The Ghetto is Public Policy

[StrangeSox]

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a running series on the public policy that has created and reinforced urban ghettos. His latest post is on Chicago.

 

I spent the last week interviewing men and women, and the children of men and women, who bought their homes on contract in Chicago during the 1950s. Contract buying sprang up in Chicago after the federal government effectively refused to insure mortgages for the vast majority of black homeowners, even as it was insuring the mortgages of white homeowners, and encouraged banks to redline black and integrated neighborhoods. The import of mid-20th century housing policy -- along with private actions (riots, block-busting, contract lending, covenants) -- has been devastating for African Americans.

[...]

Jim Crow -- Northern or Southern -- is usually rendered to us as an archaic system in which people irrationally decide to separate from each other just based on skin color. There's a reason that so many of us remember Martin Luther King's line about little white boys and little black boys holding hands. It's comforting to us. Less comforting is that fact that Jim Crow amounted to the legal pilfering of resources from the black communities to advantage white people across generations. In Mississippi, it meant the right to reduce someone to sharecropping, or to benefit politically from their census numbers while not giving them any representation, or to tax them for services they did not enjoy equal access to. In Chicago, it meant the legalized theft of black wealth by white agents.

 

It is very hard to accept this -- the wealth gap is not a mistake. It is the logical outcome of policy and democratic will. From the streets of Cicero on up, the point was to imprison black people in the black belt and then exploit them. The goal was pursued through public policy, private action, and open terrorism. The goal was accomplished.

 

an earlier post here and here

[iamshack]

Wow...that is just disgusting...it isn't necessarily anything I wasn't aware of, but reading some of the details of it is pretty disheartening.

[StrangeSox]

The Chicago History Museum has a section that touches on this, too.

 

That's why it's so infuriating for me to see people blaming the poor for being poor (and this crosses racial boundaries e.g. Appalachia), as if their lot in life is solely or even substantially due to individual moral failures. It's not; poverty is systemic and it's intentional. And whenever we're talking about gang violence and failing urban schools and numerous other topics, we're always dancing around the underlying, unifying problem of poverty.

[StrangeSox]

This was another powerful piece by TNC that he alludes to in his last sentence above, Terrorism is Politics by Other Means

 

This politicized violence erupted with some regularity between the 1940s and 1960s in Chicago. It was it's most spectacular in Cicero. But it occured throughout the city -- at the Airport Homes, in Fernwood Park, in Englewood, in Bridgeport, in Park Manor. Violence was not restricted to "working-class" areas. African-American chemist Percy Julian was named Chicagoan of the Year in 1949. In 1950, white terrorists firebombed Julian's new home in suburban Oak Park. Twice.

 

This kind of terrorism was never as effective as the kind of racist power deployed by the upper classes -- at the University of Chicago, for instance. Indeed, Hirsch's study left me thinking of terrorism as a weapon of the weak -- the unsubdued weak, but the weak all the same. Still, terrorism was a kind of power in Chicago, and Hirsch shows how it made it significantly harder for the advocates of integration to create housing across the city. Think of it like this: Al Qaeda can't end air travel, but it can certainly alter it. Likewise, the White Circle League couldn't stop black succession. But they could seal blacks in and thwart integrations.

 

The point here is two-fold: First, terrorism in the mid-20th century, in the cradle of the North, was common. Second, the terrorism at least partially worked, and when considered as a compliment to the structural violence of developers and the forces of urban renewal, it certainly worked.

 

The ghetto is not a mistake. The racism of white ethnics in Chicago was not due to brainwashing, false consciousness or otherwise being too stupid to recognize their interests. On the contrary, it was the political strategy of one community, attempting to subvert the ambitions of another. The strategy was successful.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think anyone would argue that this stuff didn't happen in the past. But it doesn't happen today. It doesn't happen in Chicago where a great deal of the political leadership is black. People in this City and most of the country are given every opportunity to succeed.

 

[iamshack]

I don't think anyone would argue that this stuff didn't happen in the past. But it doesn't happen today. It doesn't happen in Chicago where a great deal of the political leadership is black. People in this City and most of the country are given every opportunity to succeed.

It also doesn't mean that those currently living in poverty shouldn't do their best to try and improve their lives rather than using the oppression of the past as an excuse.

 

I do realize it is pretty easy for me to sit here and write that though, not having experienced that oppression or not currently living in poverty.

