Do you consider race when looking for a neighborhood to live in?

[Anonymous]

gizmodo

I spoke over the phone with Walidah Imarisha, an educator and expert on black history in Oregon and she was quick to explain that the state is only really exceptional in that it bothered to proclaim its goals of white supremacy so openly.

"What's useful about Oregon as a case study is that Oregon was bold enough to write it down,"

but see

http://slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm

And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[8] Blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).

All these werre "written down" Gizmodo is quoting someone who appears less than fully informed.

[Anonymous]

and further, from wiki

Article 13 of Indiana's 1851 Constitution stated "No Negro or Mulatto shall come into, or settle in, the State, after the adoption of this Constitution." The 1848 Constitution of Illinois contributed to the state legislature passing one of the harshest Black Code systems in the nation until the Civil War. The Illinois Black Code of 1853 prohibited any Black persons from outside of the state from staying in the state for more than ten days, subjecting Blacks who violated that rule to arrest, detention, a $50 fine, or deportation.[16]

[Anonymous]

Very relevant to this conversation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-metta/i-racist_b_7770652.html

"White people do not think in terms of we. White people have the privilege to interact with the social and political structures of our society as individuals. You are "you," I am "one of them." Whites are often not directly affected by racial oppression even in their own community, so what does not affect them locally has little chance of affecting them regionally or nationally. They have no need, nor often any real desire, to think in terms of a group. They are supported by the system, and so are mostly unaffected by it.

What they are affected by are attacks on their own character. To my aunt, the suggestion that "people in The North are racist" is an attack on her as a racist. She is unable to differentiate her participation within a racist system (upwardly mobile, not racially profiled, able to move to White suburbs, etc.) from an accusation that she, individually, is a racist. Without being able to make that differentiation, White people in general decide to vigorously defend their own personal non-racism, or point out that it doesn't exist because they don't see it."

[Anonymous]

But of course Illinois and esp Indiana are not seen as progressive as Oregon is (despite Oregon not having such a reputation prior to the last few decades)

Oregon and Wash and Calif have few blacks because they did not have huge industries developing at the time of the great migration of blacks from the South. Their black pops are decreasing as white pops are decreasing - with the in migration of asians and hispanics.

[Anonymous]

To my aunt, the suggestion that "people in The North are racist" is an attack on her as a racist. She is unable to differentiate her participation within a racist system (upwardly mobile, not racially profiled, able to move to White suburbs, etc.)

There are loads of white suburbs I cannot move to because I cannot afford to. Which suburbs are there that a black cannot move to? There are also many whites who are not upwardly mobile and blacks who are.

I would suggest that while structural racism may well exist (and racial profiling by police should stop), there is a lot of casual, offhand discussion of it that is inaccurate, that causes some of the annoyance with it.


I posted about the black exclusion laws in Illinois and Indiana - but there was opposition to them. And thousands of white men from those states gave their lives to end slavery (and yes, that was what the war was about, contra both Confed apologists and some black radicals) And those laws became moot with the 14th amendment, passed with the support of those states. And while there continued to be racism in such places, nonetheless blacks moved to those places en mass in the 20th century, partly for economic opportunity, but also to leave behind lynchings and Jim Crow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:gizmodo

I spoke over the phone with Walidah Imarisha, an educator and expert on black history in Oregon and she was quick to explain that the state is only really exceptional in that it bothered to proclaim its goals of white supremacy so openly.

"What's useful about Oregon as a case study is that Oregon was bold enough to write it down,"

but see

http://slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm

And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[8] Blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).

All these werre "written down" Gizmodo is quoting someone who appears less than fully informed.

NP. Not sure why you're so upset about Oregon. Someone posited that the "historical reason" there are so few blacks there is that the state wasn't an industrial center. But Los Angeles and SF certainly were industrial centers as were Seattle and Portland and all these cities received a great many blacks during the Great Migration. http://guides.lib.uni.edu/content.php?pid=322696&sid=2836317

So yeah, misinformation all around.

However, northern cities were far more violent toward black people when it came to real estate. Mob attacks and bombings were common in Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit and smaller places in between, though they don't teach much about that in schools. Weakness or pure f*cking evil?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But of course Illinois and esp Indiana are not seen as progressive as Oregon is (despite Oregon not having such a reputation prior to the last few decades)

Oregon and Wash and Calif have few blacks because they did not have huge industries developing at the time of the great migration of blacks from the South. Their black pops are decreasing as white pops are decreasing - with the in migration of asians and hispanics.[i]

This may be true, but I wonder if there is not a white elephant in this discussion. Could it be that the Latino American and Asian American immigrants and the U.S.-born descendants of those immigrants, who have settled in states like California, also bring with them, and pass along to their families some biases against certain groups? I think that no one wants to discuss or explore the question because, let us face it, some political groups in this country - and particularly in California - thrive and prosper on a political alliance of Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and African Americans; when in fact those groups often have very different needs and interests.

