Are American ghettos completely beyond hope?

[opebo]

And you're wrong, Al, 'slum clearance' doesn't make a place not a ghetto.

You think that the slum dweller makes the slum then?

No, those who victimize the slum dweller make the slum.  They don't stop victimizing him just because he has a new hovel.

Decent houses = more power (in various different ways) to the people that live in them. Obviously that wouldn't be a solution to the complicated trap that most blacks are caught in, but it'd be a big improvement in quite a few ways. Though, obviously, there's no chance of it happening any time in the next few decades for the usual reasons...

Don't get me wrong, I think they should be given new houses, of course.  But I think we also need to take away the 'houses' - the powerful positon - of those who are victimizing them in the first place.

[opebo]

You really do need a new shtick.  But I suppose you can't quit with nobody else here to play that role for us.  Maybe one of our sock friends can help us out here?

Friend, you may call it 'schtick', but it is no more consistent than your market worship and slavish devotion to the rich.  At least my position is the one which is absolutely shut out from power, so there's at least a rational for harping on it (most people have never heard of it).  Why you keep spouting capitalism I don't know - its the dominant paradigm so there's really no reason to mention it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, those who victimize the slum dweller make the slum.  They don't stop victimizing him just because he has a new hovel.

There's a degree of truth to that, actually (or so I would argue. And have argued...)

[dead0man]

You really do need a new shtick.  But I suppose you can't quit with nobody else here to play that role for us.  Maybe one of our sock friends can help us out here?

Friend, you may call it 'schtick', but it is no more consistent than your market worship and slavish devotion to the rich.  At least my position is the one which is absolutely shut out from power, so there's at least a rational for harping on it (most people have never heard of it).  Why you keep spouting capitalism I don't know - its the dominant paradigm so there's really no reason to mention it.

I "spout" capitalism at a rate that is even remotely comparable to your master/slave routine?

[Brittain33]

If there is cheap land for new housing within a reasonable commuting distance, and the housing isn't remarkable enough to draw people who appreciate its bones, there's nothing to be done.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

one of the disadvantages of row homes is that if one of the houses is abandoned it will effect the house next to it. This is because the occupied houses will now be more exposed to the elements.

[Franzl]

one of the disadvantages of row homes is that if one of the houses is abandoned it will effect the house next to it. This is because the occupied houses will now be more exposed to the elements.

what?

[Verily]

For the most part there's only one solution; slum clearance. Rip them down, build new (and better) houses. Anything else is window dressing, and window dressing that directly contributes to shorter and more miserable lives.

Sometimes, slum housing can be rehabilitated without being torn down. This has happened especially in a lot of parts of New York City, particularly in areas like Harlem and Bedford-Stuyvesant that actually have great housing stock but are still slums (or were, ten or twenty years ago).