[StrangeSox]

What's our modern urban housing policy besides gentrification? How equal are the educational resources between poor and middle-class or wealthy neighborhoods? Or the economic resources? The social resources? How do you correct generations of systemic, intentional impoverishment? There are still millions who lived through these recent policies or who are the children of those who did. Hell, racist housing/mortgage lending is as recent as the last decade. How can you pretend that people are given equal opportunities to succeed? It's not as if the systemic inequality issues caused by poverty have recently disappeared; they've only gotten worse in the past few decades and are barreling right along that same track.

 

You're really projecting the classic "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple" mentality.

[farmteam]

I don't think anyone would argue that this stuff didn't happen in the past. But it doesn't happen today. It doesn't happen in Chicago where a great deal of the political leadership is black. People in this City and most of the country are given every opportunity to succeed.

No.

 

There's a difference between "giving a place to a minority in a school/company" (ie, affirmative action) and minorities actually succeeding in those arenas. Our country does a lot with the former, but early education is still so terrible that the latter is disproportionately difficult.

 

But like Shack said, it's easy for me as a privileged white male to sit here and write all this without living it.

Edited May 1, 2013 by farmteam

[StrangeSox]

It also doesn't mean that those currently living in poverty shouldn't do their best to try and improve their lives rather than using the oppression of the past as an excuse.

 

I don't agree that the oppression is solely in the past. Even if the blatant, open policies are gone, we are still very much living with the results of those policies and that ongoing inequality is oppression in and of itself. There are still people who personally benefit from making sure the current system which results in exactly this sort of poverty is maintained (this crosses racial lines).

 

I do realize it is pretty easy for me to sit here and write that though, not having experienced that oppression or not currently living in poverty.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

But those problems aren't because white people in power are systematically choosing to keep black people down. You think education sucks in black neighborhoods? What's the ethnicity of the leadership making those decisions? Oh yeah, it's black.

 

And when the CPS just had their strike, wasn't there all sorts of stories that those failing schools actually had everything they needed? That This American Life piece talked about how the Harper High School was doing just fine in that regard (even if future budget cuts caused concern of future lay offs).

 

At the end of the day this becomes a community and individual issue. It's a family issue. It's an upbringing issue. You can give the poorest of poor the best of everything for education (or housing, or anything) and if they don't have any sort of will to better themselves it won't matter.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[iamshack]

What's our modern urban housing policy besides gentrification? How equal are the educational resources between poor and middle-class or wealthy neighborhoods? Or the economic resources? The social resources? How do you correct generations of systemic, intentional impoverishment? There are still millions who lived through these recent policies or who are the children of those who did. Hell, racist housing/mortgage lending is as recent as the last decade. How can you pretend that people are given equal opportunities to succeed? It's not as if the systemic inequality issues caused by poverty have recently disappeared; they've only gotten worse in the past few decades and are barreling right along that same track.

 

You're really projecting the classic "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple" mentality.

It's difficult to disagree with any of the points you make.

 

But you obviously realize these changes don't occur overnight. This kind of systemic historical oppression does not suddenly disappear one morning and everyone is given equal access to all of the above things you mentioned. The long journey does actually begin with a single step. Hopefully that isn't interpreted as advocating more progress more quickly would not be appreciated, but these things take a long time to unravel. Attitudes take time to evolve and change. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

 

Yes, you can continue to point out all the inequalities, but ultimately, does that correct them more quickly than actually trying to advance the policies and programs that seem to be successful? I'm not really sure...

[Jenksismyhero]

What's our modern urban housing policy besides gentrification? How equal are the educational resources between poor and middle-class or wealthy neighborhoods? Or the economic resources? The social resources? How do you correct generations of systemic, intentional impoverishment? There are still millions who lived through these recent policies or who are the children of those who did. Hell, racist housing/mortgage lending is as recent as the last decade. How can you pretend that people are given equal opportunities to succeed? It's not as if the systemic inequality issues caused by poverty have recently disappeared; they've only gotten worse in the past few decades and are barreling right along that same track.

 

You're really projecting the classic "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple" mentality.

 

Well, if your answer is throw money at the problem, we've been doing that for decades and all that does is cause more problems. If you're going to analyze the prior systematic efforts that created ghettos/generational poor, the CURRENT policy of just providing those people with a way of life is equally detrimental and does nothing to solve the problem.

[StrangeSox]

But those problems aren't because white people in power are systematically choosing to keep black people down. You think education sucks in black neighborhoods? What's the ethnicity of the leadership making those decisions? Oh yeah, it's black people.

