Give me a template, I am naming names and giving my reasoning, the question is whether or not the alt-right is being treated to greater criticism and consequences for their ethnocentric perspectives because they're white or not. When I talk about the alt-right, they're deplorable but if we talk about those elements in China, are we going to hear the same kind of rhetoric from the people who hate the alt-right or are they going to brush over it? I'm not sure whether I'm in the wrong or you are, for the quality of my examples but you're not giving me much to work with.

Give me a template — Judaka

An Australian alt-right figure, Pauline Hanson, said that 'Islam is a disease' and that Australia has to 'vaccinate itself against it'. It was reported both nationally and internationally.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/pauline-hanson-says-islam-is-a-disease-australia-needs-to-vaccinate-20170324-gv5w7z.html

Find me an example of a person of non-European ancestry making a statement like that, that was reported as widely and did not receive criticism.

Pauline Hanson is probably the strangest politician I know of in her openness about anti-Islam, you've set a really high bar for me. Similar criticism of Islam outside of the west is never going to receive the same level of coverage as that and Islam isn't even a race or ethnicity which is what I am focusing on. Also, depending on the level of hostility and visibility, I'm not saying that we as a society aren't going to criticise examples of racism.

There is no point though in continuing this conversation, NKBJ's pointing out my fallacious thinking made me realise that members of the alt-right are specifically members because of their ethnocentric and racialised perspectives while people living in countries around the world are not citizens of those countries because of their ethnocentric and racialised perspectives and so I am not comparing apples with apples. I didn't start this thread with the intention of arguing this point but as Anaxagoras suggested, I would have been better off not talking about the alt-right to begin with.

Most of what we've talked about has been about that and I realise now that I am making a stupid comparison and so I acquiece my earlier arguments to you. I try to argue things with strength so that I look like an idiot if I'm wrong so I won't forget it, I'm hardly bragging but I succeeded here with that.

and you have been repeatedly asked for an example of this alleged double standard, and have failed to supply a single example. — andrewk

I can help out here easily enough:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0QfLkjujY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-w0LFYhedo0

Both possess purposeful misuse of words and semantic gymnastics. It is clear enough by looking up teh definitions of the terms “racist” and “racism” that even though superiority weighs in highly plain and simple discrimination, regardless of any sense of superiority being espoused, can be defined as “racist” - it says so in every dictionary because there is an “OR” not “AND” in the wording.

That aside soem may wish to convey the meaing to suit their own purposes. This is fine, if and only if, they make absolutely clear how they are using the term and if their position makes logical sense.

As I’ve said elsewhere jist because someone chooses to apply the term “racism” to a “system of power” or some other concept, it is not only inappropriate to expect others to understand this use of a well defined in the public sphere term, it negatively effects any sensible discourse and results in people talking cross purposes.

Anyway, here is a very powerful and interesting expression of the moods felt in the US. Again, I’m not from the US, but I certainly appreciate that historically the tension involved in the US are felt quite differently than in other nations. I do, like the late great Hitchens said, that some good can be made to the damage done. Something cannot be undone though. What we’re left with is the issue of how to create a better society (national/local/global) without imposing guilt or hate on others.

Another, and perhaps bigger issue problem, is the problem of a certain sheep mentality where we follow in shaming or degrading others - the term “vitrue signalling” covers this. If you real feel the need to express disgust who exactly are you doing this for? What purpose does it solve? Is there a better way to handle difficult topics other than by enflaming the discussion and pointing fingers so as to detract from the true horror of humanity that lies in us ALL at some level?

Regardless I, and everyone else, will err somewhere along the way. I have found from experience that if I am too focused on the poor wording of others or a certain trend of reading hostility into a genuine question on their part, then I miss my own errors too and usually project them onto others.

Btw I don’t think there is such a thing as “reverse racism” just plain old racist behavior where people, meaningfully or not, judge others by the arbitrary group they see them as part of. In my experience the skin tone of someone doesn’t tell me anything about their political views or moral values. Religious persuasions tell me a little more, but not a great deal. Combinations of factors including “race” in different nations do point out to me certain differing attitudes - this would be due to each nations rainbow of cultures as a whole and as separate parts.

If someone came on this forum I said “I hate black people!” what do you think would be the best way to deal with such a person? Would you call for them to be banned from the forum or engage with them and ask questions? These are the things I think about and I have experienced.

This would be the Popper question of whether or not to tolerate intolerance. Embedded in the OP in the question of what should we tolerate if there are items that shouldn’t hypothetically be tolerated? And if we have a standard where intolerance toward some person/s in applied how will this turn out? I find this an intriguing moral dilemma because although there is certainly wisdom in the old adage of “turn the other cheek” I would against doing so “passively” - meaning, that to stand by idle seems to me not to be about what “tolerance” really means in a moral perspective. It would be immoral to just tolerate anyone however they acted without at the very least questioning their thoughts, words or actions (and I most definately to differentiate between “thoughts,” “words,” and “actions” - another complicated embedded problem of human interactions!)

