Buy or Sell: Drawing the Color Line

[QueensburyRules]

I don't know when it first occurred only that it did.
Black troops under white officers fought in the Civil war ,but not I believe alongside White Union troops
Buffalo soldiers were segregated from White units and had separate barracks facilities etc .
Black soldiers were not allowed in combat inWW1
I think they were relegated to transport and non combat roles in WW2 as well,but I havent made a study of it,
Joe Louis and Ray Robinson while in the uniform of the US Army got into an altercation with White MPs for using a Whites only phone on their Army base.
Audiences to watch Louis give exhibitions were segregated in the US ,when the US Army tried to enforce that in the UK Louis got it dropped.
The **** Black people had to endure in the US is a shameful part of its history.The UK has its own shameful history ,events that occurred during its "Empire days" Belgium is another with a brutal colonial past.
When Floyd Patterson first visited the South he took photos of the separate drinking fountains,and the Whites only signs.
When Dorothy Dandridge the entertainer took a swim in the pool of a hotel she was working in the guests had it drained.
The mind set of some of these bigots is unbelievable, and if we did not have the proof of it throughout history it would be viewed as not credible.

- - Tell U what, don't tell me about what U know not about the history of my country, and I won't utter a word about your family, some of whom doubtless ended up over here making chop steak of the hamhanded history that U chop up..

[Ivich]

- - Tell U what, don't tell me about what U know not about the history of my country, and I won't utter a word about your family, some of whom doubtless ended up over here making chop steak of the hamhanded history that U chop up..

Q. Anything untrue in what I posted?
A.No

Q Did I imply or say that the US was unique in its mistreatment of Blacks?
A.No

You know nothing about my family.

You're just a thick **** who wants to have a row with everybody on line.

Despite African American soldiers' eagerness to fight in World War II, the same Jim Crow discrimination in society was practiced in every branch of the armed forces. Many of the bases and training facilities were located in the South, in addition to the largest military installation for Black soldiers, Fort Huachuca, located in Arizona. Regardless of the region, at all the bases there were separate blood banks, hospitals or wards, medical staff, barracks and recreational facilities for Black soldiers. And white soldiers and local white residents routinely slurred and harassed them.

Tell You What Go **** Yourself!

[QueensburyRules]

Were there covenants that stated people were forbidden to sell homes to you or your family because of your race?

CRT seems to have a point, once again.

We were redlined that meant loans and interest rates were more expensive. We had a unique deed restrictions, ie no granny additions and no chickens.

Most US neighborhood stock, ie the vast majority of housing built from 1950 >>> don't have black covenant restrictions.

In the 60s savvy black entrepreneurs would target a neighborhood they wanted and over pay a homeowner to sell to a black couple that resulted in an immediate precipitous property value plunge and just buy up the stock for quick turn around to qualified black buyers, a sorta scam that caused huge problems in these Northern cities.

You use US school stats, so can you point out in federal regulations established by their bureaucracy that are against black folk?

[travestyny]

We were redlined that meant loans and interest rates were more expensive. We had a unique deed restrictions, ie no granny additions and no chickens.

Most US neighborhood stock, ie the vast majority of housing built from 1950 >>> don't have black covenant restrictions.

In the 60s savvy black entrepreneurs would target a neighborhood they wanted and over pay a homeowner to sell to a black couple that resulted in an immediate precipitous property value plunge and just buy up the stock for quick turn around to qualified black buyers, a sorta scam that caused huge problems in these Northern cities.

You use US school stats, so can you point out in federal regulations established by their bureaucracy that are against black folk?

I think you are missing the point. The neighborhoods were redlined. Your people were not. You were free to move to other areas, provided your family could afford it. And white folks were actually given incentives to do so. Subsidized housing was made available to White folks, but not to black folks. Black folks were not given those same benefits. Most of the banks were discriminating against people based on their RACE.

If it's your purpose here to say your family had it as bad as Black families at that time, I'm calling big BULLSHlT on that.


As for your final question, I don't understand what you are asking for. Federal regulations in education that are against Black folks? I've already explained how this worked about three times here. Redlining affected mostly **********. WHITE people were given subsidized housing to move to the 'burbs. Black people weren't allowed. The subsidized housing value appreciated, while Blacks had slum lords. The property tax used to pay for education meant those White neighborhoods would have much better schooling than the Black neighborhoods. I don't know any other way to break this down for you.

