Category Archives: Housing

Alt Left Positions on Gays, Transsexuals, Non-Whites and the Disabled

Jason Y: The part about dumping gays and trannies might gain some sympathy, but action against non-Whites and the disabled makes the Alt-Left seem too hateful.

We are not dumping gays and trannies, we are just with to lessen the celebratory rhetoric about these people that ends up treating the abnormal as normal and the normal people as freaks. Face it, it’s not normal to be a transsexual and fully homosexual. It’s abnormal. So is being left-handed or having green eyes, but if everyone was left-handed or had green eyes, we could deal pretty well. If even 20% of society was gay or tranny, the consequences to society would be catastrophic. Since gays are only 3% and trannies are maybe .15% of the population, it’s no great shakes to deal with them, but even with those low numbers, transsexuals and homosexuals still cause a lot of societal problems, so these are not exactly positive things society-wise.

On the other hand, I think the Alt Left in general wants full rights for gays. That is, we support most if not all of the political causes that the gay community is pushing right now. I personally participate in gay political campaigns, which is why it’s a bit rich that I keep getting called homophobic.

We support basic minimal rights for transsexuals. I am not sure about the transsexual bathroom issue. I doubt if it will be much of a problem if we implement this, but it’s not a very important issue either. Perhaps the Alt Left will go neutral on the transsexual bathroom issue.

I believe an employer ought to be able to discriminate against gays or transsexuals if the person looks noticeably odd like a lot of transsexuals do or if their homosexual behavior is blatant and flaunted. For jobs involving meeting the public, an employer ought to be able to say, “Hey, this person’s going to scare customers away.” In that case, the flagrant gay or transsexual still ought to be able to get a job say in the back room somewhere where they are not serving as a front to the business with the public.

I think transsexuals are generally mentally ill, but mentally ill people generally deserve full rights, and their mental disorder is not dangerous to others.

What sort of action does the Alt Left advocate with regard to non-Whites other than reducing legal immigration, stopping illegal immigration, ending birthright citizenship and restricting the abuse of work visas such as H-1B’s?

The Alt Left opposes all discrimination based on race, ethnicity, etc.

Furthermore, we believe that the Voting Rights Act needs to be put back in, strong efforts to curb Republican efforts to keep Blacks from voting (similar to Jim Crow).

We would like to see the Housing Rights Act much better enforced. As it is, there is still a lot of housing discrimination against Blacks because there is little enforcement of this act. Black people need to be protected against all forms of discrimination, not just employment but also in voting and housing.

On the other hand, the Alt Left opposes Black Lives Matter. Rather than evil, I simply see BLM as idiotic, absurd, unnecessary and counterproductive.

And how is it that the Alt Left is advocating any harm for the disabled at all? In fact, we very much support the state’s disability programs and would even like to see them expanded and liberalized, believe it or not. For instance, in the UK, people on the equivalent of SSI can make as much money as they want. They usually do not make much due to their problems, but still.

And SSDI will let you work quite a bit. I knew a guy who worked 28 hours a week on SSDI. He said they just deducted his check. And if you are making good enough money on Disability, just cut the check to zero dollars and let them keep the medical care. If they become ill again and have to cut back or stop work, bring back the check in some form, but don’t throw them off the program. If they are disabled, they are going to have some serious health care needs for as long as they are disabled, so it is important for them to keep health coverage.

What’s so bad about that?

Jason Y: Anyhow, note, if there are certain bozos drifting off toward Trump from the left, then good riddance !!! Who needs them anyhow? I mean, they know who Trump is and what he represents. It’s not like they were lied to.

I disagree. We should take any people leaving Trump or heading his way that we can. If they renounce support for Trump and the Republicans, they can join our movement. Better to have them with us on the Left than over there on the Right causing chaos.

9 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Conservatism, Discrimination, Employment, Fake Guest Workers, Gender Studies, Government, Health, Homosexuality, Housing, Illegal, Illness, Immigration, Law, Left, Legal, Mental Illness, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Republicans, Sex, US Politics, White Racism

An Alternative Left Position on Transsexualism

Betty: Following the logic of your article, it would be ok to harm these people as the human rights don’t apply to them which is not right. I don’t get why it bothers people when trans humans want to be the opposite gender? Does it have an effect on your personal life in anyway? Are humans and their personality only defined by their gender? Definitely not. They still have emotions, thoughts and needs just like everybody else. They aren’t worse in their behavior than other people only because they feel wrong in their own gender.

