RACISM SOLVED on IIDB! "This whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing."

[Harry Bosch]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

72% of land or 20.6 million hectors is either farmland or forest. Famers own large amounts of land but earn wages far less than average. I have a buddy growing 2,100 acres of brocolli, onions, and beans. And he is barely squeaking by. Owning land is overrated.

Yep. My extended family has owned 600 acres of forestland in the Sierra Foothills for 99 years now (starting with my long dead grandfather). We made some money in 1957 and in 1974 selling some timber, and in 1982 we sold some rock for emergency road building for a small chunk of change. Due to the collapse of the timber industry in California in recent years and a major wildfire that swept through in 2020 we are unlikely to ever make any more timber sales. So, that's 96 years of negative net income (paying for taxes, insurance and maintenance) and 3 years of income. The land is essentially worthless as a moneymaker, but the recreational value is priceless.

Well, I'll bet that the area is beautiful! But yea, the problem with land is that often dosn't generate great cash flow. The old saying land rich, cash poor. There is quite a trend of younger people getting great high paying jobs in the city; living in a condo with no maintenance and travelling the world. Home ownership is dropping in popularity.

 

[Janice Rael]

That's not what Redlining is.

It's really not.
Back in the day, redlining was the norm (at least around here).
It's when bankers and realtors team up, informally, to keep the black people in the black part of town. Realtors wouldn't show homes to people if they were not the right race for the area and banks wouldn't give mortgages to people if they didn't match the neighborhood.
It was profoundly racist. But since it was private parties collaborating informally it was hard to root out. And people do tend to prefer living where the neighbors are similar to them.
It's gotten way better in the last 50 years or so. But people still prefer having neighbors who look and behave like them.
Tom

Tom: that isn't correct. Redlinning originated as I described above (I'm a former corporate banker, was a VP at a bank). The "redline maps" actually originated from the Federal Home Loan bank board. The FHLBB sent out maps where they would not allow refinance due to the age of the houses in that area. The FHLBB isn't the only source of financing for banks. But many banks automatically adopted these maps (from the federal government). Below is a good link on this:

Redlining

Explore the Federal Reserve's history

www.federalreservehistory.org

Individual cases of bankers and relators "teaming up" against black home owners may have happened. I'm sure it did. Having said that, this would reduce their closing deals and would lower their commissions. I've never met a banker or a relator who didn't care about closing deals! However, this is not redlinning.

I am not surprised at all, in fact, I am delighted, to see a former banker deny the racist reality of Redlinig.

What next, are there any Realtors here who are also Redlining Denialists??

My gosh. The Caucasity.

Redlining is a discriminatory practice in which financial services are withheld from neighborhoods that have significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities. Redlining has been most prominent in the United States, and has mostly been directed against African-Americans.

It is right HERE.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

 

[bilby]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

72% of land or 20.6 million hectors is either farmland or forest. Famers own large amounts of land but earn wages far less than average. I have a buddy growing 2,100 acres of brocolli, onions, and beans. And he is barely squeaking by. Owning land is overrated.

A farmer who owns in excess of £9,000,000 worth of land, and is not able to make it return more than £35,000 a year, should sell their land and buy stocks and bonds.

The numbers say that you are wrong; Is the farmer actually the owner, or is he a mortgage holder? Is he actually earning far more than £35k pa, but feels less wealthy than average?

And when we are talking about the landholdings if the 1% who are the heirs of medieval aristocrats, are we talking about mere thousands of acres? Or mere farmland? The Dukes of Westminster own a shitload of land that grows no crops at all - they have farmed Londoners for centuries, and it's very lucrative indeed.

 

[Janice Rael]

Oh my gosh, why was it the actual former banker who was the one who was wrong about his job in front of me. lol

I, too, was a banker! Oh yes! Been there, sold that, won the contests.

jfc. Maybe a new thread is in order; "Redlining Denialism" or something. sheesh.

