End of Affirmative Action?

124

Replies

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,698 Captain
    edited July 8 #92
    Because for the first hundred or so years,white privilege was built into our country's constitution.

    And for the next hundred or so years, it was built into our laws.

    The term has been around since the 1960s, and I'm guessing you don't really read the type of works that discuss these issues, which explains why you haven't heard about it until recently....and it's become a buzz word at Fox News.
    Please point out specifically where “white privilege” is in the US Constitution.  
    I'm not sure why people automatically disagree with Tarpon, he is correct on this one.  The original "all men are created equal" most certainly applied to only white men.  Are people really claiming this country was inherently racist and sexist for the first 100 to 150 years???  Christ, you all have to be kidding me.  

    Slavery, Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage are all real events.  Said events took place because this country absolutely legally discriminated against minorities for decades upon decades.    

    Again, I don't get why people automatically disagree with Tarpon.  While I don't agree with a lot of what he posts, he simply isn't wrong on this one.  This country was the epitome of male white privilege for decades..  this isn't an opinion, but a cold hard fact.  This country was founded in 1776, women weren't allowed to vote till 1920....  Black voting rights (men only) started in 1896.....  120 years after the founding of this country...  the constitution was written with white men in mind, it did not protect nor it apply to any other demographic.  
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 9,758 Admiral
    The constitution was set up to limit the government and its function. 
     The problem with tarponator and those who think like him apply 21st century thinking to 18th century thinking. 
     Not everyone owned slaves. Actually the vast majority of people did not own them.  
     I suggest people read the Federalist papers and other writings of the founders and you will see that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights were way ahead of their times. And they were given a process in which to be amended. 
     And as has been said before, point out a better system?
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,698 Captain
    The constitution was set up to limit the government and its function. 
     The problem with tarponator and those who think like him apply 21st century thinking to 18th century thinking. 
     Not everyone owned slaves. Actually the vast majority of people did not own them.  
     I suggest people read the Federalist papers and other writings of the founders and you will see that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights were way ahead of their times. And they were given a process in which to be amended. 
     And as has been said before, point out a better system?
    Moving goalposts.  Slavery aside blacks were not allowed to vote for over 120 years, women even longer.  The constitution was originally written for white males.  This country upon its founding was the epitome of white privilege, Tarpon simply isn't wrong on this one. 
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    Is there anywhere in particular you could direct me to the white privilege or anything that closely resembles white privilege in the  Constitution?
    Article I, Section 2
  • conchydongconchydong Pompano BeachPosts: 3,810 Captain
     Wasn't it the northern anti-slavery states that didn't want slaves counted as  person at all? The southern states wanted the slaves counted  as a "whole" person so they would receive more  representation in congress and a compromise of 3/5ths was reached between them.  Not sure if you can translate that into white privilege because as far as I know the free blacks and other minorities at the time would have been counted as a "whole" person. Not really a race issue but an issue about representation in congress.

    “Everyone behaves badly--given the chance.”
    ― Ernest Hemingway

  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 24,450 AG
    The constitution was set up to limit the government and its function. 
     The problem with tarponator and those who think like him apply 21st century thinking to 18th century thinking. 
     Not everyone owned slaves. Actually the vast majority of people did not own them.  
     I suggest people read the Federalist papers and other writings of the founders and you will see that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights were way ahead of their times. And they were given a process in which to be amended. 
     And as has been said before, point out a better system?
    What do you consider vast majority? According to census records of the time, 32% of whites in the confederate south owned slaves, In Mississippi it was 49% and South Carolina was 46%. The lowest state, Arkansas, was at 20% of the whites owned slaves. It is a myth that only a few southerners owned slaves or only large plantations. Census records provide factual evidence to dismiss the myth.

    I know many of you aren't from the south and don't remember segregated restrooms, diners, buses, etc., but ti did exist. 

    But you are correct, it was a different time and we should not compare it to today for many reasons, 

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 2,930 Captain
    This is 2018 are you telling me that I have to release my slaves? Thats BS how is my cotton going to get picked?

    You people are nuts . Time to move on folks and blame yourself for your failures to be successful
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends President Trump
  • restlessnativerestlessnative Posts: 1,999 Captain
    cadman said:
    cadman said:

    I just don't see racism, white privilege, and dehumanization in my world. 
    You wouldn't. 

    An idyllic afternoon of Little League baseball followed by pizza and Italian ice turned harrowing when two police officers in Bridgeport, Connecticut, stopped Woodrow Vereen, Jr., for driving through a yellow light.