And by the way they don’t choose to feel wrong. It’s the same as being gay, you can’t choose it. So it’s not ok to call trans people “things” or “nonhumans” only because they feel to be wrong in their own body/gender. If you define human beings ONLY over their gender then there’s something wrong with your view of humans in this way. Just let people live how they want to without degrading them. That’s not okay and it’s not just “saying your own opinion” when you say that you don’t like them in such a humiliating way.

The Alternative Left should support full human rights and tolerance for transsexuals. We do not wish for them to be harmed in any way. We do not agree with any crazy people being harmed. We believe people should be kind to transsexuals in person because that is how fellow humans who are not hurting anyone else should be treated. We support nondiscrimination against them in employment, with the caveat that you might be able to discriminate if they have to meet the public because they might harm your business by driving customers away. We do not support discrimination against transsexuals in housing, education or any government services. We feel that transsexuals are crazy, but we should be kind to the mentally ill.

We feel that there is no evidence that this is biological. The rate of it has exploded ~100X what it was in the 1960’s. There’s one on every corner now. We feel that that is very strong evidence that it is not biological and that it is some epidemic form of mental illness we are  experiencing. We also feel that it has become a fad and many people are becoming transsexuals because it is the cool thing to be. We believe that most transsexuals are simply homosexuals.

Many homosexuals identify with the opposite sex. It’s rather normal for them to do so. 

We think that in thethe past such folks would simply be the typical homosexual who acts like the opposite sex and they were perfectly happy that way, but nowadays with the transsexual identity open to them, many such persons are choosing to be transsexuals instead of just opposite sex-identifying homosexuals. In other words, we believe that if the people identifying as transsexuals now were alive in the 1960’s instead of 2010’s, 99% of them would not be transsexuals, and presumably they would be fairly happy and well adjusted nevertheless.

Obviously we see no need for people adopt this identity, and we note that in societies that do not tolerate such things, the rate of transsexualism drops up to 99%. In societies that promote or encourage transsexuals like Thailand, there is epidemic transsexualism. Thailand probably has the highest rate of transsexuals on Earth. Apparently the more you promote and encourage transsexuals, the more of it you end up with. Obviously this speaks against a biological disorder and in favor of a societally constructed condition.

13% of transsexuals re-transition. We say If it’s biological, why can’t they make up their mind if they are men or women? We note that there have been documented cases of completely spontaneous cures in which all symptoms of transsexualism lifted, the person simply dropped it as an issue, decided to identify as the birth sex and went on to be happy and healthy. 60% of underage transsexuals (kids and teenagers) lose all symptoms by adulthood. If it’s biological like homosexuality, how come it goes away a lot of the time?

Transsexuals are mentally ill. It’s a mental illness. But it is a mental illness that is being celebrated and  promoted and it is encouraging a lot of people to adopt this mental disorder just because it is the cool thing to do. We strongly disagree with the celebration and promotion of mental illness and especially with encouraging the spread of mental illness. It’s infuriating.

What if anorexics formed a group and called themselves a protected minority like these transsexuals and cheered on their anorexia, promoted anorexia to the world at large and encouraged others to be anorexic? Would this be acceptable?

What if schizophrenics were celebrating their symptoms, asking to be a protected identity minority, and encouraging other people to think they hear things, see things, believe things that are not true like the CIA is after you and act in very irrational ways? Would this be acceptable. And we believe that just to be hip, a lot of people adopt the Schizophrenic or Anorexic Identities to be cool, we would even get a new Identity Politics for them and they would become yet another identity protected class. We believe it would be very bad for society if anorexics and schizophrenics did this, and this is exactly what transsexuals are doing.

Alt Left position on transsexuals:

  • Bare minimal human rights for transsexuals.
  • Nondiscrimination against transsexuals employment with some reasonable limits.
  • Kindness and tolerance, but no more than that, to transsexuals because they are after all only humans with a mental illness.
  • Recognition that transsexualism is a mental disorder and the treatment of it as such.
  • A halt to the celebration, promotion and encouragement of the mental illness called transsexualism because it is bad for society and it is senseless to celebrate, promote and encourage mental illness.

* I had a transsexual as a potential client, and I was very nice to him too. I would have taken him on as a client also, and I would have been very nice to him.

