Scorpion0x17 wrote:
lowing wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Erm...
Perhaps that's because people that "do not want to live in a racially diverse neighborhood, and do not want racial diversity moving into their neighborhood" are racist.
Like I've said before - when you make it a race issue, it is racist, when it's a purely economic issue, it isn't.
You need to make your mind up - either you're talking about race - in which case you are a racist - or you're talking about economics - in which case, don't talk about it in racist terms.
Or, people that do not want racial diversity knows exactly what racial diversity will eventually bring to an area, generally speaking, and it is not wanted. You do know that upper class and middle class minorities move away from these areas, for the same reasons right? Or are they racist as well?
:face: :palm:
Really, how hard is this to grasp, lowing?
If person A moves to/away from an area
for purely economic reasons, then, no, that's not racist.
But, if person A moves to/away from an area
based on the ethnic mix of that area, then, yes, that is racist.
I am not calling it racist. It makes perfect sense to me. What I am admitting to, however, is the automatic assumption, based on statistics, and real life, that when minorities start moving in it is time to sell, because the long term outcome will be a negative for your neighborhood and your school. The decision to move away IS based on "diversity" moving in, but for very good reason.
The OP does not suggest the segregation has anything to do with economics, it is a racial divide. This does not make it a racist issue though. The racial divide is a result of statistics that support the fact that with minorities moving in, generally speaking, so does trouble.
The action is race related, but the reasoning is sound, so how do ya categorize that one? You are trying to seporate the 2 and you can't regarding this issue.
Last edited by lowing (2009-01-20 03:49:47)