 

It is? We have a majority-black state legislature that decides how schools are funded?

 

And when the CPS just had their strike, wasn't there all sorts of stories that those failing schools actually had everything they needed? That This American Life piece talked about how the Harper High School was doing just fine in that regard (even if future budget cuts caused concern of future lay offs).

No, not really. A central issue was how under-resourced they were, both in terms of building conditions, classroom supplies and the ability to attract good teachers because of salary and benefits. Do you really want to pretend that schools in Austin have the same resources as New Trier or Naperville 203?

 

TAL noted that Harper was receiving special supplemental funding because they had substantial issues and that this funding was going away shortly, which meant they would have to lay off social workers, which means there are going to be a lot more unhandled issues there.

 

At the end of the day this becomes a community and individual issue. It's a family issue. It's an upbringing issue. You can give the poorest of poor the best of everything for education (or housing, or anything) and if they don't have any sort of will better themselves it won't matter.

You can give the wealthiest of the wealthy the best of everything for education and access and if they don't have any sort of will to better themselves, they might end up as President of the United States after failing in business multiple times. Or they could start up multi-million dollar investment funds based off of their dad's money and contacts. The margins for error are huge; the road to success is paved and smooth and might even have a chauffer should you go off-course a bit. For the poor, the roads are in ill-repair, crumbling on the edge of a cliff that might collapse through no fault of your own, and your car is 20 years old and might break down at any moment.

 

It's really appalling to see the assertion that the poor are poor because they don't have any "will to better themselves," especially from someone born onto third base.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

It's difficult to disagree with any of the points you make.

 

But you obviously realize these changes don't occur overnight. This kind of systemic historical oppression does not suddenly disappear one morning and everyone is given equal access to all of the above things you mentioned. The long journey does actually begin with a single step. Hopefully that isn't interpreted as advocating more progress more quickly would not be appreciated, but these things take a long time to unravel. Attitudes take time to evolve and change. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

 

Agree 100%. Especially the part about it being difficult to agree with anything I said!

 

Yes, you can continue to point out all the inequalities, but ultimately, does that correct them more quickly than actually trying to advance the policies and programs that seem to be successful? I'm not really sure...

 

Absolutely policy is important; that's the goal. But you don't get policy without getting awareness and support, without pointing out these inequalities and getting people to agree with you that they're morally wrong and should be changed. I don't see where I've eschewed pursuing better policies and programs.

[StrangeSox]

Well, if your answer is throw money at the problem,

 

It's not, at least not exclusively

 

we've been doing that for decades and all that does is cause more problems.

Not really.

 

If you're going to analyze the prior systematic efforts that created ghettos/generational poor, the CURRENT policy of just providing those people with a way of life is equally detrimental and does nothing to solve the problem.

 

Absolutely false that providing aid to those who have systematically disadvantaged and oppressed is "equally detrimental" as systematically disadvantaging and oppression people for your own personal profit. It's also wider than just the racial issue that TNC discusses, that's just one of the most blatant abuses.

[iamshack]

Agree 100%. Especially the part about it being difficult to agree with anything I said!

 

 

 

Absolutely policy is important; that's the goal. But you don't get policy without getting awareness and support, without pointing out these inequalities and getting people to agree with you that they're morally wrong and should be changed. I don't see where I've eschewed pursuing better policies and programs.

I wasn't necessarily targeting that towards you...but let's face it, liberals as a whole recently have been big on promises and short on the will to effectuate them.

[Jenksismyhero]

It is? We have a majority-black state legislature that decides how schools are funded?

 

 

No, not really. A central issue was how under-resourced they were, both in terms of building conditions, classroom supplies and the ability to attract good teachers because of salary and benefits. Do you really want to pretend that schools in Austin have the same resources as New Trier or Naperville 203?

 

TAL noted that Harper was receiving special supplemental funding because they had substantial issues and that this funding was going away shortly, which meant they would have to lay off social workers, which means there are going to be a lot more unhandled issues there.

 

 

You can give the wealthiest of the wealthy the best of everything for education and access and if they don't have any sort of will to better themselves, they might end up as President of the United States after failing in business multiple times. Or they could start up multi-million dollar investment funds based off of their dad's money and contacts. The margins for error are huge; the road to success is paved and smooth and might even have a chauffer should you go off-course a bit. For the poor, the roads are in ill-repair, crumbling on the edge of a cliff that might collapse through no fault of your own, and your car is 20 years old and might break down at any moment.

