[ta2164]

You're straw manning hard. No one is making the claim that laws of the past weren't racist. Now, they're not, and so Asians, Indians, Africans (as in recent African immigrants), etc. all flood to the suburbs because suburbs are decidedly not racist, and are free of the riff raff.

>Saying, "we only like the economic segregation part now" doesn't change the outcome.

Correlation does not imply causation. It's no secret that Asians (a historically disadvantaged POC) flock to the suburbs. They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist.

[cheriot]

"They are de facto not barred from suburbs, meaning suburbs are de facto not racist"

You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism. Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning. It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so.

Example: "More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se...

"Correlation does not imply causation."

The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f...

When the origin and outcome are both racist then policy itself is clearly racist.

[ta2164]

>You're pretending that explicit racism is the only form of racism.

I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative. Suburbs are de facto and de jure not racist.

>Modern zoning was invented precisely because the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial zoning.

This is not entirely true. Zoning laws in LA and NYC predate explicit racial zoning, and survived past the 1917 Supreme Court ruling.

>It was designed to racially segregate and continues to do so.

Again, not entirely true, and definitely no longer true. Asians, Jews, Indians, Africans, etc. are all more likely to reside in suburban areas now, so they by definition do not "racially segregate and continues to do so".

>"More than 80% of America’s large metropolitan areas were more racially segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-se...

Your link literally agrees with me: "Many of these policies were not designed to oppress."

>The history is well documented. Read Color of Law or for a shorter form: https://grist.org/cities/zoned-out-one-womans-half-century-f...

Poor opinion piece that conflates zoning and segregation laws, which is what many people have been doing because it's politically expedient.

>When the origin

Maybe, but not entirely.

>and outcome

Provably not so. Asians/Indians (a historically disadvantaged POC), Africans, etc. are all flooding to suburbs, which means they are de facto no longer racist, and do not have a racist outcome. QED.

[cheriot]

> I'm not pretending, racism is racism, you don't get to redefine what words mean in order to fit your narrative.

I’m done arguing with a throwaway account if you’re going to be intentionally naive. “It’s not racist because it doesn’t specifically talk about race” is logical cowardice.

The rest of your comment is similarly tortured. That some POC succeed despite racism does not mean racism doesn’t exist.