Slums are the products of the people who live in them. When blacks move into white neighborhoods the quality of the neighborhoods declines. If whites move back in the process of gentrification, the quality goes back up again.
I’ve noticed you’ve shifted from fact-based arguments to opinion-based. Probably because your “facts” have been shown to be false, so you’re forced to fall back on your dislike/distrust/disdain for black people.
:rolleyes: Gee, where have I heard that before?
You know, if you dodge, weave, and scramble every time your claims are shown to be false, you will eventually find yourself with nowhere to stand.
There have been occasions when your first sentence has described a situation, but it has never happened the way that you claim. For years, the only “white” neighborhoods into which blacks were permitted to move were those that were already in decline. When an already deteriorated neighborhood reached a certain level of black population, the word went out that the blacks had ruined the neighborhood. Real estate salesmen discovered that they could use the perception that blacks had “ruined” a neighborhood to sell a lot of houses. It was called blockbusting. Salesmen would wander into a neighorhood and lie to people that their neighbors were selling out to blacks. This would often cause the more easily misled to panic and put their house on the market. Suddenly, a large number of people were selling at the same time, depressing the price and letting in poorer people–not even all black. The people moving in could not necessarily afford to maintain the houses in their previous states, so the neighborhood began to deteriorate. In neighborhoods where the people banded together to prevent blockbusting, blacks moved in without causing a panic sell and the neighborhoods remained stable. Simultaneously, banks began to redline such neighborhoods, regardless of their actual upkeep, charging much higher loan rates for much smaller loans so that people living there could not afford to do as much upkeep, further harming the neighborhoods.
It is a shame that you are more willing to believe unethical salesmen and bankers rather than actually looking at history.
Of course, your post was simply a ploy to avoid answering the point that you were wrong about the timing of corporations moving out of cities, so it is not surprising that you failed to get this history correct, as well.
Conversely, the average IQ scores of Whitopias or Sundown Towns would constitute no evidence for (or against) the genetic superiority of white people.
Quote:
An additional factor may be that blacks are considered to be less capable and less reliable, even for factory work. I have read that when foreign companies open auto plants in the United States they deliberately build them away from black neighborhoods because they do not want to hire blacks. This would not be irrational color prejudice, but the knowledge that blacks tend to be less intelligent and more dangerous than whites and Orientals.
This statement is totally untrue. The fact is most Japanese and Korean auto plants have been built in the Middle and Depp South, and most employ substantial numbers of black employees.
The incentive for the transplant auto factories was that they could avoid the unions (UAW).
People imagine that the big issue with the UAW is wages…this is not true (Hyundai, Toyota, etc., pay comparable wages). The real issue are the work rules, and the need to pay union shop stewards, who do nothing productive.
I’d say the real issues the auto companies have with the unions are the pensions and other benefits, which the UAW has been, especially in the past, really good at negotiating for. That’s the issue more than having to pay shop stewards. But, that’s a hijack, and off the topic of why it’s the Blacks’ fault that everyone hates America.
All this finger pointing, from wars to the Lizard People, and nobody has blamed the REAL culprit from the mid-sixties, Vatican II? The world went to Hell in a handbasket after they banned the Latin Mass, I tells ya.
So are you now saying that white people are genetically predisposed to positive real estate value and black people to negative real estate value? I’d love to know where that gene is hiding.
It is not a single gene. It is probably a constellation of genes. Those who disagree need to point to neighborhoods where the crime rate declined, and where test scores in public schools improved when the neighborhoods turned from black to white.
In the late 1970s San Jose, California was a blighted city. The influx of impoverished Vietnamese war refugees turned it in to a large city with the lowest crime rate of any large city in the United States.
And, of course, the creation of Silicon Valley had absolutely nothing to do with that growth or economic development.
(Interestingly, San Jose was, in 1980, about 64% non-Hispanic white and the number of blacks living there was a tiny fraction of the total. On the other hand, San Jose has become one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the nation, which argues against your earlier claims that only ethnic monoculture is capable of achieving sccess or harmony in the world. Are there ANY claims that you make that are actually supportable by facts? 
)