [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia"]the Supreme Court itself had to rule that interracial marriages could not be restricted to prevent the otherwise legal imprisonment of interracial couples[/URL] the concept that racism was first and foremost in peoples' minds during White Flight, which ran alongside all of this, is obviously just [I]black propaganda.[/I] And we would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling racists!
You say you take nothing at "face value," when the only thing that you're being asked to accept are the documented historical facts of the situation. Do you also doubt the motivations behind the Holocaust? You can't change history by denying it. Racism was the driving force behind White Flight; it was a social resistance to the idea that black people were equals. However, even setting that aside, I have to ask what point the point of denying that even is? Pretending that White Flight [I]wasn't[/I] about race doesn't change the end result of it: black people were segregated into economically shattered neighborhoods, and this is the cause of today's Ghettos. The best case scenario of your weaseling around would be to convince somebody that society only [I]accidentally[/I] fucked over minorities (this time), which does nothing to change our current situation or what needs to be done about it. Of course, this isn't the case, so it's a moot point anyway.[/QUOTE]
So instead of responding to a level-headed argument based on citations and actual analysis, you break out the quasi-flaming, condescending snark about conspiracy theories and the Holocaust and a slew of emotional examples that don't actually address his sources.
When you post good arguments like earlier in the thread you're a great poster, so why do you always have to act like you've got a stick wedged up your ass when someone disagrees with you? Man, I absolutely agree that racism is probably the biggest factor behind white flight, but you have done nothing to actually address his argument besides suddenly acting like an asshole.
I will say this: it is admirable to try and look at things from a blank slate and finding actual causes. The thing is that the actual causes are totally related to racism in this instance, and in most instances. It's not agenda-pushing or whatever to say that racism causes bad things.
I really don't get how anybody can claim those examples aren't relevant when they happened in the same places at the same time and dealt with the same subject. I've already explored the roles that de-industrialization and a growing suburban movement played in White Flight, so don't accuse me of ignoring evidence. There's simply no validity whatsoever to the argument that racism was not a major contributing factor, if not [I]the[/I] driving force behind White Flight. If you want a reasonable discussion on how the other social and economic forces contributed to that, I'm happy to oblige, but if your goal is to downplay or write off the role that racism played then don't act surprised when I laugh off your argument. I've got no patience for the chuckleheads who try to justify their prejudice.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47947973]I really don't get how anybody can claim those examples aren't relevant when they happened in the same places at the same time and dealt with the same subject. [/QUOTE]
No, nobody's saying they're not relevant to the subject. But giving examples of overt racism while essentially sputtering 'but isn't it OBVIOUS?!?' isn't a refutation to statistical analysis that acknowledges racism as one factor, but argues that it isn't the main factor. If Sgman were saying 'racism don't real' then yeah, you'd be spot-on, but as that isn't the case you're shouting at straw men.
I'd like to see an actual argument against the content of what he posted, because while I want to reject its conclusion, I'd like to have a sound logical or methodological basis for doing so, not just a knee-jerk emotional reaction.
[quote=Big Dumb American;47947973]I've already explored the roles that de-industrialization and a growing suburban movement played in White Flight, so don't accuse me of ignoring evidence.
(...)
If you want a reasonable discussion on how the other social and economic forces contributed to that, I'm happy to oblige, but if your goal is to downplay or write off the role that racism played then don't act surprised when I laugh off your argument. I've got no patience for the chuckleheads who try to justify their prejudice. [/quote]
You made a reasonable claim, but provided very little evidence. He made a reply and gave evidence to support his claim. You made a reply that didn't address his evidence at all, because he must be an evil racist so you're going to flame instead of engaging.
Are you still wondering why, even though I agree with your position, I'm finding your argument extremely unconvincing?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47946987]BDA's wall of fallacies.[/QUOTE]
Let's start right off and make it clear that in no way am I denying the existence of disgusting racism. If I were, then you're post might have been a refutation.
To be totally honest, I make it a point to especially not take what YOU say at face value. There's a little cult of personality around you on FP. You're undeniably an incredible writer, much better than I am, and good writing is persuasive even when void of real substance. I've challenge your positing of the liberal talking points about social issues multiple times now and you've never been able to provide actual evidence. In fact, you don't even seem to know what causal evidence is, based on this post.
One last thing: why do you always assume bad motives? All I'm doing is asking for evidence, and trying to find evidence. It just so happens that the majority of evidence I've found goes against your preconceived notions. Those studies may be wrong, but I'm not going to assume they're wrong because, " [You have] already explored the roles that de-industrialization and a growing suburban movement played in White Flight, so don't accuse me of ignoring evidence," therefore any study that goes against you MUST be wrong.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47947973]I've already explored the roles that de-industrialization and a growing suburban movement played in White Flight[/quote]
With the exception of posting a wikipedia link, you haven't.
[quote]There's simply no validity whatsoever to the argument that racism was not a major contributing factor, if not [I]the[/I] driving force behind White Flight.[/quote]
Nobody in this thread has ever disputed racism as a factor. What they dispute is if it is /the/ biggest factor. I.e the "driving force behind White Flight".