    A music minister at his church, Vereen struggled to maintain eye contact with his young sons as one of the officers instructed Vereen, who is black, to get out of the car and lean over the trunk, and then patted him down. Vereen could see tears welling in the eyes of his seven- and three-year-old sons as they peered through the rear window. He cringed as folks at a nearby bus stop watched one of the officers look through his car.

    He never consented to the 2015 search, which turned up nothing illegal. The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut sued on behalf of Vereen, alleging that police searched him without probable cause. Last year, two years after the incident, he received a settlement from the city. His tickets—for running a light and not carrying proof of insurance—were dismissed.

    I remember getting pulled over when I was a teen because we had surf boards on the top and “looked suspicious”. Asked if they could search I said whatever gets me out of here quicker. They found visine so thought we were pot heads and called in a K9, took forever and of course they found nothing. Missed a lot of good empty waves that morning, but never got a check. He got tickets and I didn’t. Not winning
    You were a father of two and had your kids in the car? Has it happened to you as an adult? I can post many stories of middle aged black guys being treated different during a traffic stop then middle aged white guys. 

    You want to negate the issue and pretend it doesn't exist because it doesn't effect you and to admit this behavior still exists is hard to do. 

    Many people confuse racism, prejudice and bigotry. I am not saying racism is rampant, but bigotry and and prejudice still exists in this country in our institutions and corporations as well as in individuals. To deny it is to sweep it under the rug and pretend it is no longer an issue. 
    ****? Cad I think you are normally a level headed guy, but how you got I was a father of two from that story is beyond me. I have no children. I wasn’t saying it didn’t happen to other people, especially of any race, just saying it happened to me and I didn’t get a check. 
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 24,450 AG
    cadman said:
    cadman said:

    I just don't see racism, white privilege, and dehumanization in my world. 
    You wouldn't. 

    An idyllic afternoon of Little League baseball followed by pizza and Italian ice turned harrowing when two police officers in Bridgeport, Connecticut, stopped Woodrow Vereen, Jr., for driving through a yellow light.

    A music minister at his church, Vereen struggled to maintain eye contact with his young sons as one of the officers instructed Vereen, who is black, to get out of the car and lean over the trunk, and then patted him down. Vereen could see tears welling in the eyes of his seven- and three-year-old sons as they peered through the rear window. He cringed as folks at a nearby bus stop watched one of the officers look through his car.

    He never consented to the 2015 search, which turned up nothing illegal. The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut sued on behalf of Vereen, alleging that police searched him without probable cause. Last year, two years after the incident, he received a settlement from the city. His tickets—for running a light and not carrying proof of insurance—were dismissed.

    I remember getting pulled over when I was a teen because we had surf boards on the top and “looked suspicious”. Asked if they could search I said whatever gets me out of here quicker. They found visine so thought we were pot heads and called in a K9, took forever and of course they found nothing. Missed a lot of good empty waves that morning, but never got a check. He got tickets and I didn’t. Not winning
    You were a father of two and had your kids in the car? Has it happened to you as an adult? I can post many stories of middle aged black guys being treated different during a traffic stop then middle aged white guys. 

    You want to negate the issue and pretend it doesn't exist because it doesn't effect you and to admit this behavior still exists is hard to do. 

    Many people confuse racism, prejudice and bigotry. I am not saying racism is rampant, but bigotry and and prejudice still exists in this country in our institutions and corporations as well as in individuals. To deny it is to sweep it under the rug and pretend it is no longer an issue. 
    ****? Cad I think you are normally a level headed guy, but how you got I was a father of two from that story is beyond me. I have no children. I wasn’t saying it didn’t happen to other people, especially of any race, just saying it happened to me and I didn’t get a check. 
    It was a question since you were comparing to the story I linked. You seem to think because you got pulled over once when you were a teenager that profiling by race does not exist. You and others give your single example of it happened to you once so it can't be because the guy was black. It does happen simply because they are black. It isn't due because of racism. It is partly prejudice and partly profiling. Some times race is not a factor and the media wants to claim it is, I agree this does not help address the problem. But the problem does exist. 

    When I got robbed 80% of the people who heard about it assumed the guy was black. I even had to repeatedly tell one guy several times the bad guy was white. It is part of human nature for some people to make certain assumptions they should not make. It doesn't doesn't mean they are racists. 