6 Comments

Filed under Asia, Civil Rights, Discrimination, Employment, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Housing, Left, Mental Illness, Psychology, Psychopathology, Regional, SE Asia, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Thailand

Proposal for an American Paleo-Left Party: The American People’s Party

From Facebook, from a Russian Communist. OK guys, what do you think?

Idea for uniquely American Paleo-Left Party:

The American People’s Party

– Opposition to mass immigration calling for a 10 year moratorium on all immigration except self-produced, self funded immigration.

– Opposition to gun control.

– Opposition to all free trade deals that are bad for the worker.

– Nationalizing health care, oil, Walmart, McDonald’s, car industry, all large industries.

– End to foreign wars and opposition to imperialism, solidarity with other oppressed peoples.

– Raise minimum wage to 20 usd per hour.

– Introduction of death sentences for corruption, Ponzi schemes, and other wall Street machinations.

– Women given 3 years maternity leave with stipends for children as long as they are married to the same man during issue of stipends.

– Veterans, families and elderly get free health care and special mortgage rates.

– Police to be judged by civil jury chosen by the public when accused of excessive force.

– Opposition to modern art funded by government, opposition to LGBT culture but not homophobic or anti gay, drugs.

– Neutral on abortion and women’s rights.

– Secular party neutral on religion.

– Antiracist, welcoming all people, but strongly implied as a White working class party.

– Pro Russian, Vietnamese, Venezuelan relations.

– Support Green energy policies but only if affordable for working people.

– Moderate environmentalism.

– State-sponsored gymnasiums where people can exercise for free.

– Push for metric system.

– Opposition to the NSA data collection techniques.

– Shift burden of taxation to the rich including the state confiscating funds if need be.

– Anti-NATO.

– Neutral on Israel and Palestine conflict.

48 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Art, Corruption, Crime, Economics, Environmentalism, Geopolitics, Government, Health, Homosexuality, Housing, Immigration, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Labor, Law enforcement, Left, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, US Politics, USA, Whites

The War on Poverty Was Not a Failure

Jason Y: Sorry to be so in your face and frank, but why do you think the War on Poverty failed from an Alt Left viewpoint?

I do not think it failed in the first place and the Alt Left does not think it failed. The Alt Left supports the War on Poverty. In this way, we utterly reject the Alt Right which wants to wipe all those gains out.

How well did the War on Poverty work? I guess I would channel Deng and say, “It’s too soon to tell.”

But of course I supported the War on Poverty and I do not believe that it failed, at least not for the same reasons that the Right does. It worked great at least for a time, and we have a ton of evidence to prove it. They started Medicaid, Medicare, Section 8 housing, I think food stamps, all that stuff goes back to the War on Poverty. Of course the DNC wants to get rid of all of that. The Civil Rights Act went right along with it along with the now overthrown Voting Rights Act. The Housing Rights Act came later. The EPA was created around this time as was HUD.

It was a great thing, but they started to defund it after a while. In other words, they surrendered in the War on Poverty and quit funding it. And then to some extent things headed back in the direction that they were before.

32 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Conservatism, Democrats, Discrimination, Government, History, Housing, Law, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, US, US Politics, USA

Some Sensible Positions For Liberal Race Realists and White Advocates

The problem with White advocates, even those who are not explicitly White nationalists, is that far too many of them are simply out and out racist assholes. Be that as it may, but you won’t get a lot of support for those views here in America. White advocates need to take reasonable stands that the majority will support. People will look at that stance and say, “Hey, that makes sense.” The Left will still scream racist on and on, but it will sound increasingly silly. Your average person will look at the Left screaming racist and say, “Why are they calling this guy a racist? He seems reasonable to me.”

