Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Zone1 Why Are Blacks Told to be Self Sufficient when Others have not been?
- Thread starter IM2
- Start date
- Mar 11, 2015
- 81,983
- 47,575
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #42
The laws of this country were made to cater to whites, specifically to white men. There had to be a law made to allow others besides whites to even be citizens here and even then non whites werenot given full constitution rights. White men have never had to fiight to get the CONSTITUTION amended in orderto be given equal protection under the law. When men still get the most preference. So it's time white men stop the motherfucking crying just because you are not given everythiing. You guys give the line - when you have had prvilege equality is oppression, validation.
We whites built the most affluent, advanced, and humane civilization in history. We deserve most of the rewards for our work.The laws of this country were made to cater to whites, specifically to white men. There had to be a law made to allow others besides whites to even be citizens here and even then non whites werenot given full constitution rights. White men have never had to fiight to get the CONSTITUTION amended in orderto be given equal protection under the law. When men still get the most preference. So it's time white men stop the motherfucking crying just because you are not given everythiing. You guys give the line - when you have had prvilege equality is oppression, validation.
MarathonMike
Diamond Member
I believe IM2 has his stapler.
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
It’s our country, we built it from virgin wilderness occupied by merciless savages. So yes, a white society had to pass special laws to accommodate other races and make them equal before the law. Forget all your historical nonsense, what can’t you do TODAY that I can?The laws of this country were made to cater to whites, specifically to white men. There had to be a law made to allow others besides whites to even be citizens here and even then non whites werenot given full constitution rights. White men have never had to fiight to get the CONSTITUTION amended in orderto be given equal protection under the law. When men still get the most preference. So it's time white men stop the motherfucking crying just because you are not given everythiing. You guys give the line - when you have had prvilege equality is oppression, validation.
MarathonMike
Diamond Member
All the whining about victimhood and begging for reparations demeans American Black people.It’s our country, we built it from virgin wilderness occupied by merciless savages. So yes, a white society had to pass special laws to accommodate other races and make them equal before the law. Forget all your historical nonsense, what can’t you do TODAY that I can?
Jews and Orientals were discriminated against when they came to the United States. Now they usually make more money than white Gentiles.All the whining about victimhood and begging for reparations demeans American Black people.
How much longer are Negroes going to blame us for problems they cause for themselves?
ninja007
Gold Member
THERE YOU GO GUYS- HE LOVES RATIOS NOW!DEI doesn't cater to anyone. The reason the policy exists is because everything is catered to whites.
America was never great because it never used all of its resources. White men are 31 percent of the population, in most jobs they are represented at double and triple their rate of population. This is not because white men are smarter and harder working than everyone else.
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
Like I’ve always said, IM2 loves anything or anyone that works for him and hates anyone or anything that doesn’t agree with his prejudices,THERE YOU GO GUYS- HE LOVES RATIOS NOW!
el midgetron
Platinum Member
- Jun 21, 2023
- 4,494
- 2,090
- 938
Nobody is whining for not having everything given to them, except you. You keep bringing up laws and policies made for white men. Where are those laws and policies that pertain to any Americans today? I don’t see how anyone would hire assholes like you, it’s not the color of your skin it’s your hateful attitude.The laws of this country were made to cater to whites, specifically to white men. There had to be a law made to allow others besides whites to even be citizens here and even then non whites werenot given full constitution rights. White men have never had to fiight to get the CONSTITUTION amended in orderto be given equal protection under the law. When men still get the most preference. So it's time white men stop the motherfucking crying just because you are not given everythiing. You guys give the line - when you have had prvilege equality is oppression, validation.
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Your link;I. TWENTIETH CENTURY FEDERAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IN AMERICA:THE GOVERNMENT’S CONSTRUCTION OF WHITE PROPERTY AND WHITE WEALTHThe U.S. housing market has dramatically changed in the past hundred years. Prior to the 1930s, the U.S. government had traditionally remained un-involved in the selection, construction, and purchase of residences, viewing such activities as inherently private and beyond the realm of federal regulation. In stark contrast to the twenty-first century housing market, homeownership in the early twentieth century United States was rare. This was in part because long-term and low-interest mortgages were not available before the New Deal and buyers consequently had to save substantial sums of money before buying a home. Thus, homeownership for most people in the United States in the 1920s was only accessible in old age. Homeownership, therefore, did not produce the stability, equity, wealth, or opportunities that it currently provides.
