| A big thing I've noticed - especially on HN which is mostly white and male - is we perhaps fundamentally disagree on what 'racist' means. To me I view racism as a larger umbrella. Includes bias, both on the surface but also more broadly what has been cultivated as a society. Context is very important in my definition viewpoint. centuries of historic oppression, which led to unequal wealth, opportunity, and more. ongoing bias which discriminates in hiring and opportunity and more. I view this context as a kind of 'prior' (to use a ML term I don't fully understand lol) when assessing whether or not something is 'racist.' While on the other hand it seems like some view racism as solely a person knowingly and vocally treating one ethnicity differently and discriminating openly. To me I agree with parent and I hold the larger viewpoint. Because of centuries of oppression BIPOC have less money, less opportunity, own less housing, communities are segregated don't have nearly as much ownership in the 'single family neighborhoods' & that community which drives the policy we are talking about. I don't think one can ignore that context, and its implicit bias, when looking at why these laws, regulations, zoning were (and are) being passed. And plus many times it's also explicitly racist like the latter viewpoint; like the language Trump & Republicans use about 'invading' the suburbs. |
Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist. No one is stopping any race of people from moving to the suburbs, no law is stopping any members of any race from moving to the suburbs, etc.
You can definitely make the claim that suburbs are classist, but racist? No.