[quote]I've got no patience for the chuckleheads who try to justify their prejudice.[/QUOTE]
Yet clearly enough patience to write voluminous posts with no substance.
One of the most major issues with racism in the US is that racism is, at its core, accepted by nearly everyone, to the point where the definition of racism tends to be drastically different between Europe and the US. Around here (in France that is), Racism = differentiating/categorizing people into races, which is considered wrong and immoral due to all the bad doors it opens. In the US, Racism = accepting the existence of races, but privileging one race over the other. It's a pretty major conception and the American one tends to lead to a lot of issues because people actually look into race more than they should, which in turn breeds the already latent racism of the country.
If the United States wants to fix their problems with racism they need to start defining it differently. As long as some form of difference is made between one man and another based on their skin and ancestry, then you'll have people trying to establish more differences than these and discriminate more and more.
[editline]a[/editline]
Also it's undeniable that racism/racist/race are buzzwords/scapegoats in the US and that regardless of their actual importance they're also constantly used among issues that had no real link to it.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47947973]I really don't get how anybody can claim those examples aren't relevant when they happened in the same places at the same time and dealt with the same subject. I've already explored the roles that de-industrialization and a growing suburban movement played in White Flight, so don't accuse me of ignoring evidence. There's simply no validity whatsoever to the argument that racism was not a major contributing factor, if not [I]the[/I] driving force behind White Flight. If you want a reasonable discussion on how the other social and economic forces contributed to that, I'm happy to oblige, but if your goal is to downplay or write off the role that racism played then don't act surprised when I laugh off your argument. I've got no patience for the chuckleheads who try to justify their prejudice.[/QUOTE]
I really dont get how you think you won some argument against the guy who provided nothing but evidence and information to back up his claims on white flight that were directly related to it, while you gave nothing except things that some how should just prove your claims of white flight just because these other things happened that are totally unrelated. You couldnt even hold yourself off from being that type of asshole whos counter-argument needs to start off by being smary, passive aggressive, and for fucksakes, making it seem like the guy responding to you was some dumb conspiracy stupid shit.
If your point was to say "See look! America was super fucked up and racist during this time!" then you would have made a point, even if it would be redundant. You never gave the evidence that other poster did concerning White Flight, which is what you were talking about.
Black flight and ethnic succession are also fairly well documented phenomena. Pretty much everything seems to point in the direction that economic factors are the primary causes for large population migrations, and it's just as dumb to assume that well-off people are moving somewhere else with bad intentions as it is to assume that immigrants or the disenfranchised are moving somewhere with the same. People rarely give up everything and move somewhere so they can spite someone else or harm a local environment because it's simply too risky.
Unfortunately, US census data is really only useful back to ~1950's for racial stats. How many cities have been completely abandoned over the course of human history? We as modern civilizations are going to have to ask the same questions the ancients faced time and time again. Is it worth it to save this city or village when everything else around you is falling apart and you know for certain there are better prospects over the horizon? The people with the means and motivation to leave are probably going to leave, and there's little that you can do to stop that. It would be unethical to force them to stay.
The racial issues are something that would be nice to address, and for some of these communities they might very well be the most important or otherwise easiest to solve or approach. I think the bulk of these struggling communities aren't in that category though. We might just be witnessing the fall of our equivalent Ctesiphon or the Dead Cities.
Attacking BDA's tone instead of the content of his post is far more dishonest than anything he's ever done in a debate.
If you think that proof of the era being extremely racist toward black people is irrelevant in an argument where you're trying to suggest that racism wasn't a cause of white flight then you're hopeless.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47948987]Attacking BDA's tone instead of the content of his post is far more dishonest than anything he's ever done in a debate.
If you think that proof of the era being extremely racist toward black people is irrelevant in an argument where you're trying to suggest that racism wasn't a cause of white flight then you're hopeless.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I really dont get how you think you won some argument against the guy who provided nothing but evidence and information to back up his claims on white flight that were directly related to it, while you gave nothing except things that some how should just prove your claims of white flight just because these other things happened that are totally unrelated.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]No, nobody's saying they're not relevant to the subject. But giving examples of overt racism while essentially sputtering 'but isn't it OBVIOUS?!?' isn't a refutation to statistical analysis that acknowledges racism as one factor, but argues that it isn't the main factor.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Nobody in this thread has ever disputed racism as a factor. What they dispute is if it is /the/ biggest factor. I.e the "driving force behind White Flight".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]So instead of responding to a level-headed argument based on citations and actual analysis, you break out the quasi-flaming, condescending snark about conspiracy theories and the Holocaust and a slew of emotional examples that don't actually address his sources.[/QUOTE]
"Attacking BDA's tone instead of the content."
What universe do you live in where people have only been talking about his tone?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47948987]Attacking BDA's tone instead of the content of his post is far more dishonest than anything he's ever done in a debate.