The stock market crash in 1929, followed by the Great Depression, dramatically changed the U.S. housing landscape. In 1929, a 95 percent decline in home construction and a 90 percent decline in home improvements devastated the U.S. housing industry and compelled President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (“FDR”) to redefine the federal government’s involvement with the homeowner and housing industry. In 1933, FDR devised a new national housing policy, explaining:
This policy is that the broad interests of the Nation require that special safeguards should be thrown around home ownership as a guaranty of social and economic stability, and that to protect home owners from inequitable enforced liquidation, in a time of general distress, is a proper concern of the Government.
Pursuant to FDR’s new national housing policy, the federal government established a series of programs and agencies, including: the Home Owners Loan Corporation (“HOLC,” established in 1933) under the governance of the Federal home Loan Bank Board (“FHLBB”), the Fair Housing Administration (“FHA,” established in 1934), and the Veterans Administration (“VA,” established in 1944).24 These programs forever changed the housing market and intergenerational wealth in the United States.
Error>
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
<Message>Request has expired</Message>
<X-Amz-Expires>300</X-Amz-Expires>
<Expires>2024-06-22T03
09Z</Expires><ServerTime>2024-06-25T18
41Z</ServerTime><RequestId>QRMQE8T80ZKYDP67</RequestId>
<HostId>
o0vmN/qIjVLgQDjehTgb7wb0o5tX5LEbCtROwY0OEc9knBoVF/8wThu1FbXgfbzF6jNcEFziMG0=
</HostId>
</Error>
....
Keep shooting yourself in the foot , Bozo.
Stryder50
Platinum Member
This is what your @17 line link goes to;Over the years here at USMB and in general, it appears that many have caught a severe case of amnesia as to how things have occurred. It's either that or a double standard has been applied whereas one group can get help from the government and claim it is deserved because they pay taxes, while others who have paid taxes, or been denied from becoming taxpayiing citizens by exclusion from jobs, are slammed for being dependent on government handouts.
“According to economic research, race has been the single most important predictor of support for American welfare programs. In other words, black poverty has been viewed as a moral failing, whereas white poverty had been viewed as a systemic problem.” -Mehrsa Baradaran- The Color of Money, Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap
This paper examines the U.S. government’s instigation, participation, authorization, and perpetuation of federal housing discrimination against black Americans from the 1930s to the 1980s and the damage that such discrimination caused and continues to cause today. Delving into the U.S. government’s twentieth century federal housing practices, this paper discusses how the government effectively barred black-Americans from obtaining quality housing and from investing in housing as wealth, while simultaneously subsidizing and endorsing white homeownership, white suburbs, and white wealth. Quantifying the U.S. government’s discriminatory practices with current wealth gaps between white- and black-American communities, this paper discusses the effects of twentieth century federal housing discrimination and argues that such government-initiated wrongs justify black reparations.
Part I examines the U.S. government’s housing practices—from the New Deal until the 1968 Fair Housing Act and its 1988 Amendments—to reveal that although the New Deal’s national housing programs revolutionized homeownership and home equity in the United States, the U.S. government’s federal housing programs were racially discriminatory. Specifically, and quite shockingly, the U.S. government actively created and promulgated racist neighborhood rating systems that constructed black neighborhoods and black property as unstable, volatile, hazardous, and not worthy of investment. Using these racist rating systems, the federal government endorsed racial covenants and invested federal money into the creation and accumulation of white wealth, the value of whiteness, white suburbia, and white homeownership. Meanwhile, the government denied blacks federal housing funding, fueling black stigma and barring black-Americans from the invaluable twentieth century opportunities of homeownership and home equity.
Understanding the U.S. government’s discriminatory housing practices, Part II discusses and quantifies the effects of the government’s housing discrimination on black-American households and communities. Finding that approximately 120 billion 1950s dollars—or more than 1.239 quintillion 2019 dollars—were invested to subsidize and create white-American wealth through homeownership, Part II discusses both the quantifiable and the less quantifiable effects of twentieth century federal housing discrimination. Mapping the impact of the U.S. government’s discriminatory housing practices to the black-white wealth gap, Part II argues that the black-white wealth gap may be attributable, at least in part, to twentieth century federal housing discrimination.
