> Black people were locked into specific neighborhoods, and were generally not allowed to own their homes and instead locked into rapacious "contracts" for their houses
Redlining meant certain areas were deemed hazardous to investment. Maybe the "deeming" was accurate; maybe it wasn't. It certainly made loans more difficult for anyone in a redlined area (of any race).
But it didn't mean Black people weren't allowed to own homes. Many millions did and do.
My parents moved to the United States nearly penniless from India. I am very privileged thanks to them; they were not privileged, especially not when they first arrived. All of the arguments about generational wealth are compelling at first exposure, but they ignore the control group: Poor as dirt, strange-smelling, English-deprived immigrants like my parents.
I don't think it's healthy to blame white people for depriving an area of themselves. Proximity to white people isn't a human right.
This is literally a defense of segregation.
This was taken to the US Supreme Court.
Once again, your logic is somewhat twisted: are you really blaming people that left an area for the violence in that area?
You're effectively saying "White people shouldn't have left because the all-black area becomes crime-ridden", which is obviously nonsense.
When people leave an area, regardless of the reason, you cannot blame the leavers for the area getting more violent.
They're literally not there any more to influence things!
U of M has a whole website mapping racial covenants[0] here in the Twin Cities, and the Wikipedia article about redlining[1] is pretty thorough, discussing exactly what you're bringing up.
Do people just not actually believe how racist everything used to be? And how decades of disinvestment leading to violence just might possibly lead to generational issues?
Lincoln Park was redlined. Gold Coast was redlined. Old Town was redlined. Wicker Park was redlined.
The redlined neighborhoods on the north side also weren't black (Lincoln Park was Puerto Rican). People have written books about how the gentrification of the north side happened; you can consult them.
In the 1930's there weren't many Puerto Ricans in Chicago, the ones that were there lived on the south side. They didn't start coming in numbers until the late 1940's, they moved into Lincoln Park in the 1960's.
So, Wicker Park was white when it was redlined, Lincoln Park was white when it was redlined, West Garfield Park was white when it was redlined.
It's a bit fuzzy, yes. It would clarify the argument to replace "generational issues" with a specific concept, and skip the performative hedge.
The bailey seems to be "poverty implies violence." What's the motte?
My reaction is literally one of confusion, not "performative hedging". The charitable read of most of the comments here is a profound lack of historical knowledge ("these areas were classified as hazardous, and the violence there is why white people left"), and an uncharitable one is thinly veiled racism ("minorities by definition are violent").
That still does not make the people who chose to leave responsible for violence that developed only after they have left!
Are you happy being held responsible for the development (or lack thereof) of the place you last lived in?
I think it's fair to say that race caused the riots, but to say that racism caused people to move is just silly. I don't care if black or white people are setting fire in my neighborhood, if I can move somewhere safer, I will.
I don't think that makes sense in context of GPs argument, as GP also argues that "more policing" did not help alleviate the violence problem.
The assertions "police were defunded, therefor the area got more violent" and "policing was escalated, and still the area got more violent" cannot both be true at the same time.