  1. Amend the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby thing. The Left is playing this up as super-radical, but most sane Americans think it’s perfectly reasonable.
  2. Avoid overthrowing civil rights laws. Aside from the moral question, it’s pretty clear that the major civil rights legislation is here to stay, Rand Paul and the Tea Party notwithstanding. Instead, we should focus on the 1991 amendment to the Civil Rights act that deals with disparate impact. The concept of disparate impact is insane, and most reasonable people hate it once they learn about it.
  3. On immigration, instead of saying we want to get rid of non-White immigration (ain’t gonna happen), instead call for IQ tests for some immigrants. The test could be waived for spouses of citizens. In particular, focus on problematic immigrants who cause lots of trouble. Call for IQ tests for Hispanic immigrants for starters. Say Hispanics need to have 98 IQ to come to the US. The average IQ of the US is 98. It’s quite probable that the Hispanics that cause so much trouble fall below the 98 IQ cutoff. Those at 98 IQ and above will generally be good, productive citizens of the type most Americans could be proud of.
  4. Support immigration of White Hispanics to the US. This will drive people insane, because it will be hard to call us racists since the anti-racist nuts keep implying that Hispanic is a race. In addition, it will drive a wedge between Hispanics.
  5. Call for getting rid of US colonies! This is great because no one in the US advocates this except for the hard Left. That puts White advocates in bed with the Left , but that’s not so bad! Call for independence for Puerto Rico, Micronesia, American Samoa, etc. One problem is these places are the source of many problem immigrants because they the immigrants are unscreened, as moving from Samoa to the US is like moving from New York to California.We also come off as anti-imperialist, which once again puts us in bed with the Left, but that’s not so bad! This stealing of the Left’s principled positions will drive the PC Left insane. They will either be forced to defend colonialism in the PC or..? Or what? Or I don’t know. Mostly it will make the PC crowd very confused and angry.
  6. On schools, forget fighting Brown vs BOE. Done deal. Instead focus on busing. Say it’s ridiculous, a waste of money, and it insults Blacks by saying they can’t learn with their own kind but only with Whites. Say we support neighborhood schools. If a neighborhood is mixed, the school is mixed. If the neighborhood is White, the school should be White. If the neighborhood is Black, the school should be Black. The PC folks will be forced to attack this totally reasonable position and will come across like fanatical ideologues.
  7. Say we need to start getting serious about throwing out seriously disruptive students. This is Fred Reed’s view. They can all go to The Psycho Kid’s School for all we care. They have no right to ruin it for everyone else. If Blacks get tossed out more than others, as long as its racially fair (should be investigated), oh well. Maybe Black students should start acting better to not get thrown out of school.
  8. Say we support affirmative action, but only if the Black, etc. is just as qualified as the White he is competing with . This will drive people crazy. Of course, the whole problem with affirmative action is that less qualified non-Whites replace Whites. This will force the PC folks to defend what they have been defending all along, which is the hiring of less qualified non-Whites in favor of more qualified Whites. It’s seen as pretty indefensible, and rightly so.
  9. Say we have no problem with well-behaved Blacks living with Whites who wish to fully integrate into White communities and adopt White culture. Promoting “freedom of association” will get us no where; it’s doomed. Point out that Black culture leaves much to be desired, and Blacks benefit from adopting White culture. This will force the PC crowd into the dubious role of defending Black culture (ahem) while paradoxically attacking White culture as somehow pathological, which is ridiculous. They’ve been doing this all along, but this will force the point.

Most of this stuff will make White nationalists furious, but so what? We will more than make it up with new more moderate followers. Right now, White advocates preaching to a tiny choir.

These positions will drive our enemies insane! They will be totally confused by these views, and they won’t know what to make of them. It will throw a monkey wrench into the whole “White advocates are racist” thing.

39 Comments

Filed under Affirmative Action, Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Colonialism, Culture, Discrimination, Education, Employment, Europeans, Hispanics, Housing, Immigration, Intelligence, Law, Left, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sane Pro-White, Social Problems, Sociology, Useless Western Left, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

Liberal Race Realism: Clearing Up a Few Things

Liberal Race Realism is very much misunderstood. See the first word there? It’s liberal. We have conservatives, reactionaries, fascists, racists and White nationalists constantly trying to get us on board their ships. We’re never getting a boarding pass. Never! Ever! We will never join you!

You know why? Because we are liberals, with a capital L. Liberals don’t do conservatism, reaction, fascism, racist hate, or White Supremacism/White nationalism.

Here is the conundrum for Left-liberalism:

Just supposing that there are differences between the races that are not caused by oppression, racism, etc. This is painfully obvious to anyone who will look. The Left refuses to look, because the reality of the whole mess is bad for the Left. So we say it doesn’t exist, unscientifically. We wish the reality away.

The question of my site is, given that these differences exist, how do we build a Left response, Left theory and Left project that takes this stuff into account? The Left can respond to any reality, any truth, that exists on this Earth. If it’s fact, we can deal with it and work it into our theory somewhat. By running away from these facts, the Left says that these facts are incompatible with Left theory and practice.

