How Segragation Produced Value in the Sense of Profit and Harm in the Sense of Ethics, in

the City

The end of the civil war in the United States marked the end of slavery and while this may have

been seen as a kind of respite for African Americans, it only marked the beginning of another

period of horrors. The period between 1865 and 1964 was marked by another form of “slavery”

which saw Black people excluded from white public spaces and treated inhumanely, just as they

had been treated during the preceding slavery period. Culminating in the 1960s, segregation

involved Black people being actively prevented from accessing such social places as hotels,

theme parks, public swimming pools and sporting venues to banks, schools, and residential

areas. Black people were not allowed to sit on the front seats in buses and while this entire ordeal

might have been very degrading and humiliating to them, it had economic implications for White

business people, home-owners/renters, and those in charge of public venues.

As noted, many areas were affected by segregation, however, the most notable one was the

housing market where benefits and profits took precedent over the welfare of Black people.

According to Ta-Nehisi Coates, the American Real Estate Industry saw segregation as something

that was not only morally acceptable but that was profitable since it protected the value of

property. A neighborhood with Black people was actively shunned by rich white people and their

families which in turn degraded property prices. Coates notes that up until the late 1950s, the

National Association of Real Estate Boards had a code of ethics that warned “…Realtor should

never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood … any race or nationality…whose

presence will clearly be detrimental to property values.” Several groups/individuals were viewed

as threatening property values, some of whom included “…gangsters, madams, bootleggers, as

well as “…a colored man of means who was giving his children a college education and thought

they were entitled to live among whites” (Coates, 2014).

From this quote, a conclusion can be made that the financial status or economic class of Black

people did not exempt them from suffering discrimination. Therefore, even though there were

some rich Black people who might have been able to afford living in white neighborhoods, this

was not allowed as the optics were not good. The situation was much worse in the cities where

the Federal Housing Administration started denying loans to those white renters who wished to

rent apartments to Black people just as the Home Owners Loan Corporation had done in the

suburbs. These restrictive measures took hold especially in the 1940s where many cities such as

Chicago were affected. With the threat of being denied loans looming large, many white owners

of apartment buildings chose to fall in line and enforce segregation measures instead of losing

their revenue and profits. As a result of these restrictive loan measures and other segregation

housing rules, Black tenants were not allowed to rent or buy apartments in an estimated half of

all apartment buildings and residential areas in Chicago. The legality of these measures went

before the Supreme Court which ruled that these measures by the city of Chicago were not legal,

however, this ruling did not compel the City to change. Instead the City put counter measures in

place that ensured that segregation in the housing sector could not be challenged further (Coates,

2014).

The profitability of segregation in the housing market was not only achieved by measures out in

place by City leadership but also through the support of the federal government. This was

achieved by the federal government, among other things, sending millions dollars to these cities

to help them build neighborhoods specifically for Black people, and as far away from white

neighborhoods/apartments as possible. Predictably however, this money was intercepted by

white renters who wanted to exploit segregation for profit. They not only used the money to

build apartment buildings in the city that were not up to standard and code but they also resorted

to overcharging Black people for rent which made them profits on top of what they had saved

from the governement (Coates, 2014).

Additionally, having Black and white neighborhoods in the City segregated led to value in terms

of profit in other ways. Apart from the predatory white landlords, keeping Black people out of

white city neighborhoods served to increase property values. Black people, gangsters,

bootleggers and madams were viewed as being dangers to society and as such, renting or selling

to them was viewed as a way of chasing away potential white families or other rich white

tenants. Such a reputation would lead to a decrease in property values and therefore little to no

profits or losses on property. An all-white neighborhood was seen as not only being safe, but also

a conducive environment to raise white children and such factors would lead to an increase in

money paid to live there (Coates, 2014). Redlining was viewed as a way of not just keeping

Black people and other groups away but also a way of making profits from property and

increasing value on houses and residential areas.

However, while segregation was viewed as a profitable practice by home owners and landlords

in the City, it was ethically wrong. Iris Young defines a normative ideal of city life as a form of

social relations where strangers are free to interact. She notes that in the City, people come

together to interact and share ideas without these interactions dissolving into a sense of unity or

commonness. This means that people can talk about such things as current event, politics, and

sports, among other topics, without them actually being members of a certain community or

group. The City is therefore able to bring together strangers from different ethnicities, races,

religions, and political ideologies to interact, live and work together without this dissolving into a
community. It can almost be described as a form of enforced tolerance that people are fine to live

with. People living in the City experience a life that is wide in scope, sometimes infinite,

boasting of large economic production networks, communication, transportation, service

provision, amusement, and exchange. This being together of city dwellers involves common

interests as well as common problems but does not create a community of shared end goals,

reciprocity and mutual identification.

According to Young, life in Cities in urban society is consistent with social networks that are

supportive as well as subcultural communities. It is almost a nature for people in the City where

social differences flourish. Evidence has shown that people who live in cities, regardless of their

racial or ethnic backgrounds tend to forge new social group affinities. Minority groups such as

Black people have noted that they find anonymity in the city which they may otherwise not find

in small towns. A normative ideal of city life means that people are able to assimilate to the

Anglo-language and values while at the same time displaying violent aversions towards people

who are not in their social sphere. In this ideal life, freedom results in group differentiation, and

to the creation of affinity groups. These groups interact and intermingle with each other without

becoming homogenous. Even though the city life we know has borders and exclusions, it is only

after experiencing it that one realizes that there can be differentiation without actual exclusion. A

lot of City neighborhoods have unique ethnic identities, however, this does not stop people from

other ethnicities from living in them. In an ideal city, one is able to cross from one distinct ethnic

neighborhood into another without knowing where exactly the boundaries are. Therefore as

Young puts it, “In the normative ideal of city life, borders are open and undecidable” (Young,

1986).
Segregation goes against Young’ ideal of city life which in turn leads to the erosion of the ethical

values. While this ideal supports people from different backgrounds and ethnicities living

together, segregation does the opposite of that. When it comes to segregation, there are clear

boundaries defined as to where Black people can or cannot go or what facilities they can use.