Rothstein's new book, The Color of Law, examines the local, state and federal housing policies that mandated segregation. He notes that the Federal Housing Administration, which was established in 1934, furthered the segregation efforts by refusing to insure mortgages in and near African-American neighborhoods — a policy known as "redlining." At the same time, the FHA was subsidizing builders who were mass-producing entire subdivisions for whites — with the requirement that none of the homes be sold to African-Americans.

African-American families that were prohibited from buying homes in the suburbs in the 1940s and '50s and even into the '60s, by the Federal Housing Administration, gained none of the equity appreciation that whites gained. So ... the Daly City development south of San Francisco or Levittown or any of the others in between across the country, those homes in the late 1940s and 1950s sold for about twice national median income. They were affordable to working-class families with an FHA or VA mortgage. African-Americans were equally able to afford those homes as whites but were prohibited from buying them. Today those homes sell for $300,000 [or] $400,000 at the minimum, six, eight times national median income. ...

https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

[Willie Pep 229]

I think you are missing the point. The neighborhoods were redlined. Your people were not. You were free to move to other areas, provided your family could afford it. And white folks were actually given incentives to do so. Subsidized housing was made available to White folks, but not to black folks. Black folks were not given those same benefits. Most of the banks were discriminating against people based on their RACE.

If it's your purpose here to say your family had it as bad as Black families at that time, I'm calling big BULLSHlT on that.


As for your final question, I don't understand what you are asking for. Federal regulations in education that are against Black folks? I've already explained how this worked about three times here. Redlining affected mostly **********. WHITE people were given subsidized housing to move to the 'burbs. Black people weren't allowed. The subsidized housing value appreciated, while Blacks had slum lords. The property tax used to pay for education meant those White neighborhoods would have much better schooling than the Black neighborhoods. I don't know any other way to break this down for you.

I agree with everything you say about trapping black people into city neighborhoods but TOTALY disagree that government subsidies facilitated the white flight of the 1940s through the 1960s.

Union driven pay increases via (of predominately white) labor unions, eminent domain buy outs from the HUD projects, and a step up the social ladder by second generation Ellis Island immgrants who benefited from successful post secondary school education, that financed the creation of the suburbs. NOT G subsidies.

I am not saying no to any of the obstacles you claim held back black opportunity, I agree they were there and deliberate, but don't discredit those whites that better themselves, by claiming G gave them what they earned. I'm not buying that BS!

Yes whites didn't face the same obstacles as black, but G DID NOT give them the free ride your passage above suggest.

There has been more G money spent on black city housing then spent white suburbian housing.

Stick to the 'redlining' argument. Uncooperative real estate agencies and a conspiracial absence of mortgage opportunity from banks. Those were the true segregation tools.

Any G insured mortgage opportunity made avaible to whites was avaiable to blacks. E.g. Carol City, Florida.

[QueensburyRules]

I think you are missing the point. The neighborhoods were redlined. Your people were not. You were free to move to other areas, provided your family could afford it. And white folks were actually given incentives to do so. Subsidized housing was made available to White folks, but not to black folks. Black folks were not given those same benefits. Most of the banks were discriminating against people based on their RACE.

If it's your purpose here to say your family had it as bad as Black families at that time, I'm calling big BULLSHlT on that.


As for your final question, I don't understand what you are asking for. Federal regulations in education that are against Black folks? I've already explained how this worked about three times here. Redlining affected mostly **********. WHITE people were given subsidized housing to move to the 'burbs. Black people weren't allowed. The subsidized housing value appreciated, while Blacks had slum lords. The property tax used to pay for education meant those White neighborhoods would have much better schooling than the Black neighborhoods. I don't know any other way to break this down for you.

- - Son, I told you, I live in historic South Austin that was ALWAYS integrated according to the demographics of the day before the city annexed us.

The city proper was largely integrated from most of it's inception until the 30s when they segregated the people into white, brown, and black districts. We were never part of that, and anyone north of us could live anywhere in our neighborhoods.

Subsidized housing for black folks in what became the projects was a step up until it wasn't because they were segregating the poor black folk from the middle class/well to do black folk.

U cite federal school stats to make illicit CRT points without citing any regulations to prove your point. Never heared of subsidized suburbs, but what municipalities and States do is offer businesses tax incentives to relocate that sparks housing booms that are strictly developer generated, though today the local govt offers subsidies to build the new projects for affordable housing, ie mass scale apartment units where "affordable" units are built with "regular" units.

I suggest you drop CRT here. I don't like to see threads locked.

Boxing has traditionally existed one on one white vs black vs brown vs ***, vs Catholic, vs Protestant vs big vs small and so on, and sadly sometimes outside politics interfere in matchs as we have discussed ad infinitum.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Son, I told you, I live in historic South Austin that was ALWAYS integrated according to the demographics of the day before the city annexed us.