Reactionary race realists (most race realists are reactionaries) are already gleefully predicting that the facts of race realism, when they become too obvious to be denied and are widely believed by the population, are going to spell the death of the Left and liberalism for the foreseeable future. Why? Because the facts of race realism tear asunder every presumption of Left theory and practice, I suppose, namely, that we all have equal abilities and temperaments.

Let’s take this one horrible step further. Let us suppose that race realism means that there are genetic differences between the races that societal intervention cannot alleviate.

That means that Blacks will always have lower intelligence than European Whites, no matter what. This means effectively that Blacks will always have, under the present capitalist regime, lower educational outcomes, lower occupational status, lower incomes, poorer housing and neighborhoods, poorer health care outcomes, less wealth accumulation, etc. than Whites, much of this deriving directly from lower intelligence.

As lower intelligence leads to lesser educational attainment, so it leads to less success in the work arena. Lower income and wealth accumulation follows from this, as does poorer housing and neighborhoods and poorer health outcomes, since we must pay for health care in capitalist America.

Ok, so how do we deal with this reality on Left? What do we do, given these facts, if they are facts?

Because the typical response to saying that Black intelligence will be lower than White intelligence for the forseeable future, with all the negativity to follow, is to move to the Right, specifically towards reaction. Most everyone who explicitly adopts this POV is White, and sooner or later they become reactionaries. Usually they start calling for dismantling civil rights protections. Often they go further into advocating a return to segregation or explicit White nationalism/White separatism. They typically become some sort of Libertarians and advocate ending all social spending.

It’s possible that they take this extreme stance because only in the arena of reactionary thought are views about race realism allowed to flourish.

Why can’t Left-liberalism incorporate these facts into its theory and practice?

People are people, no matter what. A human being is a human being, no matter their IQ.

We educate everyone here in America. No one ever said the purpose of education was to raise people’s IQ’s, and anyway, the evidence from the 3rd World is that education does in fact raise IQ via the Flynn Effect. The purpose of education need not be to remove all racial gaps in IQ and achievement, and if they are genetically mediated, which is possible, then the effort will fail anyway.

Surely a Black person with an 85 IQ benefits a lot more from a 12 years of K-12 education than if they received none at all, correct? Are the reactionaries so insane as to believe that all education is wasted on anyone with an 85 IQ? What about White people with 85 IQ’s (16% of the White population)? Would they do better to get zero years of school as opposed to 12 years? Are 12 years of schooling really wasted on them?

If someone is born with lower intelligence, why must this person suffer in poverty their whole life because of what God ordained? Why must they live in inferior housing and an inferior neighborhood over something that’s not their fault? Why should they have poorer health outcomes and less ability to go to the doctor simply because of how they were born? Because this is where the reactionary race realist argument leads to.

Let’s try something else.

Suppose Blacks had the same abilities as Whites, genetically. All of the problems, including low IQ, were simply due the fact that they are fucking up, often on purpose. If this were true, and strangely enough, this sort of follows from liberal beliefs about genes and environment, I would argue for a harsh response to Blacks. Not necessarily cutting them off altogether, but I would certainly be a bit less likely to help them.

But there’s no evidence that that is true.

If Blacks do have low IQ due to things they cannot control, then, as a socialist, I would argue that there is no reason that the higher IQ group ought to obtain dramatically higher income, wealth, housing, living spaces and health than the lower one.

As much as possible, socialists should try to attempt to more equalize incomes, housing, living spaces and health care access for both groups, the higher IQ and the lower.

It’s not going to be possible to equalize educational access, since that would require fudging the test scores, dumbing down the curriculum, or marking up Black scores due to their being Black and marking down White scores due to their being White.

Wealth will be hard to equalize due to the variable of spending and saving.

Why should Whites be allowed to become dramatically richer, healthier, better housed, and live in better places than Blacks, simply because of how the genetic dice got rolled?

Answer: They have no such right. If both groups were equal, and Whites got that way by simply trying harder, then we could make the argument that the White position is just.

Why should Blacks be forced to become dramatically poorer, less healthy, worse housed, and live in worse places than Whites, simply because of how they were born, a variable that they had no control over whatsoever?

Answer: This is not right. It is not just. They should not be forced into these outcomes, and that they are is an outrageous injustice.

If you look at the bolded statements above, you can see that far from being a reactionary or racist movement, Liberal Race Realism is actually progressive, even very progressive.

