Multiple international conflicts, technological progress, and growth of the middle class that took place in the 20th century provoked a wave of immigration. Individuals from many countries around the globe moved to the USA in pursuit of the “golden opportunity” that was largely promoted through the expansion of the commercial activities and development of a new value of individualism (California Newsreel).
Since the postwar period in the USA, property was regarded as the main source of wealth accumulation. With the support of governmental policies and advertising practices, long-term and low-interest mortgages appeared. The intention was for house-ownership to become available to all (Nicolaides and Wiese 258). However, the federal programs and the system of bank lending only increased the social segregation and unequal distribution of wealth. And it is possible to say that the current advantages of the White population and the disadvantaged position of the minor racial groups are the consequences of the social, political, and commercial practices that took place throughout the 1930s to 1970s.
In the 1930s, the Federal Housing Administration initiated real estate assessment based on the criteria of race as a potential risk of financial and social instability (California Newsreel). In this way, stability became closely associated with the dominant, White population, who became the only inhabitants of suburbia. At the same time, it was considered that the racial minorities and their presence in the suburbs could “undermine the real estate values in the new suburbs” (California Newsreel). The private loan organizations evaluated the US population and created ratings in which the minorities were described as “hazardous” and were effectively allocated areas remote from the “best” suburban sections (Art History 21 10).
With the Fair Housing Act initiated in 1968, a new phase of segregation commenced. The act finally allowed members of racial minorities to purchase houses in the same suburban areas where non-minority individuals lived. However, the Whites perceived neighborhoods which admitted people of other races as a threat to their well-being (Nicolaides and Wiese 336). Some Whites no doubt regarded mixed-neighborhoods as a personal threat due to their stereotypes and cultural biases, while others perceived the settlement of minority individuals in the suburbs as economically disadvantageous. As a result, the majority of the dominant owners moved to other urban and suburban areas because of the depreciation of property values caused by the newly part-Black neighborhoods (California Newsreel). As a result, when suburban minority populations grew, their property became lower in value because it was in less demand by the Whites. In this way, although the citizens from minority and dominant social groups may have had a similar amount of property, their economic benefits, associated with the concept of property as wealth, turned out differently. Thus, it is possible to say that the White US population, historically, has greater political and economic power. And, in some way, American politics and the economic system continue to support the “absolute value of whiteness” (Lipsitz 344).
As a Chinese American, I have an affinity with the minor social groups, and I regard the recent housing policies as a form of discrimination. Racial segregation and racial exclusion are interrelated with social exclusion and provoke inevitable inequality regarding access to financial resources and social services. As it was observed, the decline of property value for minority sections led to the deterioration of infrastructures and business in the segregated areas (California Newsreel). As a consequence, many people may lack access to adequate education and opportunities in the job market. It is obvious that the inequalities on the different social levels are closely connected to inequalities in property owning, and it continues to be supported both consciously and unconsciously through the social and political practices. To resolve these topical issues, it is important to develop ethnic and social sensitivity within the community, because the acceptance of diversity and stimulation of equality can be achieved only through the recognition of current problems.
Works Cited
Art History 21 n.d., Postwar Suburbia and Government Intervention in the Housing Market. PDF file.
California Newsreel. “Race – the Power of an Illusion: The Genesis of Discriminatory Housing Policies.” Online Video. Vimeo, 2015. Web.
Lipsitz, George. “The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: Racialized Social Democracy and the ‘White’ Problem in American Studies.” The Suburb Reader. Ed. Becky Nicolaides and Andrew Wiese. New York: Routledge, 2006. 341-344. Print.
Nicolaides, Becky, and Andrew Wiese. The Suburb Reader. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.