Residential housing segregation and urban tree canopy in 37 US Cities - npj Urban Sustainability

Redlining was a racially discriminatory housing policy established by the federal government’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) during the 1930s. For decades, redlining limited access to homeownership and wealth creation among racial minorities, contributing to a host of adverse social...

www.nature.com

• Article
• Open access
• Published: 25 March 2021

Residential housing segregation and urban tree canopy in 37 US Cities​

• Dexter H. Locke,
• Billy Hall,
• J. Morgan Grove,
• Steward T. A. Pickett,
• Laura A. Ogden,
• Carissa Aoki,
• Christopher G. Boone &
• Jarlath P. M. O’Neil-Dunne

npj Urban Sustainability volume 1, Article number: 15 (2021) Cite this article

• 31k Accesses
• 125 Citations

Cite this article​

Locke, D.H., Hall, B., Grove, J.M. et al. Residential housing segregation and urban tree canopy in 37 US Cities. npj Urban Sustain 1, 15 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00022-0

Abstract

Redlining was a racially discriminatory housing policy established by the federal government’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) during the 1930s. For decades, redlining limited access to homeownership and wealth creation among racial minorities, contributing to a host of adverse social outcomes, including high unemployment, poverty, and residential vacancy, that persist today. While the multigenerational socioeconomic impacts of Redlining are increasingly understood, the impacts on urban environments and ecosystems remain unclear.

lol the banker said redlining wasn't racist!

 

[Gospel]

That's not what Redlining is.

It's really not.
Back in the day, redlining was the norm (at least around here).
It's when bankers and realtors team up, informally, to keep the black people in the black part of town. Realtors wouldn't show homes to people if they were not the right race for the area and banks wouldn't give mortgages to people if they didn't match the neighborhood.
It was profoundly racist. But since it was private parties collaborating informally it was hard to root out. And people do tend to prefer living where the neighbors are similar to them.
It's gotten way better in the last 50 years or so. But people still prefer having neighbors who look and behave like them.
Tom

Tom: that isn't correct. Redlinning originated as I described above (I'm a former corporate banker, was a VP at a bank). The "redline maps" actually originated from the Federal Home Loan bank board. The FHLBB sent out maps where they would not allow refinance due to the age of the houses in that area. The FHLBB isn't the only source of financing for banks. But many banks automatically adopted these maps (from the federal government). Below is a good link on this:

Redlining

Explore the Federal Reserve's history

www.federalreservehistory.org

Individual cases of bankers and relators "teaming up" against black home owners may have happened. I'm sure it did. Having said that, this would reduce their closing deals and would lower their commissions. I've never met a banker or a relator who didn't care about closing deals! However, this is not redlinning.

I am not surprised at all, in fact, I am delighted, to see a former banker deny the racist reality of Redlinig.

What next, are there any Realtors here who are also Redlining Denialists??

My gosh. The Caucasity.

Redlining is a discriminatory practice in which financial services are withheld from neighborhoods that have significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities. Redlining has been most prominent in the United States, and has mostly been directed against African-Americans.

It is right HERE.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

The age of the houses was a factor, a factor used as a pretext to justify unfair treatment of Black people, ultimately leading to the systemic racism known as redlining.

Edit: And when you consider that the system also prevented Black people from moving into new neighborhoods, it becomes clear how the focus on the age of the houses was part of a full-circle strategy of systemic racism.

 

[Harry Bosch]

That's not what Redlining is.

It's really not.
Back in the day, redlining was the norm (at least around here).
It's when bankers and realtors team up, informally, to keep the black people in the black part of town. Realtors wouldn't show homes to people if they were not the right race for the area and banks wouldn't give mortgages to people if they didn't match the neighborhood.
It was profoundly racist. But since it was private parties collaborating informally it was hard to root out. And people do tend to prefer living where the neighbors are similar to them.
It's gotten way better in the last 50 years or so. But people still prefer having neighbors who look and behave like them.
Tom

Tom: that isn't correct. Redlinning originated as I described above (I'm a former corporate banker, was a VP at a bank). The "redline maps" actually originated from the Federal Home Loan bank board. The FHLBB sent out maps where they would not allow refinance due to the age of the houses in that area. The FHLBB isn't the only source of financing for banks. But many banks automatically adopted these maps (from the federal government). Below is a good link on this:

Redlining

Explore the Federal Reserve's history

www.federalreservehistory.org

Individual cases of bankers and relators "teaming up" against black home owners may have happened. I'm sure it did. Having said that, this would reduce their closing deals and would lower their commissions. I've never met a banker or a relator who didn't care about closing deals! However, this is not redlinning.