 

It's really appalling to see the assertion that the poor are poor because they don't have any "will to better themselves," especially from someone born onto third base.

 

The people with the real control of the CPS are local, not the state. From CPS leadership to the unions. Funding isn't the majority of the problem for CPS. In some cases, sure. But the lack of funds or the condition of buildings etc. is not the primary cause for CPS failing.

 

We didn't listen to the same podcast. Nowhere did they talk about the kids not having what they needed to get a good education. They talked about the concern of losing a school counselor or a guard or whatever. The school wasn't run down. They had books. They had computers. They had the tools to learn it's just the neighborhood/culture is awful.

 

I wasn't born onto third base. I wasn't poor either. But wtf does that have to do with anything? I see a culture that doesn't value education and worries more about other, inconsequential crap. That's not THE cause of the ghettos/generational poor, but it's sure as hell a problem that you pretend doesn't exist. And really that's where the solution lies. Again, pumping money into the system isn't going to change anything. It hasn't for the last several decades.

 

Edit: and that last paragraph isn't specific to blacks or minorities. There are plenty of poor whites who have the same s***ty mentality with regard to their future. And 95% of it starts with their home life and upbringing, not whether they were provided the newest and fanciest textbooks/tablets/teachers.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I wasn't necessarily targeting that towards you...but let's face it, liberals as a whole recently have been big on promises and short on the will to effectuate them.

 

 

Agreed, modern US liberalism is pretty terrible, time to embrace full-on social democracy

 

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has all sorts of policy proposals, including a full budget with numbers that actually make sense, but this goes completely ignored by both Democratic leadership and the media in favor of Very Serious budget proposals.

Edited May 1, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jake]

We can't get smart policy enacted until we move away from political discourse that blames poor people for poorness. Since it is fathomable that a poor person can become rich, the discourse pretty much stops there. Racism is over, poverty would be over if those assholes worked harder.

[StrangeSox]

The people with the real control of the CPS are local, not the state. From CPS leadership to the unions. Funding isn't the majority of the problem for CPS. In some cases, sure. But the lack of funds or the condition of buildings etc. is not the primary cause for CPS failing.

 

Source?

 

We didn't listen to the same podcast. Nowhere did they talk about the kids not having what they needed to get a good education. They talked about the concern of losing a school counselor or a guard or whatever. The school wasn't run down. They had books. They had computers. They had the tools to learn it's just the neighborhood/culture is awful.

Harper was the focus of a public campaign for underfunded urban schools as recently as 2006. It's possible that some additional resources have been made available, but this is one particular high school out of many.

 

Losing that counselor/social worker is going to have a substantial impact on their ability to handle issues that arise and prevent them from getting deadly. That episode of TAL was focused on gun violence, so it isn't surprising that they did not focus on educational funding and other classroom issues.

 

I wasn't born onto third base. I wasn't poor either. But wtf does that have to do with anything?

Blindness caused by privilege/lack of exposure. You've never been poor, you've never had to 'bootstrap' your way out of poverty and yet you still believe that "everyone is given the chance to succeed." Leading to....

 

I see a culture that doesn't value education and worries more about other, inconsequential crap.

Like just getting by day-to-day in poverty? Again, though, how much do you really 'know' about this 'culture,' what it values, how it operates and why that is?

 

That's not THE cause of the ghettos/generational poor, but it's sure as hell a problem that you pretend doesn't exist. And really that's where the solution lies.

I believe that the "culture" issues you want to scold the poor over (it's not just an urban problem, remember, so let me know what's wrong with Appalachian 'culture') are a direct result of poverty itself and systemic disadvantages which absolutely continue to exist today.

 

It's not because the poor are immoral or make more bad decisions than anyone else or that they're a bunch of lazy, shiftless drug-using leeches. The poor in this country, by and large, work harder than everyone else. The solution doesn't lay in telling them they just need to learn the value of hard work and a good education (which isn't available to many anyway).

 

Again, pumping money into the system isn't going to change anything. It hasn't for the last several decades.

 

Where is all this supposed anti-poverty funding you keep saying has existed for decades? Where are you getting this straw man that I only want to dump money into current structures when I've repeatedly said that the structures themselves are the problem?

[StrangeSox]

We can't get smart policy enacted until we move away from political discourse that blames poor people for poorness. Since it is fathomable that a poor person can become rich, the discourse pretty much stops there. Racism is over, poverty would be over if those assholes worked harder.

Yup, and both of those beliefs are 100% wrong.

