Nobody was "forced" to live like this. If they wanted to leave the ghetto they could walk into a recruitment office and get free housing free healthcare free college for life. Especially in the 70s and early 80s, the US military was extremely short staffed and thus open to anything that could stand and move boxes. But most didn't want to do that for the same reasons they didn't want to move to more prosperous areas of the country where there was work.
The better question is: why were they allowed to live like this? The northern industrial belts left for the sunbelt, leaving only skilled/educated labor positions available. Meanwhile, America's urban cities hollowed out because nobody wanted to live there. Why would a self-respecting human want to live in a big city when they could live outside and commute in? Or move to the west coast, which is what most did. The cities shriveled up, eroded, and went bankrupt (or nearly did) as the death spiral of reduced taxes -> reduced services -> reduced population took hold. In the ruins were usually black people, who either couldn't afford to leave or didn't want to out of an inflated sense of place.
>If they wanted to leave the ghetto they could walk into a recruitment office and get free housing free healthcare free college for life
Blacks were regularly denied from these positions in the military. You're a dipshit zoomer
Black folk didn't pay rent and squatted in buildings and the city did nothing so landlords fled and stopped paying for the building and after a few years had to be demolished because the Black folk destroyed them beyond repair
Wow i thought the thing about black people LITERALLY tearing down buildings and destroying buildings was an exaggeration and that this urban decay was in spite of them not because of them. That's crazy. Why would people tear apart and destroy the place they reside in?
>spanish billboards
Nobody was "forced" to live like this. If they wanted to leave the ghetto they could walk into a recruitment office and get free housing free healthcare free college for life. Especially in the 70s and early 80s, the US military was extremely short staffed and thus open to anything that could stand and move boxes. But most didn't want to do that for the same reasons they didn't want to move to more prosperous areas of the country where there was work.
The better question is: why were they allowed to live like this? The northern industrial belts left for the sunbelt, leaving only skilled/educated labor positions available. Meanwhile, America's urban cities hollowed out because nobody wanted to live there. Why would a self-respecting human want to live in a big city when they could live outside and commute in? Or move to the west coast, which is what most did. The cities shriveled up, eroded, and went bankrupt (or nearly did) as the death spiral of reduced taxes -> reduced services -> reduced population took hold. In the ruins were usually black people, who either couldn't afford to leave or didn't want to out of an inflated sense of place.
>If they wanted to leave the ghetto they could walk into a recruitment office and get free housing free healthcare free college for life
Blacks were regularly denied from these positions in the military. You're a dipshit zoomer
probably because they're good for nothing
/pol/troony cope
>no one was forced to live this way
>btw I love living under a state which polices and forces you to work.
Black folk didn't pay rent and squatted in buildings and the city did nothing so landlords fled and stopped paying for the building and after a few years had to be demolished because the Black folk destroyed them beyond repair
Revisionism. Landlords burned down derelict buildings to claim insurance payments.
Sounds conspiratorial.
That's why it's a crime. It's actually one of the most common causes of arson.
Most fires aren't arson.
I don't know what this has to do with anything.
Wow i thought the thing about black people LITERALLY tearing down buildings and destroying buildings was an exaggeration and that this urban decay was in spite of them not because of them. That's crazy. Why would people tear apart and destroy the place they reside in?
You're presuming it was measured behaviour, not merely impulsive.
>that this urban decay was in spite of them not because of them
Urban decay happens regardless of the race of the city's inhabitants.
Because it's not theirs. There's a reason why nobody likes renting to blacks, they absolutely demolish the house
It was their choice.
This is bait but the answer is systemic racism.
I'm not part of the system