    I see a bad driver on the road going slow and blocking traffic my assumption is an old person or a woman. I am right about 80% of the time, but it is an assumption based on a prejudice that bad drivers are either old or women, 

    Another example would be seeing a big guy on a motorcycle wearing a leather jacket and sporting tattoos. Your automatic assumption would not be he is a doctor. Most people would think part of a motorcycle gang or similar.

    We all have certain prejudices that make us automatically make certain assumptions about people based on age, race, looks, clothing, manner of speech, and many other visual cues. It is something we shouldn't do, but it is part of human nature to do it, 

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Gary SGary S Posts: 834 Officer
     Attitude goes a long way when you get pulled over. If you get pulled over and the first thing you do is yell "What I did", you are probably going to have a bad experience.  I have been pulled over numerous times and always treated police with respect. Most times I got a break, sometimes not. Overtime I got pulled over there was a reason.
     If working a full time job while going to high school, then working full time job while going to night school 5 nights a week to learn air conditioning. Then working 38 years and not asking or receiving anything from the government, even when my home was blown apart in hurricane makes me white privileged. Then by GOD I AM WHITE PRIVILEGED.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,086 AG
    kellercl said:
    The constitution was set up to limit the government and its function. 
     The problem with tarponator and those who think like him apply 21st century thinking to 18th century thinking. 
     Not everyone owned slaves. Actually the vast majority of people did not own them.  
     I suggest people read the Federalist papers and other writings of the founders and you will see that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights were way ahead of their times. And they were given a process in which to be amended. 
     And as has been said before, point out a better system?
    Moving goalposts.  Slavery aside blacks were not allowed to vote for over 120 years, women even longer.  The constitution was originally written for white males.  This country upon its founding was the epitome of white privilege, Tarpon simply isn't wrong on this one. 
    Nothing like judging the past with a narrow view of modern eyes. The Constitution was written by white guys, of course by today's standards it represented white privilege, it was however under this very same Constitution that the greatest mobility of blacks in history was achieved. The anti-black laws of the south after the Civil War where in fact very unconstitutional and thru time, using the system created by the Constitution, those laws were changed. It seems like a system for everyone.
  • Ron@.38 Special[email protected] Special Posts: 6,798 Admiral
    How about the 8A program !
    Under this program, essentially any foreigner can come into our country, set up a business and the Government gives them work with no bid. OK sometimes a bid but in most cases, the Corp of Engineers simply negotiates with this new small business and gives them the work usually at prices as much as 3 times the price of a normal contractor engaged in the work. 9 years in the program and if you are not a mult-millionaire by then you must be an idiot!
  • FinfinderFinfinder Posts: 9,617 Admiral
    kellercl said:

    I'm not sure why people automatically disagree with Tarpon, he is correct on this one.  The original "all men are created equal" most certainly applied to only white men.  Are people really claiming this country was inherently racist and sexist for the first 100 to 150 years???  Christ, you all have to be kidding me.  


    If that is rue why didn't they simply say "all white men are created equal" ?
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,698 Captain
    edited July 9 #105
    It astounds me that people have convinced themselves that all demographics had equal protection under the law when this country was founded...  I remember a time when facts where facts.  The sad truth is folks here spend more time disagreeing with the poster than the actual post.
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 7,217 Admiral
    I find it amazing that the American form of government was tested so severely and won. All men are created equal, what was the racial makeup of America when that was written?
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    edited July 9 #107
    How about the 8A program !
    Under this program, essentially any foreigner can come into our country, set up a business and the Government gives them work with no bid. OK sometimes a bid but in most cases, the Corp of Engineers simply negotiates with this new small business and gives them the work usually at prices as much as 3 times the price of a normal contractor engaged in the work. 9 years in the program and if you are not a mult-millionaire by then you must be an idiot!
    Hi Ron,

    Your understanding of the 8(a) program is incorrect.
    • 8(a) companies require 51% US citizen ownership (see details below).
    • The awards are not typically done via no-bid contracts -- no bid contracts are rare in federal government contracting --  however some bids are only open to SBA-approved businesses.
    • If the owner of the company becomes a multi-millionaire through 8(a), their accreditation is revoked.  For instance, the owners net worth (among other things) is assessed yearly.