TO ALL -

Have we at least come to a general overview of this subject now? Can this topic perhaps move on a little further to cover some of these arguments in greater depth? Just wondered, because I am interested in pursuing some of these items further but not really in this thread (and I’m not particularly invested in any particular part of this discussion to make a new thread myself before you ask - although I may come up with something depending on the feedback from this post).

The thing is while I'm happy to acquiesce that we can't compare the alt-right with opinions from a generalised list of countries, people are still in this thread not making any sense in their criticism of particular aspects of the alt-right. They share the racialised perspectives, they emphasise racial differences, they think in terms of racial/ethnic histories and their defence is a historical interpretation. White people talking about how to advance some kind of agenda for furthering the wealth and success of white people is wrong but they are advocating for doing that for black people and they see no hypocrisy.

I think if someone came into the forum and said "I hate white people" that they would also probably get banned or at least, who in their right mind would think that's acceptable? The problem is when people start to justify things with their interpretations and delude themselves into thinking they've got facts supporting their race-based agendas.

So you did. Missed that part. Sorry about that.

They share the racialised perspectives, they emphasise racial differences, they think in terms of racial/ethnic histories and their defence is a historical interpretation. White people talking about how to advance some kind of agenda for furthering the wealth and success of white people is wrong but they are advocating for doing that for black people and they see no hypocrisy. — Judaka

The fact is that the whole field of identity politics and multiculturalism simply veers the debate into issues about race, simply because it's all about race, racial identity, ethnicity, the differences of ehtnicity or race. This is the problem. There is no emphasis on people as individuals and the so-called 'colorblindness' is deeply rejected as hypocrisy. And that especially in our time of extreme globalization cultures are quite close to each other is perhaps heresy. And everything bad is because of white people, slavery, colonization, white racism. So much, that I like sushi gave the perfect examples of 'racism' is defined solely to be a white trait, thanks to a different new definition.

I’d be for stopping the use of “racism” as a meaningful term and simply talking about “prejudice”. In the videos I highlighted the problem is it is a politically motivated agenda to change common definitions ans expect everyone to fall in line with them. It won’t work, yet this doesn’t matter to those who can only see things through a lens of “power” and “hate” without universal application to humanity (the one true race, not some archiac misappropriated spin on the term “race”).

There is no emphasis on people as individuals and the so-called 'colorblindness' is deeply rejected as hypocrisy — ssu

The one thing you said right.

Anaxagoras suggested, I would have been better off not talking about the alt-right to begin with. — Judaka

Actually, I had no problem with the subject, just wanted clear direction as to exactly what we are discussing. I guess my frustration was more so confusion which is perhaps why it would appear that I was arguing on a tangent. Things happen.

I don’t see the point of looking at one singular viable point made by a deeply prejudiced mentality. There are far more positive organisations that propose similar approaches without the baggage of obvious hostilities carried by the “alt-right” label.

It is obvious enough to everyone, I hope, that the most despotic and horrendous evils perpetrated by humans always carries a grain of the “good” or the movement would never get going in the first place. The trick some of these movements manage to pull off is to blinker their supporters and purposefully misinform them at each and every opportunity. It’s not exactly a new game we’re talking about here.

I wouldn’t want someone posting hatred here to be banned. I find it acceptable for peple to express themselves publicly if they are willing to engage in a discussion and give reasons for their position. Otherwise what hope is there? Of course, as I stated, I am not for what I termed as “passive tolerance” at all. Tolerance, for me, must be met with an active force not a mute acceptance.

I've always believed that if something can be uttered by anyone, we shouldn't focus on the someone that actually uttered it. It's also important to not just be convinced you're right but actually know why and specifically know what you're banking on for your side to be right.

Sometimes, I have difficulties pegging down exactly what Western culture actually is but I've got no issues saying what Australian culture is. I think Australia is, generally speaking, doing a really great job of assimilating immigrants to our core values. Even though I don't like Islam as a religion for example, when I meet an Australian Muslim, I usually feel our similarities as Australians are more than enough for me to overlook differences caused by the religion.

I also think groups like the alt-right overexaggerate agreement between whites, it's not there. I don't share a culture with whites, I don't share values with whites and I'd feel much more comfortable with an Australian of any race or ethnicity than a white person from Europe/America in thinking our views/values are more relatable. That's why I want assimilation on the important things, I want to control immigration because I want to protect that.