In conclusion, this paper argues in favor of black reparations for the discriminatory U.S. housing practices that persisted from the 1930s to the 1980s—and whose remnants pervasively continue to damage black-American communities today. At a minimum, this paper argues that the U.S. government should compensate black Americans for the 1.239 quintillion dollars of discriminatory federal housing spending. In addition, recognizing the power of wealth accumulation, the U.S. government should consider the grave and lasting impact of its discriminatory housing practices in order to repair the government-initiated wrongs perpetrated merely one generation ago. While black reparations for federal housing discrimination do not speak to or cure the issues of reparations for slavery in the United States, such reparations are one step forward in correcting past wrongs that continue to devastate black-American communities and will continue to haunt our country, if left unrepaired.
Black Reparations for Twentieth Century Federal Housing Discrimination: The Construction of White Wealth and the Effects of Denied Black Homeownership
This year marks the 400th anniversary of the first documented arrival of Africans to the United States, which resulted in the enslavement of approximately 4 milpapers.ssrn.com
The information I will present in this thread disputes the claims of white self sufficiency. Therefore why are whites telling us to do things they never did in order to succeed? This tread is about the study:
BLACK REPARATIONS FOR TWENTIETH CENTURY FEDERAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHITE WEALTH AND THE EFFECTS OFDENIED BLACK HOMEOWNERSHIP
by JANE KIM
And not the usual ignorance that comes with any attempt to discuss this topic based on facts. So please begin reading the study. All personal attacks or off topic posts will be immediately reported.
<Error>
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
<Message>Request has expired</Message>
<X-Amz-Expires>300</X-Amz-Expires>
<Expires>2024-06-22T03
09Z</Expires><ServerTime>2024-06-25T18:16:15Z</ServerTime>
<RequestId>QMX1FRBN9VP3R9M1</RequestId>
<HostId>
yzMwFrl3kbEM6Tqo/xedPSMYd9suPOz5yR4jtIE+fefDnDqefBgNNWalwzFWzqfsg1exNDc/o8BmPH/yfHuz61Zk1+sV3DjyWzIOZSMAk+g=
</HostId>
</Error>
......
As usual, you fail to impress with your incompetence.
No amount of "reparations", on top of already reparations, will make you a "sharper knife in the drawer".
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Author of your enclosed link appears to be sparsely published or read "scholar" of questionable objectivity. Her page;Over the years here at USMB and in general, it appears that many have caught a severe case of amnesia as to how things have occurred. It's either that or a double standard has been applied whereas one group can get help from the government and claim it is deserved because they pay taxes, while others who have paid taxes, or been denied from becoming taxpayiing citizens by exclusion from jobs, are slammed for being dependent on government handouts.
“According to economic research, race has been the single most important predictor of support for American welfare programs. In other words, black poverty has been viewed as a moral failing, whereas white poverty had been viewed as a systemic problem.” -Mehrsa Baradaran- The Color of Money, Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap
This paper examines the U.S. government’s instigation, participation, authorization, and perpetuation of federal housing discrimination against black Americans from the 1930s to the 1980s and the damage that such discrimination caused and continues to cause today. Delving into the U.S. government’s twentieth century federal housing practices, this paper discusses how the government effectively barred black-Americans from obtaining quality housing and from investing in housing as wealth, while simultaneously subsidizing and endorsing white homeownership, white suburbs, and white wealth. Quantifying the U.S. government’s discriminatory practices with current wealth gaps between white- and black-American communities, this paper discusses the effects of twentieth century federal housing discrimination and argues that such government-initiated wrongs justify black reparations.
Part I examines the U.S. government’s housing practices—from the New Deal until the 1968 Fair Housing Act and its 1988 Amendments—to reveal that although the New Deal’s national housing programs revolutionized homeownership and home equity in the United States, the U.S. government’s federal housing programs were racially discriminatory. Specifically, and quite shockingly, the U.S. government actively created and promulgated racist neighborhood rating systems that constructed black neighborhoods and black property as unstable, volatile, hazardous, and not worthy of investment. Using these racist rating systems, the federal government endorsed racial covenants and invested federal money into the creation and accumulation of white wealth, the value of whiteness, white suburbia, and white homeownership. Meanwhile, the government denied blacks federal housing funding, fueling black stigma and barring black-Americans from the invaluable twentieth century opportunities of homeownership and home equity.
