Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[RDKirk]

No, I think you (and he) are both confused about what redlining is. Redlining was always about the profit motive.

In 1935, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) asked the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) to look at 239 cities and create "residential security maps" to indicate the level of security for real-estate investments in each surveyed city. "Type D" neighborhoods were outlined in red and were considered the most risky for mortgage support.

They weren't outlined in red because black people lived there. They were outlined in red because of financial risk. That means they could legally charge more interest, because the loans were riskier. But what was made illegal was not serving those areas.

As I frequently say, there is always more than one thing happening.

Because of the overall racist nature of whites in those years, businesses did not want to be known as associating with blacks, regardless of the economic capacity of those blacks. White neighborhoods did not want black residents, regardless of the economic capacity of those blacks.

Because of the overall racist nature of whites in those years, black residential areas were commonly deprived of city services and residential zoning protection, which certainly brought down property values regardless of the economic capacity of the blacks living in them.

So, yes, they could make an economic argument to withhold business from those areas, but it was all still based on underlying racist policies. More than one thing was happening, so more than one thing was true.

 

[rturner76]

It didn't go to court. They settled out of court

Why would they settle when they've done nothing wrong?

 

[rturner76]

It seems like math isn't a strong point either.

499 years?

400 years blood sweat and tears.

 

[rturner76]

I wonder what excuses people have for this bank

Justice Department Secures Agreement with Lakeland Bank to Address Discriminatory Redlining

The Justice Department announced today an agreement to resolve allegations that Lakeland Bank (Lakeland) engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by “redlining” in the Newark metropolitan area, including neighborhoods in Essex, Somerset and Union counties in New Jersey. This...

www.justice.gov

 

[RDKirk]

Why would they settle when they've done nothing wrong?

You say that as though you don't know it happens all the time.

 

[rjs330]

What you, and others, appear to be implying is that it was wrong for the government to make redlining illegal.

Because redlining is about putting lines around places on a map, not about explicit discrimination against people of various races.

And yet, in practically the same breath you take satisfaction in the progressive laws of the the past (assuming that the problem was fixed and systemic racism has vanished). But the Fair Housing Act forbade redlining -- that is, underserving regions on a map (due to racial make-up). That is what the bank was accused of doing, and what you consider government over-reach.

Huh? I never said that. This bank never put a line around anything. They never had a policy or a rule that said they would not loan to anyone in that area.

The government never proved that's what happened and they never admitted they did.

Yes this was government over reach accusing the bank of something they weren't doing. Simply because they didn't like the banks numbers.

 

[rturner76]

You say that as though you don't know it happens all the time.

When it does, is there any evidence of wrongdoing?

 

[rjs330]

Humm....... And that goes for Asians, brown people, and all the other people with money that don't go to that neighborhood huh? They're okay with being around black people in other neighborhoods, just not in that neighborhood..... Interesting.

Well I think way back when we had white flight there was a rather significant amount of whites that did leave cause they didn't want to be around black folks.

There were areas where I don't believe it was necessarily racist, but based upon differences of culture and not simply skin color.

 

[rjs330]

No, I think you (and he) are both confused about what redlining is. Redlining was always about the profit motive.

In 1935, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) asked the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) to look at 239 cities and create "residential security maps" to indicate the level of security for real-estate investments in each surveyed city. "Type D" neighborhoods were outlined in red and were considered the most risky for mortgage support.

They weren't outlined in red because black people lived there. They were outlined in red because of financial risk. That means they could legally charge more interest, because the loans were riskier. But what was made illegal was not serving those areas.

Right, they couldn't do that and had to base loans on individuals and not areas. And in this case that was not proven to have been happening either. In fact it was individual numbers the government was focused on. There were no red lines around any areas.

 

[rjs330]

I wonder what excuses people have for this bank

Justice Department Secures Agreement with Lakeland Bank to Address Discriminatory Redlining

The Justice Department announced today an agreement to resolve allegations that Lakeland Bank (Lakeland) engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by “redlining” in the Newark metropolitan area, including neighborhoods in Essex, Somerset and Union counties in New Jersey. This...

www.justice.gov

I don't know what to say about this I e because no details were provided as to what the bank was actually doing.

It's hard to comment on something when you dont know what actually happened.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well I think way back when we had white flight there was a rather significant amount of whites that did leave cause they didn't want to be around black folks.

There were areas where I don't believe it was necessarily racist, but based upon differences of culture and not simply skin color.

Again; so they were okay with differences of culture in other neighborhoods, just not this one? Something just isn't adding up!

 

[rturner76]

I don't know what to say about this I e because no details were provided as to what the bank was actually doing.

It's hard to comment on something when you dont know what actually happened.

It pretty much says what they were accused of. It's just an example showing that banks are still using racist practices and getting caught from time to time. I wonder how many slip through and get away with it. But yeah, redlining is about as systemic as you can get.

 

[Ken-1122]

But yeah, redlining is about as systemic as you can get.

I disagree. If redlining is not a part of the system (bank policy) you can't call it systemic. And when you consider black and brown people make up the vast majority of the population in Los Angeles (white people are a minority), it would be unrealistic for such a bank to not employ some black and brown people in some of it’s branches, and if such a policy were in place, these people would get the word out real quick.

 

[rturner76]

I disagree. If redlining is not a part of the system (bank policy) you can't call it systemic. And when you consider black and brown people make up the vast majority of the population in Los Angeles (white people are a minority), it would be unrealistic for such a bank to not employ some black and brown people in some of it’s branches, and if such a policy were in place, these people would get the word out real quick.

I think they did get the word out and that's why the bank is on the grill. Why stick up for a bank or make excuses for a bank with racist practices?

 

[Pommer]

I disagree. If redlining is not a part of the system (bank policy) you can't call it systemic. And when you consider black and brown people make up the vast majority of the population in Los Angeles (white people are a minority), it would be unrealistic for such a bank to not employ some black and brown people in some of it’s branches, and if such a policy were in place, these people would get the word out real quick.

There needs to be a policy that is written down (somewhere) that says “Don’t loan money to ‘the Blacks!” before it’s evidence of systemic racism?
Opening a branch of your bank that does not offer loans to the surrounding community is just…what? Over-sight?

 

[RDKirk]

When it does, is there any evidence of wrongdoing?

If it doesn't go to court, we don't know what the evidence was.

 

[RDKirk]

There needs to be a policy that is written down (somewhere) that says “Don’t loan money to ‘the Blacks!” before it’s evidence of systemic racism?
Opening a branch of your bank that does not offer loans to the surrounding community is just…what? Over-sight?

It's an indication that they don't get enough loan inquiries to pay a loan officer to sit and scroll through TikTok.

 

[Ken-1122]

There needs to be a policy that is written down (somewhere) that says “Don’t loan money to ‘the Blacks!” before it’s evidence of systemic racism?

Yes! To call it systemic racism, the system (policies and rules in place) has to be racist; not just the people working there.

Opening a branch of your bank that does not offer loans to the surrounding community is just…what? Over-sight?

It could be oversight, it could be racism, it could be some other reason; but it is not systemic racism.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think they did get the word out and that's why the bank is on the grill. Why stick up for a bank or make excuses for a bank with racist practices?

What evidence do you have that the bank rules were racist rather than the people working there being racist?

 

[Ana the Ist]

400 years blood sweat and tears.

I don't think we've been a nation for 400 years.