Segregation has harmed value in the sense of ethics in that it does not support people from

different races interacting with each other and sharing ideas about everyday life and any other

topics that might interest them. It restricts the movement of certain races of people from

accessing and going to certain places and views such races as being inferior. Practices such as

redlining and exclusionary zoning are meant to keep people apart and therefore prevent the

exchange of ideas and interaction. Redlining, as discussed, leads to Black people being subjected

to harmful living conditions even when some of them can afford to live in white neighborhoods

while exclusionary zoning restricts black people from accessing facilities such as hospitals,

hotels, and recreation centres in favour of white people. The ethical implications of these

degrading actions are that other people start viewing those discriminated against as inferior, a

symptom that may spread and become the accepted position.

When these interactions like the one in an ideal city are curtailed, people from different social

groups start viewing others with hate and spite and this is where conflict might arise. As noted,

people in the City tend to have violent aversions to those they consider as being outside their

social sphere and this is what segregation might lead to. As an example of this erosion of ethical

values, Coates notes that in Chicago, during the height of housing segregation in the city, white

people would organize gangs to beat up and even kill Black people who were living in their

neighborhoods (Coates, 2014). Seen as a way of ridding their neighborhoods of the scourge of

black people, these white gangs would get together and intimidate, harm, or even kill those Black
people who wanted to raise their children in their white-only neighborhoods, a practice that kept

many Black people away. This erosion of values was caused solely because of segregation in the

City and what people had been made to believe. Not only had they been told that they were

superior to Black people, they also placed profits above the lives and welfare of black people by

believing that they would harm the value of their properties.

Black people were viewed not only as a threat to their way of living but also as a threat to their

security, well-being, and livelihood. Segregation, which was supported by the government, was a

way of maintaining the status quo, while at the same time benefitting from it. Those who were

not chasing Black people from their neighborhoods were making profits of their backs instead,

making them spend exorbitant amounts of money on substandard properties and evicting them

when they failed to live up to their deals. While white tenants were afforded some leeway when

it came to mortgage or rent payments, Black people were discriminated against, with some even

being evicted when their agreed lease time was not up. This was done blatantly and sometimes

legally supported. Recent studies have shown that Blacks and Hispanics were significantly more

affected by the foreclosure crisis as compared to their white counterparts. Even though no studies

have been done as whether racial minorities who fall behind on rent are likely to be evicted as

compared to their male counterparts, the prevailing theory is that during segregation, this was the

case. Black people who defaulted on their rent and mortgage payments were more likely to be

evicted as compared to white tenants (Desmond & Gershenson, 2017).

Segregation produced value in the sense of profits and harmed value in the sense of ethics with

these two issues working opposite of each other. As discussed, the exclusion of Black people and

other minorities from white-occupied public spaces, houses, modes of transportation, sporting

arenas, among other areas, degraded and demeaned them which can be said to be unethical and
immoral. Black people were not allowed to live or interact with white people, black children

were not allowed to play with or attend classes with white children and these actions mad them

seem like lesser beings as compared to their white counterparts. This greatly harmed the ethics at

the time as anything that degrades humans to such levels does.

On the other hand, there are those who greatly benefitted from segregation and for them, ethics

do not matter as much as they do in other cases. To them, being ethical is the equivalent of

choosing to live a life of poverty, isolation and being shunned by members of your community

without any discernible rewards. While some white landlords and homeowners would have

wanted to be ethical and have ethical values, they simply could not afford to. As noted, during

the height of segregation, some white people in city neighborhoods formed gangs which were

aimed at preventing the proliferation of Blacks and other minorities into their neighborhoods

(Coates, 2014). The hostilities of the gangs however did not just stop at Black people but they

extended to those white people who sympathized with them and were willing to help them rent

houses in white neighborhoods. These sympathizers who attempted to display ethical values

were not only alienated, but they were targeted for harassment and the values of their properties

decreased drastically. Additionally, those home owners and landlords who chose to rent or sell to

Black people were discriminated against by the Home Owners Loan Corporation who denied

them loans to develop their property further. This was the same for white hotel/restaurant

owners, swimming pools owners, school directors, and church pastors who chose to serve, admit

and accept members from minority communities. They were alienated and they incurred heavy

financial losses.

Therefore, the relation between ethics and profits during segregation has and will always be

inverse. One might have good intentions, however, he/she must be prepared to live with and
adapt to the consequences. While minorities may view segregation in terms of ethics and

morality, others, especially landlords and home owners view it in terms of profits and income.

The high property values, the ease with which one can access loans, and the government support

in particular are some of the things that mean that segregation facilitated value in the way of

profits while at the same time harming value in terms of ethics and promoting immorality. The

disregard for the lives of a certain section of people brought about profits and in a capitalist

society like the United States, that is all that matters above all else.

References

Coates, T. N. (2014). The case for reparations. The Atlantic.

Young, I. M. (1986). The ideal of community and the politics of difference. Social theory and

practice, 12(1), 1-26.

Desmond, M., & Gershenson, C. (2017). Who gets evicted? Assessing individual, neighborhood,

and network factors. Social science research, 62, 362-377.