I am not surprised at all, in fact, I am delighted, to see a former banker deny the racist reality of Redlinig.

What next, are there any Realtors here who are also Redlining Denialists??

My gosh. The Caucasity.

Redlining is a discriminatory practice in which financial services are withheld from neighborhoods that have significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities. Redlining has been most prominent in the United States, and has mostly been directed against African-Americans.

It is right HERE.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Holy cow! Thank you for the personal attack! I defined redlining as it occurred and how its defined by the government. At the time, the FHLBB didn't understand the racial significance of it and how it negatively affected black areas (really affected all people living in those areas.) In 1968 the government outlawed the practice by banks (I think it was fair lending law, but don't hold me to that). Redlinning is prohibited today. As a side not, redlinning affected reservations greater than older areas. Bottom line here, I was pointing out that initially, redlinning originated to lower defaults on mortgages (older homes generally default at a higher rate that newer ones). But the FHLBB didn't realize how it would negatively affect power neighborhoods.

 

[Harry Bosch]

That's not what Redlining is.

It's really not.
Back in the day, redlining was the norm (at least around here).
It's when bankers and realtors team up, informally, to keep the black people in the black part of town. Realtors wouldn't show homes to people if they were not the right race for the area and banks wouldn't give mortgages to people if they didn't match the neighborhood.
It was profoundly racist. But since it was private parties collaborating informally it was hard to root out. And people do tend to prefer living where the neighbors are similar to them.
It's gotten way better in the last 50 years or so. But people still prefer having neighbors who look and behave like them.
Tom

Tom: that isn't correct. Redlinning originated as I described above (I'm a former corporate banker, was a VP at a bank). The "redline maps" actually originated from the Federal Home Loan bank board. The FHLBB sent out maps where they would not allow refinance due to the age of the houses in that area. The FHLBB isn't the only source of financing for banks. But many banks automatically adopted these maps (from the federal government). Below is a good link on this:

Redlining

Explore the Federal Reserve's history

www.federalreservehistory.org

Individual cases of bankers and relators "teaming up" against black home owners may have happened. I'm sure it did. Having said that, this would reduce their closing deals and would lower their commissions. I've never met a banker or a relator who didn't care about closing deals! However, this is not redlinning.

I am not surprised at all, in fact, I am delighted, to see a former banker deny the racist reality of Redlinig.

What next, are there any Realtors here who are also Redlining Denialists??

My gosh. The Caucasity.

Redlining is a discriminatory practice in which financial services are withheld from neighborhoods that have significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities. Redlining has been most prominent in the United States, and has mostly been directed against African-Americans.

It is right HERE.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

The age of the houses was a factor, a factor used as a pretext to justify unfair treatment of Black people, ultimately leading to the systemic racism known as redlining.

Edit: And when you consider that the system also prevented Black people from moving into new neighborhoods, it becomes clear how the focus on the age of the houses was part of a full-circle strategy of systemic racism.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

 

[Gospel]

really affected all people living in those areas.

Yeah fa sho. That's where the term 'white flight' comes from. While the value of white people's homes might also have declined, they had the option to move to new neighborhoods—an option that was systematically denied to Black people.

 

[Janice Rael]

really affected all people living in those areas.

Yeah fa sho. That's where the term 'white flight' comes from. While the value of white people's homes might also have declined, they had the option to move to new neighborhoods—an option that was systematically denied to Black people.