Understanding the U.S. government’s discriminatory housing practices, Part II discusses and quantifies the effects of the government’s housing discrimination on black-American households and communities. Finding that approximately 120 billion 1950s dollars—or more than 1.239 quintillion 2019 dollars—were invested to subsidize and create white-American wealth through homeownership, Part II discusses both the quantifiable and the less quantifiable effects of twentieth century federal housing discrimination. Mapping the impact of the U.S. government’s discriminatory housing practices to the black-white wealth gap, Part II argues that the black-white wealth gap may be attributable, at least in part, to twentieth century federal housing discrimination.
In conclusion, this paper argues in favor of black reparations for the discriminatory U.S. housing practices that persisted from the 1930s to the 1980s—and whose remnants pervasively continue to damage black-American communities today. At a minimum, this paper argues that the U.S. government should compensate black Americans for the 1.239 quintillion dollars of discriminatory federal housing spending. In addition, recognizing the power of wealth accumulation, the U.S. government should consider the grave and lasting impact of its discriminatory housing practices in order to repair the government-initiated wrongs perpetrated merely one generation ago. While black reparations for federal housing discrimination do not speak to or cure the issues of reparations for slavery in the United States, such reparations are one step forward in correcting past wrongs that continue to devastate black-American communities and will continue to haunt our country, if left unrepaired.
Black Reparations for Twentieth Century Federal Housing Discrimination: The Construction of White Wealth and the Effects of Denied Black Homeownership
This year marks the 400th anniversary of the first documented arrival of Africans to the United States, which resulted in the enslavement of approximately 4 milpapers.ssrn.com
The information I will present in this thread disputes the claims of white self sufficiency. Therefore why are whites telling us to do things they never did in order to succeed? This tread is about the study:
BLACK REPARATIONS FOR TWENTIETH CENTURY FEDERAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHITE WEALTH AND THE EFFECTS OFDENIED BLACK HOMEOWNERSHIP
by JANE KIM
And not the usual ignorance that comes with any attempt to discuss this topic based on facts. So please begin reading the study. All personal attacks or off topic posts will be immediately reported.
Stryder50
Platinum Member
It's your prejudice, bias, and non-objectivity that doesn't resonate with most of us.No. I want you and the others to read the study in order to learn the extent of what went on. It's time you guys educated yourself because summarizing things in short paragraphs doesn't resonate with you guys.
(And the typos that show you fail at proof-reading your posts.)
- Mar 11, 2015
- 81,983
- 47,575
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #56
This Part of the article examines the U.S. government’s discriminatory housing practices from the New Deal until the 1968 Fair Housing Act and its 1988 Amendments. This time period involved various forms of discrimination, within and independent from housing and homeownership. Discrimination during this time was overt and covert in housing and lending. It was state-mandated and state-enforced at both the local and federal levels. This paper focuses on overt and active federal discriminatory housing practices, which may not have been part of a comprehensive or intentional plan, but are still highly compelling in justifying black reparations for twentieth century U.S. federal housing discrimination. As such, emphasizing that the federal government and federal law were not neutral agents to discriminatory U.S. housing practices, this Part focuses on the following three deeply married forms of federal housing discrimination: (1) “Redlining,” or the government’s racist rating of neighborhoods that constructed and dictated property values and public and private investment into such neighborhoods; (2) the federal government’s exclusion of black-Americans from access to long-term, low-interest, government-subsidized and government-insured mortgages and development loans; and (3) the federal government’s active endorsement of racial covenants that excluded black-Americans from quality housing and new land developments and enabled the creation of white American suburbs, white homeownership, and white wealth.