[Jenksismyhero]

We can't get smart policy enacted until we move away from political discourse that blames poor people for poorness. Since it is fathomable that a poor person can become rich, the discourse pretty much stops there. Racism is over, poverty would be over if those assholes worked harder.

 

And it would be equally beneficial for your side to actually admit that SOME poor people REMAIN poor because they don't want to work at it. It's fathomable that a poor person that gets their food, shelter, health care, education and personal property handed to them would rather just say "i want more" instead of spending the time/energy to become educated, get a job and get off the system. Or worse, that people who make stupid decisions in life (drugs, crime, kids) actually have some blame. Maybe. Just maybe, that's a possibility?

 

Except for an upbringing, society provides you everything you need to succeed. That is incontrovertible fact. That was my only point. That doesn't mean it's going to be an equal life. That doesn't mean it's not going to be harder. But it's absolutely possible in 2013. The rich white racist boogey-man doesn't exist.

[Jenksismyhero]

Source?

 

Common sense? The fact that there are a number of CPS schools doing just fine? The fact that they just closed a bunch of schools because they were being underutilized and wasting money? I didn't say it wasn't A problem, I said it wasn't THE problem. And to the extent it is a problem, the leadership isn't a bunch of rich white yuppies from the north side making all of the decisions on spending/allocating resources.

 

 

 

Blindness caused by privilege/lack of exposure. You've never been poor, you've never had to 'bootstrap' your way out of poverty and yet you still believe that "everyone is given the chance to succeed." Leading to....

 

And your upbringing clearly exposed you to all of those poor people who work 80 hour weeks and hate being on welfare? GMAB. I took a public housing law/poverty class in law school, and nothing about the way Chicago handle's the poor made me change my opinion on this. As always, there are people that get a bad draw in life and just can't get ahead. But I literally met people who went from Cabrini Green to the new mixed housing buildings and b****ed for 2 hours about not getting more and for having to pay 1/5 of their electric bill. Absolutely anecdotal but I'd bet a lot it's a common feeling.

 

Like just getting by day-to-day in poverty? Again, though, how much do you really 'know' about this 'culture,' what it values, how it operates and why that is?

 

Again, mainly from learning about how Chicago's office handles public housing, my cop buddies who work in the s***tiest neighborhoods and tell me how those kids act, and the news. It's not difficult to conclude that a 20 year old with 4 kids doesn't having education as a top priority.

 

I believe that the "culture" issues you want to scold the poor over (it's not just an urban problem, remember, so let me know what's wrong with Appalachian 'culture') are a direct result of poverty itself and systemic disadvantages which absolutely continue to exist today.

 

It's not because the poor are immoral or make more bad decisions than anyone else or that they're a bunch of lazy, shiftless drug-using leeches. The poor in this country, by and large, work harder than everyone else. The solution doesn't lay in telling them they just need to learn the value of hard work and a good education (which isn't available to many anyway).

 

And I've responded to this argument a thousand times and said I agree generally. But that doesn't mean what I'm pointing out isn't a problem. I acknowledge it, you ignore it.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[farmteam]

The people with the real control of the CPS are local, not the state. From CPS leadership to the unions. Funding isn't the majority of the problem for CPS. In some cases, sure. But the lack of funds or the condition of buildings etc. is not the primary cause for CPS failing.

 

We didn't listen to the same podcast. Nowhere did they talk about the kids not having what they needed to get a good education. They talked about the concern of losing a school counselor or a guard or whatever. The school wasn't run down. They had books. They had computers. They had the tools to learn it's just the neighborhood/culture is awful.

 

I wasn't born onto third base. I wasn't poor either. But wtf does that have to do with anything? I see a culture that doesn't value education and worries more about other, inconsequential crap. That's not THE cause of the ghettos/generational poor, but it's sure as hell a problem that you pretend doesn't exist. And really that's where the solution lies. Again, pumping money into the system isn't going to change anything. It hasn't for the last several decades.

 

Edit: and that last paragraph isn't specific to blacks or minorities. There are plenty of poor whites who have the same s***ty mentality with regard to their future. And 95% of it starts with their home life and upbringing, not whether they were provided the newest and fanciest textbooks/tablets/teachers.

Exactly. Which is at least partially the result of the policies SS was talking about in his first post.

[farmteam]

And I've responded to this argument a thousand times and said I agree generally. But that doesn't mean what I'm pointing out isn't a problem. I acknowledge it, you ignore it.

You're right, it is a problem. Just focusing on different things, I guess.