240
submitted 4 months ago by geekwithsoul@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

Robert Reich articulated something that has been bouncing around my head since 2016

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The only reason suburbs even became a thing in this country was because white people with FHA loans wanted nice houses close to their jobs and the amenities of cities but didn't want their tax money going to fund black kids schools, and a lot (not all but a lot) of "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" people just want to get recognition for being an ally but descend into the kind of thinking and talking that would make Stephen Miller blush the moment they're actually asked to actually do anything to support marginalized communities, so I'm not surprised at all to see suburban Republicans fall for this

e; technically it wasn't the white people with the FHA loans who created the suburbs as we know them today so much as it was the ones administering them and in the halls of power voting on the creation of municipalities

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

The only reason suburbs even became a thing in this country was because white people with FHA loans wanted nice houses close to their jobs and the amenities of cities but didn’t want their tax money going to fund black kids schools,

Hang on, that doesn't track with history as I know it currently.

  • Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is where the whole garbage "separate but equal" logic came from including on school funding where everyone but whites got poor resources for schools.
  • Suburbs were created as a result of soldiers returning from WWII which would have been starting in 1945 with a the majority in 1946 after VJ day with the Japanese surrendering.
  • It would be another 8 years before Brown v Board of Education (1954) shot down "separate but equal" for schools allowing integration, and even then it wouldn't have meant instant emptying of inner cities for suburbs until the early 60s or so.

So suburbs already were a thing and not caused by white people not wanting to fund black schools. Yes, exit to suburbs accelerated because of that, but suburbs weren't created because of it.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Prior to Brown, many of today's suburban municipalities were just neighborhoods of the cities they were near, neighborhoods that were almost entirely populated by white people due to racist administration of FHA loans, racist zoning laws, and racist real estate business practices. Post Brown is when a lot of them started to be spun off into independent municipal governments by state legislatures with their own mayors and city councils and school districts.

So, rereading it now, I feel like I should correct my initial comment here - it wasn't the white people with FHA loans who started this process of creating segregated communities, it was the ones who administered those loans and who were writing the laws incorporating them as independent government entities.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago

The 'burbs mostly got built by GIs returning from WWII. There wasn't room enough in the cities for all of them. I strongly doubt that "tax money going to fund black kids schools" was even a thought for most of them, let alone a primary motivator.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

Post WW2 was when racial segregation was still legal. Redlining was a long documented thing and definitely included tax money going to schools.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago

I'm not saying redlining didn't happen. I'm saying that returning GIs didn't intentionally build neighborhoods and redline them away from blacks to prevent paying taxes to black schools.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Maybe the GIs that physically built or bought their own homes, but the developers and companies that did the building and selling of homes to the GIs sure did.

And for a large portion of them: they would have gone along with the enforced racial segregation of the time, which was the system in place designed to separate more than just tax money.

I live in the PNW and there are developed communities, (mostly waterfront), built right after WW2 and explicitly written in their covenants bamned access to non-whites.

So a GI who bought one of those houses may not have cared too much personally, but the system is what facilitated it. Which is why it has nothing to do with personal conviction.

this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
240 points (93.5% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3784 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS