"If you disagree with the logic even if the assertions were true, that's one thing to discuss. If you *conditionally* agree with the reasoning per se, then we can check whether the assertions are well evidenced. OK?"
Ooof, this is an entire essay!😅
Yeah, if your claims can be well evidenced (and there are a lot of claims here), your logic…
"If you disagree with the logic even if the assertions were true, that's one thing to discuss. If you *conditionally* agree with the reasoning per se, then we can check whether the assertions are well evidenced. OK?"
Ooof, this is an entire essay!😅
Yeah, if your claims can be well evidenced (and there are a lot of claims here), your logic isn't necessarily flawed. But the analysis is missing important context even if everything you say here is accurate. It's not reasonable to entirely separate the practice of redlining from the society it existed in and then declare it race-neutral.
For example, you note that black-owned banks followed the same risk assessments as the white owned banks, but don't note that banks were more likely to offer loans in poor white areas than in middle and high income black areas. I find it very hard to believe that race wasn't a factor in those risk assessments. Though proving that would admittedly take more legwork than I'm ready to put in here.😄
You also don't mention practices like "blockbusting", where real estate agents encouraged white families to sell their houses at below market rate by telling them that black families were moving in. These houses were then sold at significant markups to black families.
Or contract buying, that once again, massively disproportionately (I think even exclusively?) targeted black families with onerous lending practices, leaving them homeless if they missed a single payment on their mortgages, whilst simultaneously charging obscene rates of interest that white families didn't have to pay. This, combined with redlining, is one of many reasons why black home ownership lags so far behind white home ownership.
And, of course, the biggest factor is that black families were forced into poor neighbourhoods by segregation and the lack of opportunity and upward mobility that permeated society. To argue that a system that first says "we'll make it incredibly hard for black people to succeed financially, and give them no choice but to live in these poor areas," and then says "we're just appraising these areas based on wealth, race has nothing to do with it!", isn't racist, is a tough argument to make.
But fundamentally, after a certain point, the bad intentions don't lie in applying the prevailing system. They lie in the failure to fix a system that's so transparently discriminatory. And I guess, this is where the "hive mind" framing enters the picture. So many people saw how these practices disproportionately impacted black people. And extraordinarily few did anything about it. Same with segregation. Same with slavery. The hysteria and distrust builds because of the long history of indifference to transparently racist systems.
"If you disagree with the logic even if the assertions were true, that's one thing to discuss. If you *conditionally* agree with the reasoning per se, then we can check whether the assertions are well evidenced. OK?"
Ooof, this is an entire essay!😅
Yeah, if your claims can be well evidenced (and there are a lot of claims here), your logic isn't necessarily flawed. But the analysis is missing important context even if everything you say here is accurate. It's not reasonable to entirely separate the practice of redlining from the society it existed in and then declare it race-neutral.
For example, you note that black-owned banks followed the same risk assessments as the white owned banks, but don't note that banks were more likely to offer loans in poor white areas than in middle and high income black areas. I find it very hard to believe that race wasn't a factor in those risk assessments. Though proving that would admittedly take more legwork than I'm ready to put in here.😄
You also don't mention practices like "blockbusting", where real estate agents encouraged white families to sell their houses at below market rate by telling them that black families were moving in. These houses were then sold at significant markups to black families.
Or contract buying, that once again, massively disproportionately (I think even exclusively?) targeted black families with onerous lending practices, leaving them homeless if they missed a single payment on their mortgages, whilst simultaneously charging obscene rates of interest that white families didn't have to pay. This, combined with redlining, is one of many reasons why black home ownership lags so far behind white home ownership.
And, of course, the biggest factor is that black families were forced into poor neighbourhoods by segregation and the lack of opportunity and upward mobility that permeated society. To argue that a system that first says "we'll make it incredibly hard for black people to succeed financially, and give them no choice but to live in these poor areas," and then says "we're just appraising these areas based on wealth, race has nothing to do with it!", isn't racist, is a tough argument to make.
But fundamentally, after a certain point, the bad intentions don't lie in applying the prevailing system. They lie in the failure to fix a system that's so transparently discriminatory. And I guess, this is where the "hive mind" framing enters the picture. So many people saw how these practices disproportionately impacted black people. And extraordinarily few did anything about it. Same with segregation. Same with slavery. The hysteria and distrust builds because of the long history of indifference to transparently racist systems.