If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he say that?It was never insinuated that those legal circumstances persist; only their long-term consequences.
If they’re cheap, how come poor blacks don’t go there?Again, location. Trailer parks are located where there are already a majority of white people, and because they’re cheap, that’s where the poor white people go.
Not all black people living in urban areas have been there for generations upon generations, many choose to move from one city to the next even though their roots are not in the new city. However whatever reason they choose to live in the city, that is their choice; not some systemic force.Poor black people have no reason to seek out trailer parks when they’re far away from where they already have roots, which tends to be cities.
Yes it does! That is what my disagreement is all about? What did you think we were having; a rich man vs poor man argument?It doesn’t matter how land stacks up against other investments.
You seem to be making a completely different argument than what the other guy and I were having before, you seem to be making the rich man vs poor man argument, you seem to be making the case that families with a history of wealth (be it land or some other valuable asset), have it better off than families without such wealth, and because blacks were prevented from generating wealth in the past, this has an effect today.We’re comparing all landowners against all non-land owners, not just the small subset who don’t own land but own similarly valued assets. We’re testing for wealth here, so it doesn’t make any sense to correct for it in the sample population.
We’re not saying land is a magical commodity that makes you a higher-class citizen over all non-landowners, we’re saying a history of land ownership in the family — something black people were historically barred from having and still struggle to gain — lends you a demonstrable material advantage over those who do not.
If this is your claim, I will agree with you.
Upvote
0