[theorique]

There exists a win-win equilibrium for upper class people.

It's an advantage for wealthy, educated blacks to live in mostly white neighborhoods, because it shows that they've "made it" according to the (admittedly racist) standards of success.

And it's an advantage for the white majority in such a neighborhood to have a few blacks around to demonstrate how incredibly non-racist they are.

(Obviously, the underclass (of whatever race) gets left out to dry.)

[gyepi]

As a one time wealthy, educated black person, I take offence at this characterization.

I live in mostly white neighborhoods because that's where I and my family wanted to live.

It was not to show that we had "made" it or to give the neighbors the opportunity to demonstrate their lack of racism. I think, far too often, people focus on race and don't realize that class distinctions are frequently better indicators.

On that basis, it seems quite reasonable to choose to live amongst people who are similar to me and not amongst those who aren't.

As it turns out, I'm now in South Africa and it's easier to see my point. Most of my neighbors are black or "colored" but I live near them because it's a nice neighborhood and not becuase of their race.

[tw268]

I don't get the romanticization of the under class. In poor neighborhoods, there are lots of noise, litter, and crime and few good role models. Why would you want that in your neighborhood? To prove how open-minded you are?

[theorique]

Almost nobody wants that. Even liberals who speak on behalf of the poor generally don't want their kids to attend the same schools as "the poor", nor do they want to live in the same neighborhoods as "the poor".

Generally, a poor neighborhood is a good place to be from, to contrast with present circumstances and look at how far you've come. It's not a good place to be.