    Here are the qualifications:
    • Be a small business
    • Not already have participated in the 8(a) program
    • Be at least 51 percent owned and controlled by U.S. citizens who are economically and socially disadvantaged
    • Be owned by someone whose personal net worth is $250,000 or less
    • Be owned by someone whose average adjusted gross income for three years is $250,000 or less
    • Be owned by someone with $4 million or less in assets
    • Have the owner manage day-to-day operations and also make long-term decisions
    • Have all its principals demonstrate good character
    • Show potential for success and be able to perform successfully on contracts

    The federal government fully defines who qualifies for the 8(a) program — including what counts as being economically and socially disadvantaged — in Title 13 Part 124 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). You can also get a preliminary assessment of whether you qualify at the SBA’s Certify website.

    https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistance-programs/8a-business-development-program

    So while you are right that this is a form of public sector Affirmative Action, there are circumstances when an 8(a) could win contracts not available to non-8(a) companies, and the result could be rates higher than normally would be charged in an open bidding situation.  However, some of the details used to justify your concern are simply inaccurate, and, frankly, they sound anecdotally pieced together.

    Hope this helps...Mike


  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,425 AG
    edited July 9 #108
    kellercl said:
    It astounds me that people have convinced themselves that all demographics had equal protection under the law when this country was founded...  I remember a time when facts where facts.
    Perception is reality.

    So is misconception, all too often.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,698 Captain
    edited July 9 #109
    dave44 said:
    I find it amazing that the American form of government was tested so severely and won. All men are created equal, what was the racial makeup of America when that was written?
    Blacks were not allowed to vote nor own property.  Later amendments were made to protect the rights of blacks....  which was exactly what Tarpon said.  But for some reason people took issue because.
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 7,217 Admiral
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I find it amazing that the American form of government was tested so severely and won. All men are created equal, what was the racial makeup of America when that was written?
    Blacks were not allowed to vote nor own property.  Later amendments were made to protect the rights of blacks....  which was exactly what Tarpon said.  But for some reason people took issue because.
    How many, around 1770s
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,698 Captain
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I find it amazing that the American form of government was tested so severely and won. All men are created equal, what was the racial makeup of America when that was written?
    Blacks were not allowed to vote nor own property.  Later amendments were made to protect the rights of blacks....  which was exactly what Tarpon said.  But for some reason people took issue because.
    How many, around 1770s
    How many what? I don't follow your question.
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,949 AG

    Redlining was banned 50 years ago. It’s still hurting minorities today.



    Racial discrimination in mortgage lending in the 1930s shaped the demographic and wealth patterns of American communities today, a new study shows, with 3 out of 4 neighborhoods “redlined” on government maps 80 years ago continuing to struggle economically.

    The study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, released Wednesday, shows that the vast majority of neighborhoods marked “hazardous” in red ink on maps drawn by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Corp. from 1935 to 1939 are today much more likely than other areas to comprise lower-income, minority residents.

    “It’s as if some of these places have been trapped in the past, locking neighborhoods into concentrated poverty,” said Jason Richardson, director of research at the NCRC, a consumer advocacy group.

    [The Senate rolls back rules meant to root out discrimination by mortgage lenders]

    Researchers compared the HOLC maps, the most comprehensive documentation of discriminatory lending practices, with modern-day census data to determine how much neighborhood demographics have changed in 80 years. The findings have implications for today’s political debates over housing, banking and financial regulation, as well as civil rights, as Congress seeks to weaken the government’s ability to enforce fair-lending requirements. Policies that influence access to capital and credit have long-lasting effects on residential patterns, neighborhoods’ economic health and household accumulation of wealth, the report said.

    In the 1930s, government surveyors graded neighborhoods in 239 cities, color-coding them green for “best,” blue for “still desirable,” yellow for “definitely declining” and red for “hazardous.” The “redlined” areas were the ones local lenders discounted as credit risks, in large part because of the residents’ racial and ethnic demographics. They also took into account local amenities and home prices.

    Neighborhoods that were predominantly made up of African Americans, as well as Catholics, Jews and immigrants from Asia and southern Europe, were deemed undesirable. “Anyone who was not northern-European white was considered to be a detraction from the value of the area,” said Bruce Mitchell, a senior researcher at the NCRC and one of the study’s authors.


