Around 9% of our population were grown adults when segregation ended. Our history is nearer than we prefer to admit.
Of course there was lots of attempts to end-run around the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that amounted to de jure segregation.
I think a better benchmark is this: public opposition to interracial marriage flipped (from being the majority view to the minority view) between when Yahoo! was founded in 1994 and Google in 1998. Clinton was President, Seinfeld was on the air, and Quake was out.
> CASHIN: In 1954, 0 percent of black children in this country attended a majority white school. By 1988, 43 percent of black kids did. So we were fulfilling the promise of Brown. We were increasing in integration every year from the mid-'60s to the late '80s. We were closing the achievement gap between black and white kids.
> And then, in 1988, we begin to retreat. And in the '90s, the Supreme Court threw three opinions - signaled to lower courts that it was time for federal courts to get out of the business of policing schools' desegregation. And school segregation levels are about where they were in 1968. So we kind of lost 50 years of progress.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/28/597750714/a-look-at-the-state...
In practice, school district gerrymandering has effectively recreated "separate but equal". There is research (cited in the article linked below) that school districts are doing this.
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/8/16822374/school-segregation-ger...
Am I reading this wrong or does the article you cite in fact make a point that's exactly the opposite of your claim?
The graph of school district shapes' effect on educational vs residential racial segregation[1] shows that the net effect is to _reduce_ segregation (though not very significantly), and that at the district level, this is true of a fairly substantial majority of districts.
The thesis of the article seems to be that educational racial segregation is overall largely a consequence of residential racial segregation, and that district shapes mitigate this to a minor degree. The article is saying that districts _should_ be gerrymandered, in order to make districts less segregated than the residential areas around them.
I get why you might have interpreted it otherwise: the article is typically poorly-written for Vox and pretty much designed to trick readers into exactly the misunderstanding you fell into. Mentioning that "some" district shapes increase segregation relative to residential, showing multiple cherry-picked examples of same, and then smoothly seguing into advocacy for gerrymandering to reduce segregation relative to the residential baseline is pretty much designed to trap readers that aren't paying attention or actually looking at the graphs. Regardless of your view on the topic, framing the data in the graph the way they did without clarifying that the examples they emphasized are in the minority by far is just dishonest journalism (if you can call what Vox does "journalism"...)
[1] https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/qNGjZMngq3CCtBBqkpzpUUa3Ob4=...
The Richards paper, on the other hand, claims in the abstract that gerrymandering "generally exacerbates segregation". I wasn't sure how to reconcile this claim with Monarrez's paper, the graph from my comment, as well as https://mobile.twitter.com/alv9n/status/950388285318328321 (from the articles author).
So I read the Richards paper, and now I can't reconcile why it explicitly contradicts its abstract (and your claim) in multiple places:
> Interestingly, gerrymandering was inversely related to segregation, such that districts with higher levels of segregation were less gerrymandered than less segregated districts. ..
> Indeed, in the only direct examination of the effects of educational gerrymandering, Clark (1987) con- cluded that gerrymandering of attendance zone boundaries in Topeka in the 1950s and 1960s were either neutral or desegregative in nature.
The results of her paper show a minuscule mean effect on school segregation due to gerrymandering: between 0.001% (ie 0.00001)and 0.003% mean increase in the level of segregation, with an outlier of 0.006% for Asian-White segregation.
As I mention above, this contradicts the findings from the other papers discussed. But even if we take this paper as our source of truth, it still seems like residential segregation is responsible for the vast majority of district segregation, and that the total magnitude of the gerrymandering effect is tiny.
"White-Flight" is a well-known concept. Also of note, the onus is on the accuser in most Western societies...
Yes, decades of redlining and other less explicit policies have created a situation in which residences are somewhat segregated.
That's not an argument against the goal of desegregation; it's a statement of what the causes of the current problem are.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-cas...
This problem of discrimination and a lack of opportunity is not racial, it extends beyond those lines, I feel like if it was approached from a broader perspective like that, it would have much more possibility of working. Politics based on race only end up dividing people and used by those in power. The biggest problem in this country isn't racial (though it is an issue), it is social. There's the haves and the have nots. The haves continually use racial and other issues to divide the have nots, and the have nots remain with nothing.
The response to Kanye's latest stuff has been really enlightening. The following is also from Coates.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/05/im...
Similarly, this was really great, as it shows the outlash King got when he tried to approach wider social issues as well as the outright hostility against him in places we don't usually consider "racist".
And if you look at household wealth the disparity is even greater--much greater.
"The Truth Behind ’40 Acres and a Mule’"
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cro...
from the article:
'And what happened to this astonishingly visionary program, which would have fundamentally altered the course of American race relations? Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor and a sympathizer with the South, overturned the Order in the fall of 1865, and..."returned the land along the South Carolina, Georgia and Florida coasts to the planters who had originally owned it” — to the very people who had declared war on the United States of America.'