38 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Capitalism, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Discrimination, Economics, Education, Europeans, Flynn Effect, Health, Housing, Intelligence, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Political Science, Psychology, Public Health, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, White Racism, Whites

James Loewen’s (Sundown Towns) Ethnicity

James Loewen’s ethnicity is the subject of speculation among White nationalists. Loewen is the author of Lies My Teacher Told Me and Sundown Towns, and he has a Sundown Towns project up on his website. He’s extremely liberal, but most sociologists are like that nowadays.

I do support his Sundown Towns project and the book sounds great, but then, I’m not a White nationalist. As far as I am concerned, anyone can live anywhere they want to, and indeed, housing charters are illegal, as they ought to be. I am not so sure of the wisdom of distributing Section 8 Ghetto Blacks all over nice towns and cities, but I do not think that that is Loewen’s project.

One thing I disagree with Loewen on is that White Flight is always a symptom of White racism. It can be, but generally, it is not. If Blacks as a group acted like Asians, I doubt if many would have a problem with them. Blacks claim people hate them just because of how they look, but I doubt it. If they acted like Chinese people, how many would hate them for their dark skin and African features? Get real.

Black behavior in the aggregate, particularly among young Blacks, especially among young Black males, is the cause of much racism against all Blacks in the US. The assimilated types pay with racism for the sins of the Underclass. Most Whites, at least here in California, are pretty reasonable these days, but no one in their right mind wants to live with ghetto types. I wish Loewen and his crowd with acknowledge that.

One thing that Loewen is wrong on is that in his Lies My Teacher Told Me he suggests that the Olmecs of Mexico may have come from Africa. No sensible anthropologists promote this theory, and in fact, it is insulting and even racist towards Amerindians of the Mexico, implying that they are too incompetent to create a great culture, and that such expertise would have had to have been imported from outside.

The African looking features on Olmec statues are actually Mexican Amerindian looking, especially the flat faces. Africans have marked prognathism as a group, and Mexican Amerindians have faces that are nearly flat on a prognathism scale.

They only appear prognathic to us Whites because are extremely non-prognathic on the prognathism scale. That is, Whites score about -2 on the prognathism scale (receding lower faces) whereas Amerindians score about 0 (totally flat faces). Because they are more prognathic than we are, it is assumed that Amerindians are prognathic, while we Whites are not. It’s just an illusion. Such a myth is common among Latin American Whites. I have a chart that shows this, and maybe I will upload it later.

About Loewen’s ethnicity – I have an email to him, but he may not respond. He responded to me earlier though, when I sent him a mail about his Sundown Towns project.

I just did 20 minutes of research on the guy, and I am almost certain that he is a German Catholic. Loewen is either German or Jewish, but his Mom’s name is Winifred (German, not Jewish), he teaches at a Catholic University (How many Jews do that?!), he comes from Decatur, IL (few Jews, probably lots of Germans), and his phenotype appears to be Middle German or High German.

He has a classic German face that few if any Jews have. Further, he appears to be tall and angular. Another classic German type that few Jews share. Specifically, that phenotype appears to be either Nordic or Noric (cross between Nordic and Dinaric), if I am not mistaken.

I have an email to him, but he may not respond.

14 Comments

Filed under Americas, Anthropology, Anti-Racism, Discrimination, Housing, Midwest, Physical, Racism, Regional, The Jewish Question, USA, White Racism

The Death of Detroit

Repost from the old site:

Racists and White nationalists (in practice, identical) like to blame Detroit’s problems on the fact that it is full of Black folks. This is what happens when you have a Black majority city, in the US, Hell, anywhere, they say. I was wondering about it myself for a long time.

How about another look at things? From a Detroit Free Press article, now a dead link, so I am going to violate copyright here, and the article is 10 years old anyway:

A Historian Dissects Detroit’s Trouble

Thomas Sugrue, native Detroiter, historian and author of The Origins of the Urban Crisis , has spent 20 years in major cities in the United States and in London. He came to the Free Press in the summer of 1998 to talk about the conditions that created present-day Detroit, and the implications for journalists. These are excerpts from his talk.

Anyone who has spent time in cities like Detroit in America’s former industrial heartland can’t help but be struck by the eerily apocalyptic landscapes that are so common as one passes through these places.

I asked a simple, but very difficult question: “Why?”

After digging around in the papers of unions and business, civil rights organizations, census data, city records and countless newspaper articles, I arrived at the conclusion that follows: Detroit’s woes began, not in the 1960s with the riot, not with the election of Coleman Young as mayor, not with the rise of international competition and the auto industry’s globalization, they began amid the steaming prosperity and consensus of the 1950s, and in an era about which we have very little to go on apart from hoary shibboleths and cliches.

