There are many, many reasons why this is the case; but they were almost all a product of racist social engineering in the 20th century. And when I say racist, I mean people whose main argument was the genetic inferiority of black people. Progressives consistently caved to their demands under threat of violence.
Showing up is hard to do when housing policy explicitly forbids black people from living within a 2 hour commute of the few places that would hire them. It's hard to do when you have to work 2 jobs because the few neighborhoods you are allowed to live in are expensive. It's hard to do when under constant police harassment.
The erosion of the family fabric of black communities in America was malicious, intentional, and far more recent than many are willing to believe (which is why this comment will probably be downvoted to hell). And there's no great conspiracy about it because it was done in the open.
> Showing up is hard to do when housing policy explicitly forbids black people from living within a 2 hour commute of the few places that would hire them.
And yes, the “progressive” Bay Area, too. For anyone who wonders why the Bay has so few black people - the house I live in on the Peninsula was built in 1948. And its original deed forbade “colored people” from living in it. This was eventually overturned, I believe in the 60s. Given the housing values nowadays, how much generational wealth have blacks missed out on due to this? It’s not as though they weren’t here. After all, they’ve been in this country since its inception. Just like whites, blacks came westward. In the Bay they specifically also helped fill the demand for US shipbuilders during WWII. But systematically denied from one of the biggest wealth generating sources America had to offer in the 20th century (Bay real estate). And this also means their descendants are not in the position to benefit from the Bay’s 21st century wealth generation source (tech).
Many people do not know this racist history of the “progressive” Bay Area.
This is exactly correct. There's a wonderful late-1990s documentary on the history of East Palo Alto called "Dreams of a City: Creating East Palo Alto" that describes how the community was formed and ultimately became an incorporated city. Here is a clip that describes the discriminatory housing policies in the Peninsula that led to East Palo Alto becoming predominately black:
The sad thing is that had the original African-American inhabitants of East Palo Alto been able to buy in Palo Alto instead, they or their descendants would be multi-millionaires today given the tremendous boom in Silicon Valley's housing prices starting in the 1970s. There was only a decade-or-so window between when racial covenants became unenforceable and when Palo Alto's housing prices started booming in the 1970s due to the growth of Silicon Valley where African-Americans could buy in Palo Alto at affordable prices.
Also sad is the story of San Francisco's Western Addition, just south of the Japantown mall. Many African-Americans from the South migrated to San Francisco during WWII for the war effort and also for the war-related job opportunities that were abound in the area. Due to racial covenants, the Western Addition was one of the few places where African-Americans could rent and buy; that area had a lot of vacancies due to the unfortunate internment of Japanese-Americans who populated the area before and after the war. When WWII ended, Japanese-Americans and African-Americans lived side-by-side in the Western Addition. However, in the late 1950s, San Francisco started a massive redevelopment project where many of the old Victorian homes in the area were torn down and were replaced with public housing projects. This is also the time that Geary was widened. Many Japanese-Americans and African-Americans lost their homes during this redevelopment project. These homes would be worth a minimum of a million dollars each today, potentially more, due to their proximity to Downtown and Market Street.
Many Asians and other immigrants often come to the United States without any generational wealth and build from scratch.
An example of someone everyone knows is Sundar Pitchai. The only way out of middle class and to go upwards is education. Not by speculative real estate activities.
Yes, when you are a recent immigrant who comes with nothing, the way to go upwards is by education.
The point is that black Americans are not recent immigrants. They have been in this country just as long (if not longer) than white Americans. Therefore, it’s probably better to compare black Americans’ socioeconomic status to white Americans.
“Speculative real estate”? Not in the slightest. Simply the ability to buy a roof over your head and pass it on to your children.
FWIW, Asian immigrants, statistically speaking, basically all came well after the civil rights movement, and mostly came here without any wealth, which means they were also unable to participate in generational wealth accumulation. They also had a pretty fundamental disadvantage: they didn’t speak English.
Any hypothesis that attempts to explain the plight of black Americans needs to also adequately provide for the incredible success of Asian Americans. And, if you think it’s merely skin color, then you have to account for Indian Americans, who are often darker skinned than many black Americans, yet who out-earn white American households nearly 2 to 1.
I don’t believe any reasonable person thinks that centuries of racial violence and discrimination evaporated overnight and all barriers disappeared for black people. Personally I don’t think it’s reasonable to think experiences or impacts would be the same across different groups of minorities given that many policies and actions were specifically targeted at and impacted black Americans.
That destruction had and continues to have a lasting impact.
There are many theories on why recent immigrants, including African’s, perform better than Black Americans. The psychological impact has been well documented and might help explain some differences in achievement compared to white Americans.
I don’t disagree, but I was responding to the narrow hypothesis that generational wealth is a significant causal factor. And then trying to get people to think more like investigators, instead of just rolling with whichever story sounds good (since that is determined to a large extent by the skill of the storyteller).
San Francisco is repeatedly called out as the prime example in The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein -- an absolutely fascinating (and depressing) look at statutory racism in the 2nd half of the 20th century -- specifically because it has a reputation for being "progressive". It was pervasive across the country until well into the 80s.
I assume you've read it since he focuses on the narrative of a black man working in the shipyards; but for anyone interested in reading further on the subject, I highly recommend it.
It's not "Bay Area in the 1948" that has a reputation for being progressive. It's "Bay Area in the present" that has this reputation. And the later would generally be quick to agree that the former was not very progressive.
My point exactly, it was a governmental tool that allowed these things to exist.
* the laws on the books calling for discrimination and what’s known in the south as “Jim Crowe” laws (spelling). Set forth by Democrats.
* the increase of government payments to lower income groups causing distortions in the nuclear family.
Also black youth unemployment say pre WWII was lower than that of whites. This is post civil war, where you attempt to say some slavery reference.
Lastly, would you openly say that racism is higher today than say 50 years ago? Of course not, and yet by looking at the metrics of unemployment or family stability, things are worse.
> Lastly, would you openly say that racism is higher today than say 50 years ago? Of course not, and yet by looking at the metrics of unemployment or family stability, things are worse.
I would openly say that on the things that really matter, racism today is no better than 50 years ago. It's just had 50 years in between for the negative effects to continue compounding.
He's using sarcasm to dismiss off the bat anyone who may seriously claim that Murdoch et al are responsible (yes, there are people who honestly believe this).
This is a very common literary structure in internet comments.
To claim we can't satirize or mock racists and bigots because the satirical content itself is racist seems misguided. Intent matters.
Pretending the big-P Progressives of the 1890s-1920s are the same as today's progressives is as silly as claiming black people should love modern Republicans because of Lincoln.
Showing up is hard to do when housing policy explicitly forbids black people from living within a 2 hour commute of the few places that would hire them. It's hard to do when you have to work 2 jobs because the few neighborhoods you are allowed to live in are expensive. It's hard to do when under constant police harassment.
The erosion of the family fabric of black communities in America was malicious, intentional, and far more recent than many are willing to believe (which is why this comment will probably be downvoted to hell). And there's no great conspiracy about it because it was done in the open.