A. The Federal Construction of Neighborhood and Property Ratings: Racist Redlining is Born
Implementing FDR’s new national housing policy, the HOLC surveyed and rated every urban and suburban neighborhood in the United States. First-established by the HOLC, federal agencies and private actors both used race-based rating systems to: (a) appraise homes, neighborhoods, and households; (b) determine the government constructed property values and the investment-worthiness of prospective homeowners and land developments; and (c) exclude black-Americans from quality housing, government-subsidized and government-insured loans, and home equity opportunities. The HOLC’s rating system, which was essentially replicated by the FHA and the VA, was expressly racist. The federal government, through the HOLC’s ratings and the FHA’s ratings, effectively stigmatized minority communities by “redlining” them—or, in other words, by falsely constructing or re-constructing these communities as dangerous and unstable. Accordingly, the federal government’s property and neighborhood rating systems barred private and government investment in communities of color, as well as black homeownership.
A. The Federal Construction of Neighborhood and Property Ratings: Racist Redlining is Born
Implementing FDR’s new national housing policy, the HOLC surveyed and rated every urban and suburban neighborhood in the United States. First-established by the HOLC, federal agencies and private actors both used race-based rating systems to: (a) appraise homes, neighborhoods, and households; (b) determine the government constructed property values and the investment-worthiness of prospective homeowners and land developments; and (c) exclude black-Americans from quality housing, government-subsidized and government-insured loans, and home equity opportunities. The HOLC’s rating system, which was essentially replicated by the FHA and the VA, was expressly racist. The federal government, through the HOLC’s ratings and the FHA’s ratings, effectively stigmatized minority communities by “redlining” them—or, in other words, by falsely constructing or re-constructing these communities as dangerous and unstable. Accordingly, the federal government’s property and neighborhood rating systems barred private and government investment in communities of color, as well as black homeownership.
This Part of the article examines the U.S. government’s discriminatory housing practices from the New Deal until the 1968 Fair Housing Act and its 1988 Amendments. This time period involved various forms of discrimination, within and independent from housing and homeownership. Discrimination during this time was overt and covert in housing and lending. It was state-mandated and state-enforced at both the local and federal levels. This paper focuses on overt and active federal discriminatory housing practices, which may not have been part of a comprehensive or intentional plan, but are still highly compelling in justifying black reparations for twentieth century U.S. federal housing discrimination. As such, emphasizing that the federal government and federal law were not neutral agents to discriminatory U.S. housing practices, this Part focuses on the following three deeply married forms of federal housing discrimination: (1) “Redlining,” or the government’s racist rating of neighborhoods that constructed and dictated property values and public and private investment into such neighborhoods; (2) the federal government’s exclusion of black-Americans from access to long-term, low-interest, government-subsidized and government-insured mortgages and development loans; and (3) the federal government’s active endorsement of racial covenants that excluded black-Americans from quality housing and new land developments and enabled the creation of white American suburbs, white homeownership, and white wealth.
A. The Federal Construction of Neighborhood and Property Ratings: Racist Redlining is Born
Implementing FDR’s new national housing policy, the HOLC surveyed and rated every urban and suburban neighborhood in the United States. First-established by the HOLC, federal agencies and private actors both used race-based rating systems to: (a) appraise homes, neighborhoods, and households; (b) determine the government constructed property values and the investment-worthiness of prospective homeowners and land developments; and (c) exclude black-Americans from quality housing, government-subsidized and government-insured loans, and home equity opportunities. The HOLC’s rating system, which was essentially replicated by the FHA and the VA, was expressly racist. The federal government, through the HOLC’s ratings and the FHA’s ratings, effectively stigmatized minority communities by “redlining” them—or, in other words, by falsely constructing or re-constructing these communities as dangerous and unstable. Accordingly, the federal government’s property and neighborhood rating systems barred private and government investment in communities of color, as well as black homeownership.
The reason that existed is because most whites did not want to live next to blacks. Have you ever wondered why that was true? Has the behavior of most blacks changed that attitude since 1968?This Part of the article examines the U.S. government’s discriminatory housing practices from the New Deal until the 1968 Fair Housing Act and its 1988 Amendments. This time period involved various forms of discrimination, within and independent from housing and homeownership. Discrimination during this time was overt and covert in housing and lending. It was state-mandated and state-enforced at both the local and federal levels.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 81,983
- 47,575
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #59
HOLC color-coded neighborhoods within the United States, grading them into four “quality” or “security” categories: “A” (green), “B” (blue), “C” (yellow), and “D” (red). “A” received the highest rating and “D” received the lowest rating, also known as being “redlined.” These categories corresponded to a neighborhood’s level of “invasion” or “infiltration” by an “undesirable population,” or, in other words, by persons of color.