I knew about white flight from my mom (ugh) and grandparents. They stayed in West Oak Lane, in Philadelphia, PA, when all the white folks moved to South Jersey or to southern states, etc. All the West Oak Lane homes were bought by then-upwardly mobile Black families. My grandparents were like, "Welcome, new neighbors!" My mom's best friend was a Black woman who was the Maid of Honor in my parents' wedding. I knew her because she was one of my mom's only friends who would visit her in the hood, in The 'Boro, when I was growing up. Her being in the wedding was almost more scandalous than my mom being Catholic and my dad being very Protestant, like, Lutheran, or something. But no one in our families felt scandalized at all, about either.

I spent every summer and every holiday in West Oak Lane, in Philly, and I lived there in 1986. We were still the only white family, no one cared. As I type this, I am not only living 10 minutes away from there, I'm along the same major street.

I have known Realtors. I know what I know the way I know it.

 

[TomC]

Tom: that isn't correct. Redlinning originated as I described above (I'm a former corporate banker, was a VP at a bank).

I don't doubt that what you are describing also happened.

It's not what I mean by redlining. I described that. I doubt that you were taught about it in school. Because back then, late 50s to early 2000s, people "just didn't talk about it".

Protecting your interests by distinguishing between property likely to increase in market price and likely to lose market price makes perfect sense to me. But that's not all that was going on for all those decades. Some of it was profoundly racist.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

The FHA, a key part of Roosevelt's New Deal, was designed to stabilize the economy after the Great Depression. However, the reality was that many white people believed said economic stability should benefit only them.

Aww, my heart goes out to those innocent white people who couldn't possibly have seen it coming—despite participating in it or watching it unfold for 30 years.

 

[thebeave]

I found this very interesting

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror’s army​

70% of the land in Britain is still owned by 1% of the population, largely descended from William the Conqueror's army

Norman descendants are still doing very fine in today's Britain.

www.zmescience.com

It suggests that the effects of privilege have long lasting, permanent effects that can last hundreds of years. If this is true, the claims of black people that they are still damaged by the effects of slavery should be taken very seriously.

But what's the land value?? It's like out here in the west there's a lot of government land but most of it is pretty much useless.

There is very little low value land in the UK. There are 67 million people in an area the size of Michigan.

It is NOTHING like "out here in the west". At all.

The cheapest land in the UK (in the Scottish Highlands) sells for around £4,500/acre (~US$5,700).

72% of land or 20.6 million hectors is either farmland or forest. Famers own large amounts of land but earn wages far less than average. I have a buddy growing 2,100 acres of brocolli, onions, and beans. And he is barely squeaking by. Owning land is overrated.

Yep. My extended family has owned 600 acres of forestland in the Sierra Foothills for 99 years now (starting with my long dead grandfather). We made some money in 1957 and in 1974 selling some timber, and in 1982 we sold some rock for emergency road building for a small chunk of change. Due to the collapse of the timber industry in California in recent years and a major wildfire that swept through in 2020 we are unlikely to ever make any more timber sales. So, that's 96 years of negative net income (paying for taxes, insurance and maintenance) and 3 years of income. The land is essentially worthless as a moneymaker, but the recreational value is priceless.

Well, I'll bet that the area is beautiful! But yea, the problem with land is that often dosn't generate great cash flow. The old saying land rich, cash poor. There is quite a trend of younger people getting great high paying jobs in the city; living in a condo with no maintenance and travelling the world. Home ownership is dropping in popularity.

It is very beautiful. Our own little private paradise in the woods.

 

[thebeave]

That's not what Redlining is.

