Is Ending Segregation the Key to Ending Poverty?
7 comments · 77% upvoted · source · other discussions
comments
citizenuzi
bsiviglia9
Look to Sacramento for clues. It was one of the first to outlaw housing discrimination/segregation. It's now the most integrated city in the nation. Here's a bit of insight: while diversity is way up in Sacramento, fear is still present. Diversity is a wonderful thing, but without willingness to reach out to people who are different, it has an isolating effect. TLDR; Segregation doesn't necessarily eradicate poverty unless people also reach across differences and foster solidarity. EDIT: Fixed Autocorrect Error.
[deleted]
That was a great read. Seems like programs like Moving for Opportunity really do work. I wonder what happens to the "left behind" neighborhoods though? I mean we've never done this on a scale mass enough to where there was a neighborhood that got "left behind" anyway, but still.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ifuckinglovepron
The housing policies created the segregation, the blacks created the crime and poverty.
Land in itself does not induce violence in people unless you buy into some supernatural Indian graveyard b.s.
I know to some that sounds cold or racist but it is not. By waiving any personal responsibility on the part of a population you are denying them agency and patronizing them.
The premise that blacks must be near whites to succeed is just a more p.c. Way of restating the outdated idea of "The White man's burden."
[deleted]
[deleted]
Ifuckinglovepron
Insular ethnic enclaves are only talked about as a problem when it is dealing with black people. Jews were much more oppressed, hell during slavery at least blacks were seen as useful. Jews were forced to live I. Shitty areas both in america and in Europe. The Irish immigrants to New York? Also not seen as equal to whites, also segregated into poverty. Asians? Same story. All of these except one group mostly pulled themselves out of poverty on their own despite the challenges.
The white man's burden was the idea that Europeans had to bring education and civilization to ignorant, colored, natives. The article specifically states that the best results were had when the black families moved to predominantly white areas. Of course no comment is give on whether the black families were beneficial or detrimental to the white people they moved near. Strange to omit that.
StabbyPants
it's part of it. not waging war on blacks is another part.
Is forced (one way or another) 'integration' the key to lowering my quality of life and trashing my neighborhood? This is as valid a question as the title. Interestingly, the answer to both is probably Yes - although to varying degrees. Mixing poors of whatever color (although we generally know what is meant by integration in America) into more prosperous areas is bound to have at least some benefits for them and their children, but it comes with whatever problems they'll bring with them... and there will be plenty.