To obtain a government rating of “A,” a neighborhood had to be“homogeneous” and consist of “American business and professional men,” where “American” presumably meant white and often, U.S.-born. “B”-rated areas had “reached their peak”, but were “still desirable” and could be “expected to remain stable”. “C”-rated areas were described as “definitely declining.” Finally, “D” or “red” neighborhoods were described as “undesirable populations” that, having declined, were insecure, volatile, dangerous, hazardous, and unstable. “D”-rated or redlined communities were flagged as unsuitable for federal loans and subsidies. These redlined neighborhoods were predominantly black. For instance, in Detroit, every neighborhood with a black-American population, however small, was rated “D” or “hazardous.”
Race was an important driver of the HOLC’s ratings. “Notions of racial and ethnic worth . . . on an unprecedented scale” informed the HOLC’s neighborhood ratings.46 Racial and ethnic groups were ranked in order of the most desirable to the least desirable, with the least desirable rankings having the most adverse effect on property values.47 Racial and ethnic groups were ranked in the following way:
(1) English, Germans, Scotch, Irish, Scandinavians (2) North Italians (3) Bohemians or Czechs (4) Poles (5) Lithuanians (6) Greeks (7) Russians, Jews (lower class) (8) South Italians (9) Negroes; and (10) Mexicans.
Stability, security, safety, and property value were thus attributed to “white”-American communities, whereas black neighborhoods—or even neighborhoods with only a handful of black occupants —were defined as hazardous homes and hazardous investment. In this way, race and the worth that the federal government attributed to a neighborhood’s racial composition principally drove the HOLC’s ratings.
The government determined the value of a dwelling based on racial composition, alleged worth, and “infiltration” of a neighborhood, where infiltration reflected racial diversity or the increase in persons of color within a neighborhood. Race was more important than the property’s structural characteristics, the community’s economic class, or foreseeable mortgage default rates. In St. Louis, for example, a community known as Lincoln Terrace was originally intended for middle class white families. The neighborhood developed into a black neighborhood, but, despite the fact that the homes were relatively new and of good quality, the HOLC gave the area a “D” rating in 1937 and 1940, asserting that the houses had “little or no value today, having suffered a tremendous decline in value due to the colored elements now controlling the district.” In Detroit, although the black West Side housed wealthy black-Americans and expensive homes, the neighborhood was rated “D” or “red” by the HOLC. Moreover, data indicates that default rates on loans were actually lower in lower-grade, minority homes, indicating that the government’s classification of minority neighborhoods as financially volatile was subjective, inaccurate, and discriminatory.
To obtain a government rating of “A,” a neighborhood had to be“homogeneous” and consist of “American business and professional men,” where “American” presumably meant white and often, U.S.-born. “B”-rated areas had “reached their peak”, but were “still desirable” and could be “expected to remain stable”. “C”-rated areas were described as “definitely declining.” Finally, “D” or “red” neighborhoods were described as “undesirable populations” that, having declined, were insecure, volatile, dangerous, hazardous, and unstable. “D”-rated or redlined communities were flagged as unsuitable for federal loans and subsidies. These redlined neighborhoods were predominantly black. For instance, in Detroit, every neighborhood with a black-American population, however small, was rated “D” or “hazardous.”
Race was an important driver of the HOLC’s ratings. “Notions of racial and ethnic worth . . . on an unprecedented scale” informed the HOLC’s neighborhood ratings.46 Racial and ethnic groups were ranked in order of the most desirable to the least desirable, with the least desirable rankings having the most adverse effect on property values.47 Racial and ethnic groups were ranked in the following way:
(1) English, Germans, Scotch, Irish, Scandinavians (2) North Italians (3) Bohemians or Czechs (4) Poles (5) Lithuanians (6) Greeks (7) Russians, Jews (lower class) (8) South Italians (9) Negroes; and (10) Mexicans.
