It happened all over the country before he was born.
Should the children of murderers and other criminals feel guilt over the actions their parents have directly engaged in?
Should the children of murderers and other criminals feel guilt over the actions their parents have directly engaged in?
If your parents stole a bunch of money and then you got it when they died would you feel guilty about that?
If your grandparents stole a bunch of money, your parents inherited that money, and then you inherited it from them would you feel guilty about that?
Where exactly does the "statue of limitations of guilt" end? I'm honestly not sure.
Redlining had a very direct and profound (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-raci...) effect that's still seen to this day.
That's a point you seemed determined to dodge here, just as when you ask if your friends who have never been to the US are somehow implicated in US segregation.
As for the problems you bring up, if low prices are the problem, he's contributing to the solution by increasing demand. I segregation is the problem, he's bringing his nordic white family into the neighborhood and reducing segregation.
Insofar as he's benefiting from these problems semi-directly it's because he's helping to solve them.
As for me, I've passed through Georgia once on a family road trip when I was 11. Insofar as more diffuse benefits like "well those actions caused a good economy that you benefit from", I work for a Indian SAAS with American customers. How's that any different from an Indian guy working for an Indian SAAS with American customers?
That also moots your earlier dodge of "doing something to help with a problem is better than the nothing I personally do", because that nothing you personally do is not offset by profit you are reaping from the misfortune of others.
I don't have a strong opinion about this debate, and I am also skeptical of anti-gentrification narratives, but the logic you're deploying here seems very sketchy.
A surgeon who reattaches limbs is a pretty ok guy, even if he's benefiting from horrible accidental amputations. So is an Uber driver who drives into a surging area.
I've even personally benefited from the holocaust, the Kosovo wars and the Rwandan genocide; I've met interesting people who would probably never have crossed my path under better circumstances. Is it really reasonable for me to feel guilt over that?
None of that is true of well-off white people taking advantage of a market inefficiency caused by decades of segregation. In fact: providing opportunities for well-off white people to profit in the real estate market is an incentive for segregation, and an incentive along the same vector as one of the most important incentive systems supporting 19th and 20th century segregation: internal economic protectionism for favored ethnicities.
At this point in the discussion I think reasonable people can start disagreeing. That wasn't true given your earlier examples, which simply didn't connect logically to the conundrum Rayiner proposed.
None of that is true of well-off white people taking advantage of a market inefficiency caused by decades of segregation....and an incentive along the same vector
Segregation was a "you must discriminate" law to prevent greedy folks like the author of this article from exploiting the market inefficiencies.
It seems like I've got 3 choices here. (+1) Violate the spirit of that law, reduce the market inefficiency, and make money. 0) Live in Asia. (-1) Make the inefficiency worse by moving into a nice white suburb, pay more money, and obey the spirit of that now absent law.
To me it seems like "guilt follows benefit" implies I need to do (-1).
Not really sure what you are advocating for here.