It's really not.
Back in the day, redlining was the norm (at least around here).
It's when bankers and realtors team up, informally, to keep the black people in the black part of town. Realtors wouldn't show homes to people if they were not the right race for the area and banks wouldn't give mortgages to people if they didn't match the neighborhood.
It was profoundly racist. But since it was private parties collaborating informally it was hard to root out. And people do tend to prefer living where the neighbors are similar to them.
It's gotten way better in the last 50 years or so. But people still prefer having neighbors who look and behave like them.
Tom

Tom: that isn't correct. Redlinning originated as I described above (I'm a former corporate banker, was a VP at a bank). The "redline maps" actually originated from the Federal Home Loan bank board. The FHLBB sent out maps where they would not allow refinance due to the age of the houses in that area. The FHLBB isn't the only source of financing for banks. But many banks automatically adopted these maps (from the federal government). Below is a good link on this:

Redlining

Explore the Federal Reserve's history

www.federalreservehistory.org

Individual cases of bankers and relators "teaming up" against black home owners may have happened. I'm sure it did. Having said that, this would reduce their closing deals and would lower their commissions. I've never met a banker or a relator who didn't care about closing deals! However, this is not redlinning.

I am not surprised at all, in fact, I am delighted, to see a former banker deny the racist reality of Redlinig.

What next, are there any Realtors here who are also Redlining Denialists??

My gosh. The Caucasity.

Redlining is a discriminatory practice in which financial services are withheld from neighborhoods that have significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities. Redlining has been most prominent in the United States, and has mostly been directed against African-Americans.

It is right HERE.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Holy cow! Thank you for the personal attack! I defined redlining as it occurred and how its defined by the government. At the time, the FHLBB didn't understand the racial significance of it and how it negatively affected black areas (really affected all people living in those areas.) In 1968 the government outlawed the practice by banks (I think it was fair lending law, but don't hold me to that). Redlinning is prohibited today. As a side not, redlinning affected reservations greater than older areas. Bottom line here, I was pointing out that initially, redlinning originated to lower defaults on mortgages (older homes generally default at a higher rate that newer ones). But the FHLBB didn't realize how it would negatively affect power neighborhoods.

Choose your words carefully, or you might find them the subject of a new thread. Ask me how I know.

 

[Janice Rael]

I defined redlining as it occurred and how its defined by the government.

I know!

 

[Gospel]

That's not what Redlining is.

It's really not.
Back in the day, redlining was the norm (at least around here).
It's when bankers and realtors team up, informally, to keep the black people in the black part of town. Realtors wouldn't show homes to people if they were not the right race for the area and banks wouldn't give mortgages to people if they didn't match the neighborhood.
It was profoundly racist. But since it was private parties collaborating informally it was hard to root out. And people do tend to prefer living where the neighbors are similar to them.
It's gotten way better in the last 50 years or so. But people still prefer having neighbors who look and behave like them.
Tom

Tom: that isn't correct. Redlinning originated as I described above (I'm a former corporate banker, was a VP at a bank). The "redline maps" actually originated from the Federal Home Loan bank board. The FHLBB sent out maps where they would not allow refinance due to the age of the houses in that area. The FHLBB isn't the only source of financing for banks. But many banks automatically adopted these maps (from the federal government). Below is a good link on this:

Redlining

Explore the Federal Reserve's history

www.federalreservehistory.org

Individual cases of bankers and relators "teaming up" against black home owners may have happened. I'm sure it did. Having said that, this would reduce their closing deals and would lower their commissions. I've never met a banker or a relator who didn't care about closing deals! However, this is not redlinning.

I am not surprised at all, in fact, I am delighted, to see a former banker deny the racist reality of Redlinig.

What next, are there any Realtors here who are also Redlining Denialists??

My gosh. The Caucasity.

Redlining is a discriminatory practice in which financial services are withheld from neighborhoods that have significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities. Redlining has been most prominent in the United States, and has mostly been directed against African-Americans.

It is right HERE.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Holy cow! Thank you for the personal attack! I defined redlining as it occurred and how its defined by the government. At the time, the FHLBB didn't understand the racial significance of it and how it negatively affected black areas (really affected all people living in those areas.) In 1968 the government outlawed the practice by banks (I think it was fair lending law, but don't hold me to that). Redlinning is prohibited today. As a side not, redlinning affected reservations greater than older areas. Bottom line here, I was pointing out that initially, redlinning originated to lower defaults on mortgages (older homes generally default at a higher rate that newer ones). But the FHLBB didn't realize how it would negatively affect power neighborhoods.

