>>28587615
you people always talk in the passive voice, trotting out talking points like 'redlining' as if these are some sort of abstract environmental auras that spontaneously appear and not things that are caused by facts on the ground in the first place
lenders that don't want to lose money don't lend to people who are inveterately delinquent wow shocker
in the seventieth century there were a handful of european dirt farmers scrabbling for survival in the americas, by the eighteenth these people had grown to be the most populous and profitable part of the british empire after india, and by the 19th had grown too powerful to remain a satellite, and asserted their own sovereignty, a new constellation on the world stage with its own force of gravity
coolies were literally imported as literal slave labour to build railroads in california but you never head about this today because they don't care, they were powerful people who grew regardless of 'generational trauma'
no worthy demographic in history ever stays 'oppressed' because they grow too powerful to be oppressed - and so do profitable business with other civilized people instead
if you have some people that are persistent basket cases century after century, it's because that's what they are, and no borrowed status or gifted capital changes it, because these things are not part of their extended phenotype; they are never rich regardless of any wealth transfer because they have nothing to do with these things, like a cat has nothing to do with tennis, it all just slips through the fingers back to the dust, like trying to fill a wicker basket with water, the form is just not capable of the function you're trying to use it for
all peoples are like this, with certain soft levels of capital they are capable of arranging, a function arising from the intersection of their aggregate characteristics, which they will rise up to if fortune sees them below, and which they will fall back on if fortune sees them above
