Hofmaimaierthat's weird
SwingingTheLampThere may be an argument about how the two are linked, but the -ism on display in the second photo is racism. The US built the suburbs quite explicitly to keep black people out by using poverty as a proxy, after the SCOTUS blocked housing segregation.
UnderpantsWeevilthe -ism on display in the second photo is racism.
You can definitely go into the deep history of Levittowns, Master Planned Country Club communities, and Red Lining in the big metro areas. But I think the advent of the modern suburb speaks more heavily to the mix of “Free Real Estate” and enormous state subsidies for rural development following the S&L crash of the 1980s.
Like, there’s no reason these can’t be high rise condos with racist building managers, rather than cookie cutter ranch homes with racist HOAs. The suburb isn’t merely about racial segregation, it is about individualist alienation. Breaking up the extended family unit into the nuclear family cluster, subdividing the working class into thinner and thinner economic tranches, and fencing people into gilded cages complete with 30 year golden handcuff mortgage notes.
You can debate over the exact degree to which civic planners intended to separate and capture individual specimens of human labor. Or how deliberately the 1950s architectural model of personalized kitchens, TVs, and car ports manufactured an increasingly pliable working class subject. But the subdivision doesn’t end at the color line. We are a fully balkanized society.
We don’t have to debate to what extent civic planners intended to divide people by color. In his book, The Color of Law, Richard Rothstein just straight-up quoted them. They weren’t shy, and they wrote it down in memos, meeting minutes, and even speeches.
That’s why I say that the suburbs are a product of racism… because the people who created them intended them that way, and said so.
For the economic analysis from the class perspective, look at why suburbs became entrenched, which has a lot to do with the auto industry.