> Politics based on race only end up dividing people and used by those in power.
This is very, very easy for people who have never been victims of racism to say. The self-serving backwardness of this logic doesn't just violate basic moral precepts it also ignores the most basic legal precepts. If a group of people are subjected to centuries of abuse they should be awarded redress. It doesn't get more basic than that. To say that now is the time to "look beyond race" and ignore the the many crimes is just abhorrent.
(Ironically the whole situation does highlight that the worst crimes evade justice. If the slaves had been part of a foreign country that was conquered and enslaved then there would be no question about reparations. But because the slaves were themselves "Americans," where slavery was conviently not a crime, they will likely never be awarded justice.)
More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hollow_Hope
Reparations have been argued for throughout the world, with very limited success. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery
In 1999, the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for the West to pay $777 trillion to Africa within five years.[23]
Needless to say, that's not going to happen any time soon.
My point is that an action such as reparations is very, very difficult. There are other ways of righting those wrongs, such as through political action which sees proper funding go to inner city schools in minority areas, and better social/economic support for the lower class. This can be a racial argument, but these are issues for all races (even those in the rural majority demographic), which is why that's a broader strategy with a better chance of winning than dying on the hill that is reparations.
This is very, very easy for people who have never been victims of racism to say. The self-serving backwardness of this logic doesn't just violate basic moral precepts it also ignores the most basic legal precepts. If a group of people are subjected to centuries of abuse they should be awarded redress. It doesn't get more basic than that. To say that now is the time to "look beyond race" and ignore the the many crimes is just abhorrent.
This is emotional reasoning to make me look like I'm immoral because I don't support dividing people up. I believe we have more in common than we have different. That's the opposite of racism. It's not that I don't support African Americans fighting for their rights, it is that I believe the most effective way of doing so is by banding together with other people with similar concerns and needs. That's more effective, it's always been more effective. It's the basis of winning coalitions in politics.
I just have a different viewpoint than you, it doesn't mean I'm "self-serving", "backwards" or "violating basic moral precepts". I care about this issue,I consider myself a humanist, I just believe there are more effective strategies than fighting a racial conflict. Casting out others becuase they are more moderate is not a winning strategy. I'm all about reality in politics. You too?
(Ironically the whole situation does highlight that the worst crimes evade justice. If the slaves had been part of a foreign country that was conquered and enslaved then there would be no question about reparations. But because the slaves were themselves "Americans," where slavery was conviently not a crime, they will likely never be awarded justice.)
This is by no means universally true regarding conflicts, and in the case of reparations in regards to slavery, it certainly isn't true (see the above Wiki link).
Your feelings and beliefs are irrelevant to the question of reparations. Again, this may be an abstract issue that can be dismissed with platitudes to you but many people -- especially the victims -- do not feel this way. Whose feelings merit greater consideration?
> But reparations for the crimes against them aren't incoming, nor do I believe they should be.
Not sure what this has to do with anything. I guess because some criminals escape justice it's not worth pursuing any justice?
> Get off your high horse.
Your argument boils down to "Get over it." You might dance around with it platitudes about common goals (in fact African Americans are still subject to systemic oppression in many states) but, just to be clear, this is what you are advocating.
Again, it's the sort of argument which is only possible from an extraordinary position of privilege and the goal is not justice but rather to perpetuate that privilege.
> I care about this issue,I consider myself a humanist, I just believe there are more effective strategies than fighting a racial conflict.
I'd suggest that more often than not, thinking in terms of some monolithic "racial conflict" is not an effective way to initiate change. Focus on real people, their lives, and their struggles. Name names. Get concrete. Otherwise you risk glossing over the crucially important details and perpetrating the very injustices you might seek to fight.
[1] Though there are some who suggest slavery wasn't a crime before the 13th amendment. This argument is at least honest though it leads to the conclusion that all state-sanctioned genocides aren't illegal. Then you've got those who suggest the Federal government wasn't the perpetrator of said crimes. This is actually a position I think is quite tenable. But it's all the more reason to let the courts do what they do best. Investigate the evidence, compel discovery, establish clear chains of evidence and harm, rule on the facts, identify the perpetrators and deliver justice.
What's truly extraordinary is not just that the USA never offered redress slaves and their children but that there has never even been any kind of official commission to establish the facts.
Unfortunately, feelings are irrelevant to real world politics and legal issues in many cases. I'm only trying to explain to you why I feel this way. If the feelings of victims were enough, that Wiki page would have at least one example of reparations.
Your argument boils down to "Get over it." You might dance around with it platitudes about common goals (in fact African Americans are still subject to systemic oppression in many states) but, just to be clear, this is what you are advocating.