The city proper was largely integrated from most of it's inception until the 30s when they segregated the people into white, brown, and black districts. We were never part of that, and anyone north of us could live anywhere in our neighborhoods.

Subsidized housing for black folks in what became the projects was a step up until it wasn't because they were segregating the poor black folk from the middle class/well to do black folk.

U cite federal school stats to make illicit CRT points without citing any regulations to prove your point. Never heared of subsidized suburbs, but what municipalities and States do is offer businesses tax incentives to relocate that sparks housing booms that are strictly developer generated, though today the local govt offers subsidies to build the new projects for affordable housing, ie mass scale apartment units where "affordable" units are built with "regular" units.

I suggest you drop CRT here. I don't like to see threads locked.

Boxing has traditionally existed one on one white vs black vs brown vs ***, vs Catholic, vs Protestant vs big vs small and so on, and sadly sometimes outside politics interfere in matchs as we have discussed ad infinitum.

There is right now a new Simon Whisler YouTube video about Jack Johnson, America's First Black Champion.

He opens the narrative by arguing that post civil war Galveston TX was oddly enough not a segregated society, arguing that the island was populated by poor white and blacks living in mixed neighborhoods.

That Johnson ran with a gang of young boys that was racially mixed.

If this is true it would go a long way to explaining why Johnson didn't carry the inferiority complex that held back so many black men back during those days.

[QueensburyRules]

Q. Anything untrue in what I posted?
A.No

Q Did I imply or say that the US was unique in its mistreatment of Blacks?
A.No

You know nothing about my family.

You're just a thick **** who wants to have a row with everybody on line.

Despite African American soldiers' eagerness to fight in World War II, the same Jim Crow discrimination in society was practiced in every branch of the armed forces. Many of the bases and training facilities were located in the South, in addition to the largest military installation for Black soldiers, Fort Huachuca, located in Arizona. Regardless of the region, at all the bases there were separate blood banks, hospitals or wards, medical staff, barracks and recreational facilities for Black soldiers. And white soldiers and local white residents routinely slurred and harassed them.

Tell You What Go **** Yourself!

- - How quaint. You know a few ABCs and 123s about the US and want to preach a sermon that nobody listens to. That's OK. It just adds to U dumbo scale as a representative of your family. What U measurement on the ThickQ scale of thick?

Stick to boxing so we can properly record U KO losses for perpetuity.

[travestyny]

I agree with everything you say about trapping black people into city neighborhoods but TOTALY disagree that government subsidies facilitated the white flight of the 1940s through the 1960s.

Union driven pay increases via (of predominately white) labor unions, eminent domain buy outs from the HUD projects, and a step up the social ladder by second generation Ellis Island immgrants who benefited from successful post secondary school education, that financed the creation of the suburbs. NOT G subsidies.

I am not saying no to any of the obstacles you claim held back black opportunity, I agree they were there and deliberate, but don't discredit those whites that better themselves, by claiming G gave them what they earned. I'm not buying that BS!

Yes whites didn't face the same obstacles as black, but G DID NOT give them the free ride your passage above suggest.

There has been more G money spent on black city housing then spent white suburbian housing.

Stick to the 'redlining' argument. Uncooperative real estate agencies and a conspiracial absence of mortgage opportunity from banks. Those were the true segregation tools.

Any G insured mortgage opportunity made avaible to whites was avaiable to blacks. E.g. Carol City, Florida.

Dude, that is a fact that housing in the suburbs was subsidized for White Americans only. I don't think that's taken away from White folks bettering themselves, but many were certainly given a hand.

How the Federal Government Built White Suburbia

Federal housing policies didn’t just deny opportunities to black residents. They subsidized and safeguarded whites-only neighborhoods.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...white-suburbia

I really haven't said anything controversial. It's literally a part of American history.

[QueensburyRules]

There is right now a new Simon Whisler YouTube video about Jack Johnson, America's First Black Champion.

He opens the narrative by arguing that post civil war Galveston TX was oddly enough not a segregated society, arguing that the island was populated by poor white and blacks living in mixed neighborhoods.

That Johnson ran with a gang of young boys that was racially mixed.

If this is true it would go a long way to explaining why Johnson didn't carry the inferiority complex that held back so many black men back during those days.

- - Indeed, Pep, but to be clear we always do need to remember the tragedies of segregation, except when segregation suits the self segregated like the local public girls school here grooming girls for leadership.

Anyway, with CRT gaining traction, well...
1*c6Ji5hxrWVad4afEga-hXw.png