If you think that proof of the era being extremely racist toward black people is irrelevant in an argument where you're trying to suggest that racism wasn't a cause of white flight then you're hopeless.[/QUOTE]
No, if you dont give any evidence at all, while someone came in and DID give us evidence, yet you still go off saying "no no no, this is how it was because this time period was shit" means you would rather take whatever convenient half-truth is thrown your way and not actually give enough of a shit to actually know if its honestly legit or not, or just your feelings getting in the way.
No one here was arguing that for a time America was completely ass in terms of racial equality. No one even said it was irrelevant, only you brought that up for some odd reason.
Do I think some white people tried and some move away when black people started to move in? Sure, people have done even dumber things over race. But im not seeing any evidence pointing towards it being big enough to be a named phenomenon as White Flight when their doesnt appear to be real proof of it, other than pointing out the fact that time period was far more racist.
If it was big enough to name, then what are the communities they got their data from? Whats the context of that data as well? If it was happening so much then where was it happening?
How can you even call people hopeless when all you are doing is hearing exactly the things you want to hear regardless if they are true or not? Thats about as hopeless as you can be as a person.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47948328]Let's start right off and make it clear that in no way am I denying the existence of disgusting racism. If I were, then you're post might have been a refutation.
To be totally honest, I make it a point to especially not take what YOU say at face value. There's a little cult of personality around you on FP. You're undeniably an incredible writer, much better than I am, and good writing is persuasive even when void of real substance. I've challenge your positing of the liberal talking points about social issues multiple times now and you've never been able to provide actual evidence. In fact, you don't even seem to know what causal evidence is, based on this post.
One last thing: why do you always assume bad motives? All I'm doing is asking for evidence, and trying to find evidence. It just so happens that the majority of evidence I've found goes against your preconceived notions. Those studies may be wrong, but I'm not going to assume they're wrong because, " [You have] already explored the roles that de-industrialization and a growing suburban movement played in White Flight, so don't accuse me of ignoring evidence," therefore any study that goes against you MUST be wrong.[/QUOTE]
Assuming I took the bait and spent all the livelong day fruitlessly debating with you on whether or not racism was a major factor of White Flight (hint: it was, and it's delusional to pretend otherwise), what would it change if I managed to prove you wrong, or you to prove me wrong? The effect of White Flight is the same either way. Criticize my liberal talking points and general approach to discussion all you like, and even call me out on my complete lack of interest in even feigning a serious argument with you on this particular subject, but the relationship between White Flight and modern ghettos remains the same, and so does the impact it has had on minorities and race relations, and so does the necessary response to it.
I can agree that there are some things I really don't care to argue about, including this. Not everything has to be an argument, and I don't feel like grabbing a ton of extra sources I've already read about the subject.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47949794]Assuming I took the bait and spent all the livelong day fruitlessly debating with you on whether or not racism was a major factor of White Flight (hint: it was, and it's delusional to pretend otherwise), what would it change if I managed to prove you wrong, or you to prove me wrong? The effect of White Flight is the same either way. Criticize my liberal talking points and general approach to discussion all you like, and even call me out on my complete lack of interest in even feigning a serious argument with you on this particular subject, but the relationship between White Flight and modern ghettos remains the same, and so does the impact it has had on minorities and race relations, and so does the necessary response to it.[/QUOTE]
I don't see what's delusional about accepting the conclusion that's supported by available evidence. If anything, refusing to accept evidence solely on the basis that it disagrees with your conclusion is delusional. Going purely by the dictionary definition, anyway.
like, no one has even suggested that racism isn't or wasn't a thing, all he's saying is that in this specific instance when talking about this specific phenomenon, you might be wrong about the primary motivational factor
he was willing to put in the admittedly paltry amount of effort it takes to find evidence for his claims, I think that at least entitles him to expect the same in return
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47949939]Not everything has to be an argument, and I don't feel like grabbing a ton of extra sources I've already read about the subject.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but if you don't want to argue you can just say so. Responding to a sourced argument with strawmanning and insults and then justifying it with 'whatever you're not worth my time anyways' is the sort of thing that gets normal members banned for shitposting.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47949794]Assuming I took the bait and spent all the livelong day fruitlessly debating with you on whether or not racism was a major factor of White Flight (hint: it was, and it's delusional to pretend otherwise), what would it change if I managed to prove you wrong, or you to prove me wrong? The effect of White Flight is the same either way. Criticize my liberal talking points and general approach to discussion all you like, and even call me out on my complete lack of interest in even feigning a serious argument with you on this particular subject, but the relationship between White Flight and modern ghettos remains the same, and so does the impact it has had on minorities and race relations, and so does the necessary response to it.[/QUOTE]
If it's not a big deal, then why are you always so intent on bringing it up? You never miss an opportunity to blame so called white flight, and it's effects, on racism. I've seen you do it multiple times.
It matters because causes matter when trying to find solutions. If other causes led to the situation in current urban centers, then those causes might be where solutions are found for fixing it. If we assume racism as the cause, then we will miss solutions based on any other causes.
[editline]13th June 2015[/editline]
Generally, the very first thing you look at when trying to solve a problem is what caused the problem in the first place because you can't truly understand it any other way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