I feel a bit worn out talking about this subject, I don't think people have coherent outlooks on these issues. They think the alt-right are deluded for thinking their culture is under attack while also making claims that different races are living in their own worlds, believing they've got to be prioritised above white people and that other races don't even have to share in the nation's history, their ethnic histories take precedence. Can't people even put 1 and 1 together? Can't the understanding go a little bit deeper than just being tolerant? I hope they can at least articulate our disagreement in a way which doesn't just insult me.


That's basically what we're dealing with. I made a thread earlier.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5160/the-capacity-to-answer-unasked-questions

Where I basically tried to explain why despite being in a time of a historic level of rejection of racism to the point where even the alt-right (from my experience) try hard not to sound racist but it's still at the forefront of everything? When a product is unpopular, it just disappears from sight. Any publicity is good publicity, is what it comes down to. So long as these idiots keep going on about identity politics and maintaining their racialised perspectives, they're perpetuating and giving life to the very way of thinking they claim to despise.

There is a VERY good reason I am dead against “passive tolerance”.

I do think this discussion has been a productive one over all. It hasn’t gotten out of hand even though it is one of those topics that creates an emotional pull in us all - we’re humans and we understand the taint of prejudice first, second and third hand. We know it’s not pleasant yet it’s an inevitable hurdle we have to get over in whatever form it attacks our psychological confusions.

Tolerance, for me, must be met with an active force not a mute acceptance. — I like sushi

Damn sushi bravo

You can't just extrapolate me disagreeing with racial/ethnic pride and histories to... — Judaka

Well, don't take it personally. You know, the problem with e-mail, texts, forums such as this, and similar kinds of communication is that misinterpretation is endemic. In a face-to-face conversation, body language, tone of voice, and real-time interaction eliminates a lot of the text-based problem. In conversation, what would be a clarifying quibble, comes off as a body slam in print.

Like honestly, what do you want to do? Nobody here is denying the past, blacks as a group are disadvantaged by their history but once you strip the racial focus and start caring about individuals and towns/cities, what is the advantage in continuing the same racialised thinking that created the very problems you're talking about? — Judaka

What do I want to do?

I worked in social services and education for 40+ years. The stated goals of most social service and education institutions are to ameliorate disadvantage and build individual and community capacity. There are all sorts of strategies employed to achieve these goals. Some strategies work well, some work poorly. Some, furthermore, backfire and make things worse.

Our country was built on a foundation of crude exploitation of black slaves and the white working class, and then a black and white working class (which composes most people in the country). The social conditions and status of poor blacks and poor whites is baked into The American Way. How do we undo the black and white marble cake of disadvantage and prejudice?

I very much want to see the black and white marble cake unmade. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do it, and from what I can tell, nobody else does either.

Various groups have had some pretty good ideas about it over the years. The earlier 20th century socialists and progressive labor organizers had a solid foundation of "material factors". The civil rights groups of the 50s and 60s had worthwhile and doable goals. The various liberation movements of the 60s and 70s had some good ideas.

Unfortunately, none of these good ideas were in place long enough, and/or were not implemented with conviction for long enough to achieve the stated goals.

Moreover, it has never been in the interests of the ruling class (in any country, not just in the United States) to have the mass of the population cohesively united with clear goals and sound strategies to achieve their aims. So, at every step along the way, the powers that be have intervened from above to sabotage the works of bottom-up social change.

Take the issue of justice to counteract racial discrimination: After Brown Vs. the Board of Education in the 1950s, which declared segregated public schools unconstitutional, there was a wave (which continues into the present) of all white private schools created in the south. This contributed to the decline of the public schools, which became heavily black. Being black doesn't make a school bad, of course, but being a school of poor blacks without the resources to deliver an acceptable education does make a black school bad (and poor white children and minimal financing makes a white school bad too). Various forced integration schemes have not accomplished much.

Needless to say, most of the children of the ruling class have always gone to private schools. They always get a good education, and most of the working class get the current estimated minimum education.

Reasonably stable, financially healthy suburban counties are usually white. Their schools are generally quite a bit better. Poor people (whatever color they are) can't afford to live in these suburbs, so they can't benefit from the schools. The existence of the white suburbs was, in many cases, deliberately engineered by the government through the FHA programs starting in the 1930s.

Over time, at least somewhat well off whites have been concentrated in suburbs with lots of amenities (like reasonably good schools) and blacks have been concentrated in cities with no amenities--slums, in other words. This has been going on for at least 3 generations.

Sorry for the long post, but the point is: how do we now undo 80 years and 3 or 4 generations of very divergent cultural development?

This divergence (which goes back to pre-civil war days) is what puts black people and white people in "two different countries" and its damned hard to devise ways of undoing this even slightly.

