ta2164

"Democracy Dies in Darkness"

I don't disagree, but it's hilarious because The Washington Post is one of the biggest darkness merchants there is.

You don't get to magically redefine what "racist" is because the current definition doesn't match up with your narrative.

Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist. No one is stopping any race of people from moving to the suburbs, no law is stopping any members of any race from moving to the suburbs, etc.

You can definitely make the claim that suburbs are classist, but racist? No.

>You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism.

I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist.

>Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning.

This is not entirely true. Zoning laws in LA and NYC predate explicit racial zoning, and survived past the 1917 Supreme Court ruling.

>It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so.

Again, not entirely true, and definitely no longer true. Asians, Jews, Indians, Africans, etc. are all more likely to reside in suburban areas now, so they by definition do not "racially segregate and continues to do so".

>"More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se...

Your link literally agrees with me: "Many of these policies were not designed to oppress."

>The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f...

Poor opinion piece that conflates zoning and segregation laws, which is what many people have been doing because it's politically expedient.

>When the origin

Maybe, but not entirely.

>and outcome

Provably not so. Asians/Indians (a historically disadvantaged POC), Africans, etc. are all flooding to suburbs, which means they are de facto no longer racist, and do not have a racist outcome. QED.

You're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants), etc. all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff.

>Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.

Correlation does not imply causation. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs. They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist.

If there are so many racist laws in systemically racist USA, you should have no issues pointing out some laws that are racist, no?

Not arguing that, but that is decidedly not racist.

It's why educated Blacks in the US are moving back to red Southern states more so than they're moving to blue Northeast and Western ones. It's much cheaper and easier to build new housing in suburban Dallas or Atlanta versus San Francisco, New York, or LA.

>A law can be "not racist", but still be crafted with certain intentions in mind; it's easy to exploit certain correlations to achieve a certain end result.

Correlation does not imply causation.

>But if you want to exclude certain people from your neighborhood, and those people happen to often be from a certain culture/socioeconomic class…

No doubt, no one wants to live around low class riff raff. That's not race specific, and so, is by definition not racist.

>It's also worth noting that the same laws were applied to Asians - exclusionary zoning and housing policies led to the consolidation of populations within certain neighborhoods, like San Francisco's Chinatown

Now you're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants) all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff.

>It wasn't always the case that most Asians could (whether financially or politically) move to the suburbs.

Same for whites. Many/most were locked away in perpetual poverty in rural areas.

Nothing stopping Blacks or Hispanics from moving to the suburbs except for the laws of supply and demand. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs.

By definition not racist.

>Fear is a great driver. Not only most people will like to avoid the problem, but it can easily isolate anyone that wants to talk about it.

This perfectly sums up a lot of what I see at work. People are so scared of upsetting activists at work that they completely avoid benign neutral topics, ideas, words, phrases, etc. so as to not upset the ones who scream the loudest.