For example, I believe it was a Latino American legislator in California who just last year proposed getting rid of, or curbing, the California law which prohibits the use of affirmative action (yes, California unbelievably passed such a law some time ago) in admissions decisions to California state universities and colleges. There was so much blowback and concern among California's Asian American legislators, driven by a firestorm from their constituents, that the Latino American legislator agreed -- after discussion with his party -- that it would be in the better interest of political party alliances and unity to drop that proposed measure. I also, again only by second-hand anecdote, recall reading another comment to an article on California's African American diaspora, wherein a self-indentified African American business owner, said that as enthusiastic as a potential Asian American customer might be to work with him and his business as the discussion takes place on the phone, they almost never hire him for the job once he shows up in person. And you can google many stories about African American families made to feel unwelcome, or worse, in California's Latino American neighborhoods.

Truly terrible, and though I feel that we rightly hear about Caucasian American discrimination against African Americans and Latino Americans, I feel that no one wants to discuss the discrimination, bias, or animosity which these minority groups can exhibit towards one another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other thing about California is that it didn't receive large numbers of Black folks during the Great Migration, as it was not an industrial center.

So, the dwindling numbers of Black people in Oakland and LA are definitely cause for concern, but there are historical reasons why the Black population of California was never more than maybe 10%.

Yes, this is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But of course Illinois and esp Indiana are not seen as progressive as Oregon is (despite Oregon not having such a reputation prior to the last few decades)

Oregon and Wash and Calif have few blacks because they did not have huge industries developing at the time of the great migration of blacks from the South. Their black pops are decreasing as white pops are decreasing - with the in migration of asians and hispanics.[i]

This may be true, but I wonder if there is not a white elephant in this discussion. Could it be that the Latino American and Asian American immigrants and the U.S.-born descendants of those immigrants, who have settled in states like California, also bring with them, and pass along to their families some biases against certain groups? I think that no one wants to discuss or explore the question because, let us face it, some political groups in this country - and particularly in California - thrive and prosper on a political alliance of Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and African Americans; when in fact those groups often have very different needs and interests.

For example, I believe it was a Latino American legislator in California who just last year proposed getting rid of, or curbing, the California law which prohibits the use of affirmative action (yes, California unbelievably passed such a law some time ago) in admissions decisions to California state universities and colleges. There was so much blowback and concern among California's Asian American legislators, driven by a firestorm from their constituents, that the Latino American legislator agreed -- after discussion with his party -- that it would be in the better interest of political party alliances and unity to drop that proposed measure. I also, again only by second-hand anecdote, recall reading another comment to an article on California's African American diaspora, wherein a self-indentified African American business owner, said that as enthusiastic as a potential Asian American customer might be to work with him and his business as the discussion takes place on the phone, they almost never hire him for the job once he shows up in person. And you can google many stories about African American families made to feel unwelcome, or worse, in California's Latino American neighborhoods.

Truly terrible, and though I feel that we rightly hear about Caucasian American discrimination against African Americans and Latino Americans, I feel that no one wants to discuss the discrimination, bias, or animosity which these minority groups can exhibit towards one another.

AMEN.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think it has been typical for many immigrants to identify with and work to be closer to white Americans and to do the opposite with black Americans. After all, when you yourself are in a vulnerable position, you will see it as in your interest to be identified with the people in power and to reject association with the people at the bottom. It's not just but it is out there.

[Anonymous]

What's to discuss? People at the bottom of the totem pole try to find someone else they can look down on. When it comes to discrimination, the difference between minority groups and white people is that the worst of minorities is representative of all minorities, while the best of white people is representative of all white people.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why whites are "racist" if they want to live among other whites. Given the fact that demographics other than whites or Asians are far more likely to commit violent crime and property crime, it seems reasonable. Even the most shrill liberal won't endanger their children by moving to an ethnic neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why whites are "racist" if they want to live among other whites. Given the fact that demographics other than whites or Asians are far more likely to commit violent crime and property crime, it seems reasonable. Even the most shrill liberal won't endanger their children by moving to an ethnic neighborhood.

I guess when you push an entire demographic into poverty and stack them on top of each other and strip away the basic human dignity, hope and prospects for betterment it enables you to watch from a safe distance when they lash out to what ever is closest (other minorities) and judge with self righteous indignation and say you want them kept at a distance because they are savages while being able to say to your self it isn't about race but behavior. It is the white privilege racist self fulfilling prophecy manifesto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why whites are "racist" if they want to live among other whites. Given the fact that demographics other than whites or Asians are far more likely to commit violent crime and property crime, it seems reasonable. Even the most shrill liberal won't endanger their children by moving to an ethnic neighborhood.

Is it the same sicko spouting the same garbage who is commenting in any and all threads that have even the hint of racial politics in them?
Your speel is ignorant, tired and not factual.

[Anonymous]

My AA parents bought a home in 2003 in a predominantly white but changing neighborhood. When my parents went to close on the house my mom asked the woman why they were selling because she cried the entire time. The woman said her husband hates the diversity of Northern Virginia in the last few years and refuses to leave the house. So she said they were moving to West Virginia. Though their current neighbors have lived in the house next door for over 60 years and are the friendliest old (white) people.