A THREE-PART STORY

Three sweeping changes transformed the city. These three things, occurring simultaneously and interacting, dramatically reshaped the metropolis of Detroit and other metropolises like it. First was deindustrialization, the flight of jobs away from the city, something that began unnoticed and unheralded in the 1950s.

Next was persistent racial discrimination in labor markets. Racial discrimination remained a very persistent problem despite decades of civil rights activism and some improvement in attitudes and beliefs.

Finally was intense residential segregation, a division of the metropolitan area into two metropolitan areas: one black and one white.

Any one of these forces would have been devastating, but the fact that all three of them occurred simultaneously and interacted with each other proved to have devastating consequences.

WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION

World War II was a great moment of opportunity for working-class Detroiters, black and white alike. The city was a magnet for workers coming from other parts of the country. African-Americans had been pretty much closed out of the industries that provided skilled jobs, but that pretty much ended during World War II.

Only 3 percent of auto workers in Detroit were black in 1940. By 1945, 15 percent of the city’s auto workers were African American. Detroit, then, became a magnet for black migrants who heard about these great opportunities. But the reality for black workers, even in this window of opportunities, was a great deal more complicated and harsher and more frustrating than those statistics would lead us to believe.

DEINDUSTRIALIZATION

One of the supreme ironies of post-war Detroit is that, just as discrimination was under siege, just as blacks found a small window of opportunity in the city’s labor market, that job base began to fall away.

First, beginning in the late ’40’s, and especially in the 1950s, began a process that has continued right up to the present. Jobs began to move out of places like Detroit to low-wage regions in other parts of the United States and the world.

Companies in Detroit began picking up and moving their production to rural Indiana and Ohio, increasingly to the South and, by the 1970s and beyond, increasingly to the Third World — places where wages and other standards were lower than they were in Detroit.

At the same time, industry in Detroit was changing from within. There was introduction of automation, of new, labor-saving technology within the factories. The consequence was a dramatic decline in the number of manufacturing jobs, solid, blue-collar jobs, the jobs that made Detroit the city that it was.

Between 1947 and 1963, a period of unprecedented national economic prosperity, Detroit lost 134,000 manufacturing jobs. This is not the ’70s. This is not when there is any competition from Germany and Japan and Korea for automobiles. These are jobs that were picking up and moving to other parts of the country, or these were jobs that were being replaced by machines.

Workers who had come to Detroit during World War II, seeking opportunities, found their choices seriously constrained. The workers who suffered the worst were African Americans, and they suffered because of seniority.

African Americans, because they didn’t get their foot into the door until the 1940s, were the first to be fired. So, when companies began moving out of Detroit, the burden was borne disproportionately by black Detroiters.

So, in the midst of the 1950s, 15.9 percent of blacks were unemployed, but only 6 percent of whites were unemployed, so we’re talking about black unemployment two and a half times the rate of white unemployment.

RESIDENTIAL DISCRIMINATION

The third and, indeed, probably the most pernicious force was residential discrimination by race. The city was divided into districts by race, divided by invisible lines.

These invisible lines were drawn in a whole bunch of different ways by different groups. The federal government subsidized housing development for whites through the Federal Housing Administration and Home Owners Loan Corporation.

But federal policies prohibited making loans to risky properties, and risky properties, according to federal standards, meant homes in old or homes in racially or ethnically heterogeneous neighborhoods. It meant that, if you were a black trying to build your own home or trying to get a loan to purchase a home, you had many obstacles to face, whereas if you were a white it was really quite easy.

Real estate investors reinforced these invisible racial lines by steering black home buyers to certain neighborhoods and white home buyers to certain other neighborhoods, and stirring up racial anxiety when neighborhoods were along that invisible boundary.

In one west-side neighborhood, in the late 1950s, there were more than 50 real estate agents working a several-block area trying to persuade panicked whites to sell now and sell fast because “they’re moving in.” Real estate agents even went so far as to pay African-American women to walk their children through all-white streets to encourage panic among white homeowners.

Also reinforcing these invisible boundaries were the actions of ordinary people. There were more than 200 violent racial incidents that accompanied the first blacks who moved into formerly white neighborhoods in Detroit.