Stability, security, safety, and property value were thus attributed to “white”-American communities, whereas black neighborhoods—or even neighborhoods with only a handful of black occupants —were defined as hazardous homes and hazardous investment. In this way, race and the worth that the federal government attributed to a neighborhood’s racial composition principally drove the HOLC’s ratings.
The government determined the value of a dwelling based on racial composition, alleged worth, and “infiltration” of a neighborhood, where infiltration reflected racial diversity or the increase in persons of color within a neighborhood. Race was more important than the property’s structural characteristics, the community’s economic class, or foreseeable mortgage default rates. In St. Louis, for example, a community known as Lincoln Terrace was originally intended for middle class white families. The neighborhood developed into a black neighborhood, but, despite the fact that the homes were relatively new and of good quality, the HOLC gave the area a “D” rating in 1937 and 1940, asserting that the houses had “little or no value today, having suffered a tremendous decline in value due to the colored elements now controlling the district.” In Detroit, although the black West Side housed wealthy black-Americans and expensive homes, the neighborhood was rated “D” or “red” by the HOLC. Moreover, data indicates that default rates on loans were actually lower in lower-grade, minority homes, indicating that the government’s classification of minority neighborhoods as financially volatile was subjective, inaccurate, and discriminatory.
HOLC color-coded neighborhoods within the United States, grading them into four “quality” or “security” categories: “A” (green), “B” (blue), “C” (yellow), and “D” (red). “A” received the highest rating and “D” received the lowest rating, also known as being “redlined.” These categories corresponded to a neighborhood’s level of “invasion” or “infiltration” by an “undesirable population,” or, in other words, by persons of color.
To obtain a government rating of “A,” a neighborhood had to be“homogeneous” and consist of “American business and professional men,” where “American” presumably meant white and often, U.S.-born. “B”-rated areas had “reached their peak”, but were “still desirable” and could be “expected to remain stable”. “C”-rated areas were described as “definitely declining.” Finally, “D” or “red” neighborhoods were described as “undesirable populations” that, having declined, were insecure, volatile, dangerous, hazardous, and unstable. “D”-rated or redlined communities were flagged as unsuitable for federal loans and subsidies. These redlined neighborhoods were predominantly black. For instance, in Detroit, every neighborhood with a black-American population, however small, was rated “D” or “hazardous.”
Race was an important driver of the HOLC’s ratings. “Notions of racial and ethnic worth . . . on an unprecedented scale” informed the HOLC’s neighborhood ratings.46 Racial and ethnic groups were ranked in order of the most desirable to the least desirable, with the least desirable rankings having the most adverse effect on property values.47 Racial and ethnic groups were ranked in the following way:
(1) English, Germans, Scotch, Irish, Scandinavians (2) North Italians (3) Bohemians or Czechs (4) Poles (5) Lithuanians (6) Greeks (7) Russians, Jews (lower class) (8) South Italians (9) Negroes; and (10) Mexicans.
Stability, security, safety, and property value were thus attributed to “white”-American communities, whereas black neighborhoods—or even neighborhoods with only a handful of black occupants —were defined as hazardous homes and hazardous investment. In this way, race and the worth that the federal government attributed to a neighborhood’s racial composition principally drove the HOLC’s ratings.
The government determined the value of a dwelling based on racial composition, alleged worth, and “infiltration” of a neighborhood, where infiltration reflected racial diversity or the increase in persons of color within a neighborhood. Race was more important than the property’s structural characteristics, the community’s economic class, or foreseeable mortgage default rates. In St. Louis, for example, a community known as Lincoln Terrace was originally intended for middle class white families. The neighborhood developed into a black neighborhood, but, despite the fact that the homes were relatively new and of good quality, the HOLC gave the area a “D” rating in 1937 and 1940, asserting that the houses had “little or no value today, having suffered a tremendous decline in value due to the colored elements now controlling the district.” In Detroit, although the black West Side housed wealthy black-Americans and expensive homes, the neighborhood was rated “D” or “red” by the HOLC. Moreover, data indicates that default rates on loans were actually lower in lower-grade, minority homes, indicating that the government’s classification of minority neighborhoods as financially volatile was subjective, inaccurate, and discriminatory.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 323
- Replies
- 90
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 74
- Views
- 705
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 120
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 141
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 13
- Replies
- 83
- Views
- 402
- Replies
- 115
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8367
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-