Again, it's the sort of argument which is only possible from an extraordinary position of privilege and the goal is not justice but rather to perpetuate that privilege.
It's not saying "get over it". It's saying let us address this another way. You don't know who I've helped in the last months or year or during my life, so please don't patronize me. You are intentionally or not distorting what I'm saying.
I'd suggest that more often than not, thinking in terms of some monolithic "racial conflict" is not an effective way to initiate change. Focus on real people, their lives, and their struggles. Name names. Get concrete. Otherwise you risk glossing over the crucially important details and perpetrating the very injustices you might seek to fight.
Which is why I study politics for a living and why I cited sources in my post, you know, concrete things. Would you do the same?
If you're just going to castigate and isolate people who have different view than you (but maybe have the same goal as you), what's the point?
If you want to get concrete, let's do it, but you're mainly saying stuff like I'm "devoid of basic moral precepts" which is insulting and absurd. I'd like to discuss this, but not if its just going to turn into that.
Certainly not my intention. I apologize. I try to separate the ideas from the person. Alas, it's an emotional topic. It's interesting to note that the proposition, "racial crimes require racial justice" is not on its face so controversial. If the victims are all of one race then surely any legitimate response would be similarly focused, right? But as you point out such race-based thinking frightens and divides people. But, I maintain, these feelings of fear and division are not sufficient to deny the cause of justice. I belabor this point precisely because very often in modern democracies -- though it's true of all governments -- the majority will do not do the right thing. In the face of great injustice there will always be calls to accept the political reality. Such calls are calls to accept injustice. The great injustices of slavery and systemic racism were not eliminated by accepting political realities. It's doubtful that any great injustice can be eliminated in such a manner.
We should not accept inequality nor injustice. We've just gotta find the best way (or ways) of combating it, which we may disagree about.
I linked an HBO doc about King in another comment. It's really interesting to see how strongly other civil rights leaders disagreed with his view on nonviolence, so there are probably many valid approaches.
If that kind of action was possible 50 years ago, certainly there's a lot of possibilities today.
America has already paid a very high and bitter price to end slavery, in the usual currency for freedom - blood.
It's a pretty high price any way you want to look at it.
WW1 is a notable exception.
Yes. To add to that: the mere fact that the current European economy cannot exist but for the spoils of centuries of imperialism and exploitation should itself give us pause.
Very heavy reparations were demanded from France after the 1870-1871 war. Guess by who? Germany. France paid in full, quite quickly, despite the reparations being very large and the French economy being smaller than the German one in 1918.
Germany didn't really want to pay and it also fell into disarray due to other reasons, not related to the reparations.
I know this is a sort of twisted morality, like not punishing a bully because he might beat you up, but as many have discovered, the moral high ground is not a shield.
It is controversial, but not a myth:
You cannot separate the effects of the Industrial Revolution on Europe from their imperialist practices.
The Industrial Revolution was principally fueled by resource extraction, labor extraction and genocide committed in the colonies.
> and of course European colonialism also drove industrialization in its colonies.
This is literally a standard white supremacist talking point. So I'm not really going to engage with it further, other than to point that out, and to mention that "trickle down" industrialization of the colonies doesn't justify the massive exploitation that European colonialism hinged on.
This is patently false, and we know it’s false because the end of slavery and colonialism didn’t slow the pace of industrialization. Certainly some of the initial investment came from wealth created by slavery and colonialism, but it was by no means the principal fuel however much activist revisionist historians might like us to believe otherwise.
> This is literally a standard white supremacist talking point.
Maybe so, but “white supremacy” doesn’t logically follow, so the point remains valid. I’m not content to yield the truth to white supremacists, since their conclusion is incompatible with the truth. Of course this one benefit doesn’t justify colonization; injustices can have some positive outcomes—we can recognize this while acknowledging that the positive outcome doesn’t justify the injustice.
And then of course there is always the discussion about how to calculate the fair amount.
Did you know Haiti was paying back it's "debt" to France for Haitian bodies "expropriated" from French slavery until 1947?
That's because you downthread hazarded the argument that perhaps (compared, implicitly, to Africans on the African continent) African Americans were better off as a result of slavery.
That's a reprehensible argument, but at least it puts you on the hook for points like these.
This is simple reasoning; nothing reprehensible here. However, it would be reprehensible if I used this one positive outcome to justify slavery, which I’m very clearly not doing. Slavery is bad even if it did have a positive outcome.
Of course, none of this “puts me on the hook” for other other unrelated arguments, nor do they make Haitian slavery relevant to the subject of US reparations.
What is ridiculous is you trying to detract from this history by pointing to an Africa that has _also_ been obviously and inarguably harmed by imperialism. It is absolutely indefensible.