Choose your words carefully, or you might find them the subject of a new thread. Ask me how I know.

If it’s any consolation, it turned out to be a great conversation starter. And just so you know, it wasn’t about you—but even if it was, you're looking sharp, brotha.

 

[Gospel]

For anyone who might have missed this in English or Language Arts class in high school, the main subject of the original post is the opinion that ancestry related to slavery—whether as a slave or a slaveholder—is insignificant and should be treated as little more than a trivial detail, perhaps worth mentioning in casual conversation but not deserving of much importance.

 

[Janice Rael]

heh, sharp elbows, maybe

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize the 70s ended 45 years ago?

You realize that some of those people are still alive today, and their descendants are still impacted by the horrific racism they endured? Just look at this "culture" that I've seen racist white people bitching about across the internet. Racists white people helped create that regardless of how hard many try to distance themselves from this reality.

And helping other blacks will do nothing to undo the damage they suffered. Unless you have a time machine you can't fix the past. All we can do is try to be fair going forward--and attempting to equal things out actually produces a very unfair result. We should be looking for equal going forward, but trying to shift existing things to "equal" actually is extremely unfair.

The fundamental problem here is that there should be no concept of equality with groups. It's individuals that matter. If Adam has $10, Amy has $10, Bob has $15 and Barbara has $5 the As are equal to the Bs, but the people certainly aren't equal. And creating a Bob in the name of fairness for the Barbara makes the situation more unfair, not less.

That’s like saying that if you break your leg, don’t bother going to the doctor because even if your bones are set and properly casted and you do all the things you’re supposed to do: elevate, rest, use crutches, etc. until your bone heals, you will still have had a broken leg.

A broken leg can heal. We don't have a time machine, we can't fix what's happened.

I note that you are completely not addressing that Bob and Barbara are equally unfair. And you haven't helped Barbara one bit. You have pretended to help by making the Bs equal to the As but that's just perpetuating the wrong, not fixing anything. You need to quit caring about A vs B, just look at individuals.

Apparently you do not care at all about individuals unless they are Asian or white. Otherwise, they are relegated to average test scores and GPAs .

Apparently your faith doesn't allow you to see what I'm saying. I care about people. Not about their skin color.

Please explain how giving Bob $15 in any way helped the wrong Barbara suffered in getting $5? How does it make society better off rather than worse off??

I have zero idea what you are talking about with Bob and Barbara.

I don't really care.

Look up the quoting--I'm referring to my example above.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

True, but that doesn't mean that a movement has a current cause.

That’s exactly my argument against Affirmative Action. It lacks a current justification. If hate crime laws had been established in the 1960s (or even earlier, in my opinion), there wouldn’t have been a need for the appeasement that Affirmative Action represents. DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) feels like just an updated version of the same flawed approach.

I don't think hate crimes laws would have avoided the need for affirmative action. There was a social problem--having black people in your company was a detriment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, if a bank is found to engage in unfair practices, any individual involved in perpetuating racist practices within the corporation would face immediate legal consequences. If it's determined that these issues are systemic and driven by leadership, we would then hold each individual up the chain accountable, potentially leading to arrests at all levels. Fuck em.

It can be very hard to prove mens rea. Just because they were involved doesn't mean they knew about the problem.

And what exactly constitutes "racist practices"?? I'm thinking of an incident from something like 20 years ago--we had one employee who kept going to unsafe websites. There was some discussion of how to handle it (this was before blocking it was an easy solution.) Firing him was considered, but his wife also worked for us and the owner did not feel comfortable with firing him without also letting her go. And those were the only two black people in the company at that time. He was worried about facing an allegation of discrimination.

Was he guilty of "racist practices"? Race most certainly was a very important factor in his choice. Was I guilty of "racist practices" for being involved in what was going on but taking no action?

Or consider the "redlining" issue from ~25 years ago. By Occam's Razor the most logical explanation is that the banks were looking at expected appreciation and the discrimination warriors were not. Most people seem to think they they were guilty.