"This, combined with a number of racist and restrictive laws limiting where Chinese were allowed to live within the city, led to the growth of Chinatown, which today comprises 24 square blocks." https://timeline.com/in-pictures-the-making-of-san-francisco...
This video talks about how African-Americans were driven to certain communities by realtors and discriminated against from living in other, more desirable areas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RHppw20Zm8
You are forgetting that those kinds of neighborhoods have developed in part because other people have taken mild-to-extreme steps to prevent "those" people from living with them.
Known steps in the US include at the very least: - rules preventing "those" people from living in some places - mild-to-extreme actions against "those" people when they move in - people leaving when too many of "those" people move in
I.e., "People are free to live anywhere they want" is completely wrong, even in living memory.
Not because they want to be around people that are similar to themselves?
And the fact that the same pattern shows up basically everywhere. In Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and to some extent South America, does not change your perception?
No, because the empowered class artificially created ghettos, and either forced racial separation directly or indirectly by removing access to societal resources, forcing communities to form to compensate. Of course Cuban refugees will form Spanish speaking communities in a hostile Florida - everything is in English (which they're still learning), many local whites don't want them there and sometimes make that very apparent, and the community is already filled with people with the same background that "made it work," so can offer useful advice and resources.
This doesn't change anything about diversity bringing power, when one can overcome societal biases and racism.
After all, that would make them a stronger force, and definitely give them more diversity.
The point is that self-sorting doesn't by definition mean that humans are inherently racist or that it's natural/ethical to oppress minority populations, which I take as one of the many bad taste implications from this thread.
So the cubans now live side by side with mexicans? And both they and mexicans/south americans self-identify as hispanics/latinx and not cubans, mexicans or something else?
And having a Cuban American cultural exchange is just an oddity of history? And is now more the latinx american cultural exchange?
That also doesn't necessarily mean that diversity = bad. It's easier to stay at home and watch Netflix than it is to travel to a foreign country and experience their culture, yet every time I do the latter, no matter how uncomfortable the trip can make me at times, I always come back grateful I did the trip, and imo a far better person.
Europe had pogroms before it had WWII. United States were racially legally segregated long after WWII. The Asian history does not lack racism either.
In this respect, it's certainly not less "racist" than any other continent's history.
If you by racism means tribal or national sentiment to live together with others from the same tribe or nation. Then yes, what you call "racism" shaped it everywhere. I would hesitate to call it racism however, as it seems to be a universal human trait.
In United States, it would be cleansing of land from natives and rhetoric around it. It would be rhetoric of slavery and later Jim crow and so on. In Europe it would be very eacial ideology of Nazi and previously pogroms and relationships against Jews. In Africa, I am pretty sure colonial history applies. In Asia, check out Rwanda for genocide or Japan for general racism.
I missed Africa, because I never really read much about any part of their history, unlike Europe, United States and Rwanda. Not sure why that would be issue.
I disagree
In some some cities in California, a former mexican territory, there were property deeds that explicitly forbade selling to mexicans
Where do you think mexicans ended up living?
Then someone can come along and point and say look every race prefers to live among their own kind
With regards to Eastern European people living close to each other was when mutual help due to shared struggle was needed. It however spreads out as people get integrated, in the second generation latest.
The black/white racial segregation did not happened by random either. At minimum, there was economic motivation to keep street whites only. (Keeping it black only was not as economically advantageous, there is asymmetry there.)
People like to be in familiar environments. Especially after moving to another country. Because of that its natural to end up with clusters of people sharing something in common even when there was no outside pressure.
I’m now lived in three countries for a longer period of time and its interesting to feel this connection with people from back home even though you never met them before.
Take for example the relationship between a man and woman.
If both want to live with each other, everything is fine.
What if the man wants to associate with the woman, but she doesn't? Do we force her to accept the man? Does he have a right to access her?
Obviously that's silly. We all know that the relationship is only valid if BOTH parties consent.
And yet in regards to neighborhoods the sibling replies act as if only the man's opinion mattered. "That Jew wanted to come in but was refused! People were not free to associate!" They ignore that refusing someone is also part of the freedom of association.
People shouldn't be imprisoned or killed for being racist - but they should be scorned, shamed, and cause disgust when their viewpoints are aired.
And this is undesirable with no restrictions which is why societies constrain the freedom of association, in particular, in the US, via various "Civil Rights" acts.