Consider the problems Jackie Robinson, first black player in Major League Baseball, had in trying to buy a house in the suburbs of Manhattan (Westchester County, NY and in Connecticut)
http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/jackie-robinson-b...
For these things, the perpetrators and/or their children are likely still alive, as are the beneficiaries.
Good or bad, homeownership is a major way people build wealth in our society. Being excluded from it prevents you from building wealth.
Take the outrage that many younger people feel about generational exclusion from homeownership and then realize that until relatively recently blacks were systematically excluded in much more explicit ways: exclusion from loans, red lining, etc. The effects were the same: no equity, no ability to escape increasing rent, family instability.
People just won't click through, give it a skim, and see he's only giving an extensive history and suggesting a study to identify and (if needed) correct lingering effects of slavery and ongoing effects of racism. I learned so much about the past and present of racism back when it was published.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4hd4u7/what_...
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/22/604789506/for-decades-hud-act...
But let's also remember that fixing an evil eventually means that we are committing an evil repeatedly in the interim. Generations of African-Americans lived and died under slavery and segregation; that it was stopped eventually did them no good, and more generations continue to face discrimination right now. It's similar to when a person is freed after decades of imprisonment for an unjust conviction: It's better than leaving them in prison, but a great evil was committed.
MLK put it well:[0]
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate ... who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
[0] Letter From a Birmingham Jail by MLK, the most valuable words you can read about the subject of oppression and the response to it: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
Tick, tick - 4 people were just born. 250 people will be born in the next minute. 360k people will be born today. And also tomorrow. 2.5M this week. 130M this year. In about 6 years, almost all of them will hit school. School. Schools that are pervasively wretched. Can you make them less wretched? You have six years to change the world. For each 4 years your improvements are delayed, your window misses half a billion people. Good luck. Tick, tock.
One thing I took away from working on One Laptop Per Child, is that few appreciate the breathtakingly high cost of time.
People seem to have difficulty thinking about, and empathizing with, large numbers of people. The "one death is a tragedy, but ten thousand deaths is a statistic" observation. So it's a challenge to craft descriptions that provide some sense of scale, while retaining an emotional connection. Narrowing scope can help.
Sort of? The major European powers "ended" it at home by outsourcing it to their colonies. It's not like Britain, France, Belgium, etc. weren't still practicing explicit chattel slavery well into the 20th century.
What's strange is the common insistence that segregation has ended, and what's remaining is somehow by the choice of the participants, even the ones who lose out: the strangeness is that that argument is no different from the arguments made during legal segregation, when the claim was that the law was just a representation and reflection of values held in common.
If today you stood on the corner of the block I grew up on in Chicago for a year, you'd never see a white person.
It’s a shame that this is a widely accepted explanation for the segregated neighborhoods we live in today. There were proactive policies — some promoted by the federal government — that made it this way.
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/st-louis-conference-cele...
To add to your point, they can see it now: Even though it's not the law, schools are highly segregated and, IIRC articles I read awhile go, funding to schools that are predominantly African-American is much lower.
Remember? You can see it now. Not just in the South, but in every state. In fact, Oregon is probably the state where segregation and its effects are the most visible today.
There is no room for 'sides to the story'. It was a statement made and countered by this source. We can take issue with the source if you like, but I looked them up and didn't see anything partisan about them.
When MTV debuted on Aug. 1, 1981, at least one black face on the network was a mainstay. It belonged to J.J. Jackson, the sole African American on MTV's roster of video jockeys, or VJs as they became known.
Despite Jackson’s presence on MTV through 1986, the network faced allegations of racism for giving scant airtime to videos featuring people of color. MTV executives have denied that racism was at the root of the network’s “blackout,” saying that black artists received little airplay because their music didn’t fit the channel’s rock-based format.
“MTV was originally designed to be a rock music channel,” said Buzz Brindle, MTV’s former director of music programming, to Jet magazine in 2006. “It was difficult for MTV to find African American artists whose music fit the channel’s format that leaned toward rock at the outset.”
With so few black rockers, adding African Americans to MTV’s roster proved difficult, according to the network’s co-founder Les Garland, whom Jet also interviewed.
“We had nothing to pick from,” Garland explained. “Fifty percent of my time was spent in the early days of MTV convincing artists to make music videos and convincing record labels to put up money to make those videos…”
To quote, either start each paragraph with ">", or put asterisks (sans spaces) before and after the text.
“We have to try and do what we think not only New York and Los Angeles will appreciate, but also Poughkeepsie or the Midwest. Pick some town in the Midwest which would be scared to death by … a string of other black faces, or black music.”
Which is more like saying, "we're not racists, we just have to appease racists to make our profits".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/w...