    READ MORE AT LINK




    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 7,217 Admiral
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I find it amazing that the American form of government was tested so severely and won. All men are created equal, what was the racial makeup of America when that was written?
    Blacks were not allowed to vote nor own property.  Later amendments were made to protect the rights of blacks....  which was exactly what Tarpon said.  But for some reason people took issue because.
    How many, around 1770s
    How many what? I don't follow your question.
    How many blacks were in the US at that time?
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,698 Captain
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I find it amazing that the American form of government was tested so severely and won. All men are created equal, what was the racial makeup of America when that was written?
    Blacks were not allowed to vote nor own property.  Later amendments were made to protect the rights of blacks....  which was exactly what Tarpon said.  But for some reason people took issue because.
    How many, around 1770s
    How many what? I don't follow your question.
    How many blacks were in the US at that time?
    According to infoplease in 1790 there was 800k, which was 19% of the population.  
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 7,217 Admiral
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I find it amazing that the American form of government was tested so severely and won. All men are created equal, what was the racial makeup of America when that was written?
    Blacks were not allowed to vote nor own property.  Later amendments were made to protect the rights of blacks....  which was exactly what Tarpon said.  But for some reason people took issue because.
    How many, around 1770s
    How many what? I don't follow your question.
    How many blacks were in the US at that time?
    According to infoplease in 1790 there was 800k, which was 19% of the population.  
    Maybe, I’ve seen estimates of around 550k to 600k were British slaves at the founding of the country. Wasn’t it ingenious that the wording was “ All men are created equal...”, do you think that set the stage for freedom?
       Here is something for you. Catholics, quakers, and Jews were also barred at times from voting. But there were instances of free blacks and women voting while the American experiment in freedom was being tested.
    https://votingrights.news21.com/static/interactives/votinghist/timeline.pdf
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,698 Captain
    edited July 9 #116
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    kellercl said:
    dave44 said:
    I find it amazing that the American form of government was tested so severely and won. All men are created equal, what was the racial makeup of America when that was written?
    Blacks were not allowed to vote nor own property.  Later amendments were made to protect the rights of blacks....  which was exactly what Tarpon said.  But for some reason people took issue because.
    How many, around 1770s
    How many what? I don't follow your question.
    How many blacks were in the US at that time?
    According to infoplease in 1790 there was 800k, which was 19% of the population.  
    Maybe, I’ve seen estimates of around 550k to 600k were British slaves at the founding of the country. Wasn’t it ingenious that the wording was “ All men are created equal...”, do you think that set the stage for freedom?
       Here is something for you. Catholics, quakers, and Jews were also barred at times from voting. But there were instances of free blacks and women voting while the American experiment in freedom was being tested.
    https://votingrights.news21.com/static/interactives/votinghist/timeline.pdf
    500k would still be 15+ percent of the population.  Which is no small number.  The foundation of a living document is brilliant.  Being able to change with increased awareness and knowledge was superb foresight.  But still doesn't change Tarpon's point, which he is correct.  The bigger point being, disagreeing with a fact simply because it doesn't sit right and doesn't fit an agenda is childish at best.
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 9,758 Admiral
    Is there anywhere in particular you could direct me to the white privilege or anything that closely resembles white privilege in the  Constitution?
    Article I, Section 2
    Changed by section 2 of the fourteenth amendment. 
    Next. 
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 9,758 Admiral
    cadman said:
    The constitution was set up to limit the government and its function. 
     The problem with tarponator and those who think like him apply 21st century thinking to 18th century thinking. 
     Not everyone owned slaves. Actually the vast majority of people did not own them.  
     I suggest people read the Federalist papers and other writings of the founders and you will see that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights were way ahead of their times. And they were given a process in which to be amended. 
     And as has been said before, point out a better system?
    What do you consider vast majority? According to census records of the time, 32% of whites in the confederate south owned slaves, In Mississippi it was 49% and South Carolina was 46%. The lowest state, Arkansas, was at 20% of the whites owned slaves. It is a myth that only a few southerners owned slaves or only large plantations. Census records provide factual evidence to dismiss the myth.

    I know many of you aren't from the south and don't remember segregated restrooms, diners, buses, etc., but ti did exist. 

    But you are correct, it was a different time and we should not compare it to today for many reasons, 
    So, 32 percent is a majority. 
    You learn so much on this fishing site! :)
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 9,758 Admiral
    And once again, race always swerved into any discussion. 
     The constitution was set up to limit the size and scope of the federal government. And to set up the function of the government. Which is why we are a Republic and not a democracy. 
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • Florida Ex-patFlorida Ex-pat Posts: 563 Officer
    Cyclist said:

    Redlining was banned 50 years ago. It’s still hurting minorities today.



