Reply #103: Uhhm... your book review/report doesn't contradict what I'd quoted. [View All]

[LooseWilly]

From Wiki-Oakland, again...

Prior to World War II, blacks constituted about 3% of Oakland's population. Aside from restrictive covenants pertaining to some Oakland hills properties, Jim Crow laws mandating racial segregation did not exist in California, and relations between the races were mostly harmonious. What segregation did exist was voluntary; blacks could, and did, live in all parts of the city. <30>

You did see those first words, right? "Prior to World War II" ?

I then quoted the following paragraph.

The war attracted to Oakland large numbers of laborers from around the country, though most were poor whites and blacks from Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Mississippi—sharecroppers who had been actively recruited by Henry J. Kaiser to work in his shipyards. These immigrants from the Jim Crow South brought their racial attitudes with them, and the racial harmony that Oakland blacks had been accustomed to prior to the war evaporated.<30> Southern whites expected deference from their black co-workers, and initially Southern blacks were conditioned to grant it.<31> As Southern blacks became aware of their more equal standing under California law, they began to reject subservient roles. The new immigrants prospered, though they were affected by rising racial discrimination and informal postwar neighborhood redlining.<31>

Comparing that with the initial portion of your excerpt:

World War II brought a large number of blacks into the city, whom were segregated in West and North Oakland (51). The black community was prevented from owning property both through racial housing covenants keeping them out of most neighborhoods in the East Bay, especially ones in the new suburban cities, and banks refusing to loan money for mortgages (15, 104).

I see that both mention WWII bringing large numbers of "laborers from around the country" vs. "blacks into the city". The Wiki goes on to say "most were poor whites and blacks from Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Mississippi—sharecroppers who had been actively recruited... These immigrants from the Jim Crow South brought their racial attitudes with them, and the racial harmony that Oakland blacks had been accustomed to prior to the war evaporated." (which is appended with the footnote:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/26/MNFUSA80E.DTL&hw=Betty+Reid+Soskin&sn=003&sc=552 , which seems to be drawn from the conclusions reached in "The War," by filmmaker Ken Burns- his seven-part PBS series.)
On the other hand, your book review seems to dismiss the influences of contemporaneous white immigrants, one way or the other... but instead to jump directly to the details of the "redlining"... which is mentioned in the Wiki article, but not examined in great detail.

So, while your book review/book report source seems to include the same information about black immigrants stemming from WWII, and it seems to include a greater examination of the redlining (which I never denied)... it does not actually contradict anything I included from the Wiki. Maybe you can find something in the book itself that will state that there was no corresponding influx of white laborers from the South bringing Jim Crow law notions with them?...

In the meantime, differences in focus are not the same thing as inaccuracies.

On the other hand, the point of my citing the information about Oakland was to juxtapose the situation before WWII vs. the situation after WWII in Oakland.

To the extent that the redlining that your book review/book report delves in great detail of the subject of redlining (a practice which, like "Jim Crow laws mandating segregation" wasn't practiced before, apparently) only goes to further my point that the experience of being black in Oakland was different before and after WWII. Hence, different from place to place (Oakland vs. the South before WWII)... as well as different from time to time (Oakland before WWII vs. Oakland after WWII).

And as for the detailing of crumbling infrastructure and declining funding for public measures in Oakland... believe me I've seen the results up close.. it is in fact so acute in Oakland that one can literally see the city lines with the naked eye. The sidewalks are cleaner and the nature and shininess of the storefronts are distinct from one side of the Oakland/Emeryville city line, and even more distinct at the Oakland/San Leandro city line. (Ironically, the Berkeley city line is not nearly so distinct.) I won't even speak of the Piedmont city line, which is actually somewhat distinct even from the nice Oakland Hills homes. On the other hand, West Oakland has finally cleaned up the rubble of the Cypress Overpass which collapsed in 1989, and made a nice stretch of parkland (after doing millions and millions of dollars of industrial toxic waste cleanups).


So... should I expect a critique on the differences I highlighted in percentages of free vs. unfree black populations in the North and South in 1810, also, before you get around to reconciling the differences that I have pointed out with the "iron cladedness" with which you seem to hold your permutation of the "one drop rule"?... Or should I expect you to try to pretend that the rest of that post didn't exist so we can instead go round and round about Oakland?