If you were the first black to move into a formerly all-white block, you could expect, certainly, for your house to be pelted with rocks and stones. In one case, a tree stump went through a window.

Regularly, vandals would break 20, 30 — every window in a house. Arson was another popular tactic.

As newspaper reporters, if such an incident were happening today, you can be sure that you would be covering it, but until 1956, there was not a mention of any of these incidents in Detroit’s daily newspapers. They were off the radar of the major dailies.

This process of housing discrimination set into motion a chain reaction.

Blacks were poorer than whites and they had to pay more for housing. They had a harder time getting loans. Hence, they spent more of their income on the purchase of real estate. They were, by and large, confined to the oldest houses in the city, houses that needed lots of repair work.

Many of their houses deteriorated as a consequence of them being older, not being able to get loans and folks not having all that much money in their pockets. City officials looked out onto the poor housing stock in poor neighborhoods and said, “we should tear this down.”

Moreover, the fact that housing stock was old and in many cases deteriorating in black neighborhoods provided seemingly irrefutable evidence to whites that blacks were irresponsible. “We kept up our property, why aren’t they keeping up their property?

Finally, this neighborhood deterioration seemed to lenders definitive proof that blacks were a poor credit risk and justified disinvestment.

CONCLUSION

To talk about Detroit’s problems beginning in 1967, or beginning with the election of Coleman Young, or beginning with the globalization of the 1970s is to miss the boat.

The pattern of workplace discrimination, of the massive loss of jobs, of the residential balkanization of the city into black and white — this was already well established by 1967. It wasn’t Coleman Young that led to the harsh racial divisions between blacks and whites in metropolitan Detroit. It was there, and had been festering for a long time.

It wasn’t the riot that led to disinvestment from the city of Detroit. Disinvestment had been going on very significantly for years.

And it wasn’t globalization that led to the loss of jobs. That loss of jobs was going on when the auto industry was at its very peak.

IMPLICATIONS

We focus on changing the attitudes and motivations of individual workers, rather than challenging larger discriminatory practices.

We have a policy mismatch, a gap between the reality that I have described and the policy recommendations to try to address those problems.

The premise of welfare reform is to put welfare recipients to work. The problem is that the areas with the greatest job growth in the metropolitan area tend to be the farthest away from where the poorest folk live, in the outer suburbs largely inaccessible by public transportation. So there’s a gap between the reality of jobs and job loss and a policy solution.

Another major one,is downtown revitalization and tourism: “Build casinos and they will come. You need to deal with the deeply rooted problems I’ve described: job flight, racial segregation, discrimination.

We need to think about providing poor people with access to secure, well-paying jobs, wherever those jobs might be.

We need to begin thinking more creatively than we have with the real problem of racial division in our city and in our nation. Conversations on race are not enough. We need to deal with the reality of economic and residential division.

From the Google link to Sugrue’s book, also apparently a dead link, but I copied the text anyway:

The Origins of the Urban Crisis, by Thomas J. Sugrue

Once America’s “arsenal of democracy,” Detroit over the last fifty years has become the symbol of the American urban crisis. In this reappraisal of racial and economic inequality in modern America, Thomas Sugrue explains how Detroit and many other once prosperous industrial cities have become the sites of persistent racialized poverty.

He challenges the conventional wisdom that urban decline is the product of the social programs and racial fissures of the 1960s. Probing beneath the veneer of 1950s prosperity and social consensus, Sugrue traces the rise of a new ghetto, solidified by changes in the urban economy and labor market and by racial and class segregation.

In this provocative revision of postwar American history, Sugrue finds cities already fiercely divided by race and devastated by the exodus of industries.

He focuses on urban neighborhoods, where white working-class homeowners mobilized to prevent integration as blacks tried to move out of the crumbling and overcrowded inner city.

Weaving together the history of workplaces, unions, civil rights groups, political organizations, and real estate agencies, Sugrue finds the roots of today’s urban poverty in a hidden history of racial violence, discrimination, and deindustrialization that reshaped the American urban landscape after World War II.

In a new preface, Sugrue discusses the ongoing legacies of the postwar transformation of urban America and engages recent scholars who have joined in the reassessment of postwar urban, political, social, and African American history.

See also The Fire Last Time, from the Washington Post last year, for more along the same lines.

3 Comments

Filed under Americas, Blacks, Civil Rights, Discrimination, Employment, Housing, Michigan, Midwest, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Sociology, Urban Decay, Urban Studies, USA, Whites