    Racial discrimination in mortgage lending in the 1930s shaped the demographic and wealth patterns of American communities today, a new study shows, with 3 out of 4 neighborhoods “redlined” on government maps 80 years ago continuing to struggle economically.

    The study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, released Wednesday, shows that the vast majority of neighborhoods marked “hazardous” in red ink on maps drawn by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Corp. from 1935 to 1939 are today much more likely than other areas to comprise lower-income, minority residents.

    “It’s as if some of these places have been trapped in the past, locking neighborhoods into concentrated poverty,” said Jason Richardson, director of research at the NCRC, a consumer advocacy group.

    [The Senate rolls back rules meant to root out discrimination by mortgage lenders]

    Researchers compared the HOLC maps, the most comprehensive documentation of discriminatory lending practices, with modern-day census data to determine how much neighborhood demographics have changed in 80 years. The findings have implications for today’s political debates over housing, banking and financial regulation, as well as civil rights, as Congress seeks to weaken the government’s ability to enforce fair-lending requirements. Policies that influence access to capital and credit have long-lasting effects on residential patterns, neighborhoods’ economic health and household accumulation of wealth, the report said.

    In the 1930s, government surveyors graded neighborhoods in 239 cities, color-coding them green for “best,” blue for “still desirable,” yellow for “definitely declining” and red for “hazardous.” The “redlined” areas were the ones local lenders discounted as credit risks, in large part because of the residents’ racial and ethnic demographics. They also took into account local amenities and home prices.

    Neighborhoods that were predominantly made up of African Americans, as well as Catholics, Jews and immigrants from Asia and southern Europe, were deemed undesirable. “Anyone who was not northern-European white was considered to be a detraction from the value of the area,” said Bruce Mitchell, a senior researcher at the NCRC and one of the study’s authors.


    READ MORE AT LINK





    I paid more for car insurance when I lived in a neighborhood that had more cars stolen.  You could have made the case, if that was your intention, that the insurance companies were just raising rates in areas with a higher percentage of minorities.  Either way when I left to a more affluent and less diverse area my rates went down slightly but the rate of auto theft, per the police department, were significantly lower. 
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,949 AG
    Cyclist said:

    Redlining was banned 50 years ago. It’s still hurting minorities today.



    Racial discrimination in mortgage lending in the 1930s shaped the demographic and wealth patterns of American communities today, a new study shows, with 3 out of 4 neighborhoods “redlined” on government maps 80 years ago continuing to struggle economically.

    The study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, released Wednesday, shows that the vast majority of neighborhoods marked “hazardous” in red ink on maps drawn by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Corp. from 1935 to 1939 are today much more likely than other areas to comprise lower-income, minority residents.

    “It’s as if some of these places have been trapped in the past, locking neighborhoods into concentrated poverty,” said Jason Richardson, director of research at the NCRC, a consumer advocacy group.

    [The Senate rolls back rules meant to root out discrimination by mortgage lenders]

    Researchers compared the HOLC maps, the most comprehensive documentation of discriminatory lending practices, with modern-day census data to determine how much neighborhood demographics have changed in 80 years. The findings have implications for today’s political debates over housing, banking and financial regulation, as well as civil rights, as Congress seeks to weaken the government’s ability to enforce fair-lending requirements. Policies that influence access to capital and credit have long-lasting effects on residential patterns, neighborhoods’ economic health and household accumulation of wealth, the report said.

    In the 1930s, government surveyors graded neighborhoods in 239 cities, color-coding them green for “best,” blue for “still desirable,” yellow for “definitely declining” and red for “hazardous.” The “redlined” areas were the ones local lenders discounted as credit risks, in large part because of the residents’ racial and ethnic demographics. They also took into account local amenities and home prices.

    Neighborhoods that were predominantly made up of African Americans, as well as Catholics, Jews and immigrants from Asia and southern Europe, were deemed undesirable. “Anyone who was not northern-European white was considered to be a detraction from the value of the area,” said Bruce Mitchell, a senior researcher at the NCRC and one of the study’s authors.


    READ MORE AT LINK





    I paid more for car insurance when I lived in a neighborhood that had more cars stolen.  You could have made the case, if that was your intention, that the insurance companies were just raising rates in areas with a higher percentage of minorities.  Either way when I left to a more affluent and less diverse area my rates went down slightly but the rate of auto theft, per the police department, were significantly lower. 
    This was not based on crime....it was based on the color of peoples skin and where they were from. Catholics and Poles included... You are not understanding this issue.
    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.