I don't know where you live. Part of my take on race relations derives from living in Minneapolis, MN. This state has one of the most extreme inequality gaps. Blacks in MN do much worse in health, wealth, and education than whites. There are demographic reasons for this. 40 or 50 years ago, Minnesota had much smaller minority populations than it does now. MN has been a destination state for people fleeing disaster, either in Gary, Indiana, south Chicago, Somalia, or Central America.

It's visible on public transit. Most of the black people on MN public transit look and act poor. When I go to Chicago, there are definitely more blacks on public transit who share a solid economic status with whites. It is visible in clothing, speech, deportment, and so forth. The total number of poor blacks in Chicago is far greater than in Minneapolis, but the poverty gap seems to be smaller.

Milwaukee, however, is more like Minneapolis. The number of poor blacks is greater, and the wealth gap seems to be about as wide.

Why does this disparity exist? Well part of it is that as parts of the industrial Midwest turned into de-industrialized shit holes, those blacks who could get out moved to other cities (Milwaukee, Minneapolis...) which weren't quite as bad. They still lived in the slums, but they were slightly safer slums with slightly better social services and city maintenance.

There is a distinct difference between blacks and other minorities. SE Asians, Central Americans, NE Africans, and so on may come from relatively disrupted places (i.e., Mogadishu) but they do not come from "cultures of poverty". That makes a huge difference. They may be poor (many of them are), but they have a distinctly positive mindset which enables them to get on here fairly well.

As far as I know, no one has any idea of how to impart positive, success oriented values into people who have been immersed in a culture of poverty, disadvantage, and discrimination for many generations. It's a tough nut to crack.

You've laid out the problem but you haven't told me what you want to do. My answer is to reduce the interpretative relevance of race, stop focusing on whether those struggling in poverty are white and black and aim to tackle problems without racialising them. So let's lay things out:
1. We're both trying to reduce poverty
2. We both recognise that a variety of problems within society that impact people and need to be fixed

The ability to create wealth is often tied to how much wealth you currently have and when you look at black Americans as a group, there's not much wealth there. That doesn't mean poor white families have it easier, it just means there were historical imbalances between whites and blacks and so generally speaking, whites have most of the wealth.

Points 1 & 2 are enough, that's the best help we can give white or black communities which are struggling and what I want you to do is step in and tell me why it's not good enough to you.

You want to add:
3. Prioritise poor black communities over poor white communities?
4. Make special rules and exceptions that only apply to people based on race?

The problem here is twofold, first:
These are only problems when you focus on the racial differences

Take 500 people, 250 of them black and 250 of them white, we lift 250 of them out of poverty. Provided we're not selected based on race, to me, there's no racial element here. I am really happy for those 250 people and best of luck to them. You're going to be happy/upset based on whether they're white or black? That's not something you can do when you prioritise the individual and reduce the interpretative relevance of the racial differences.

You perpetuate the race problem.

If you helped the 250 black people, people are going to notice that and you add to the cycle of resentment and tribalism. Helping to reduce poverty becomes a political, racialised issue with all kinds of unnecessary baggage. You haven't lifted more than 250 people out of poverty, you're not outperforming the colour-blind perspective but my god, have things suddenly got so much more complicated. You legitimise white people making race interpretatively relevant, you give racist ideas credibility because when I tell them race doesn't matter and just treat people as individuals, they point to you and say but he's not!

As for culture, I don't know, if they weren't poor then the majority, they'd try to make better lives for themselves, I know that.

Prejudice based on race is wrong, dealing with people based on their race isn't productive. I already think your way of thinking is an obstacle to reducing poverty in America because the focus is so laden in the negativity of racial differences and claims of racism. Rules 3 & 4 are not helping anyone, least of all the black individuals that you claim to care about. So many people just take it for granted that they should think racially but honestly, I don't think I'll ever lose on this topic with another pragmatist, You need to refuse to give up your racialised perspective to have a chance of holding your own.

Part of my take on race relations derives from living in Minneapolis, MN. — Bitter Crank

By the way (a bit off topic), to compare the US with anything else is challenging, but to compare an US state to separate countries does give a comparative perspective. Actually I found that by population size and by many other variables the closest equivalent to my country, Finland, would be... Minnesota. Before you laugh, just hear me out:

...........................................Finland............Minnesota
Population (in millions):........5,520...………5,679
land area (square km):.....338,424.........225,163
climate:...................subarctic climate, humid continental climate
per capita (nominal USD):..50,068.........64,675
gini coefficient:.....................0.277..........0.452
(racial composition)
White:...……………………...+/- 97,8%.......84,3%
infant mortality rate (per 1000):..2,3...……5,1
life expectancy (years):.......81,386.......... 81,05
tertiary education (25-64y):..42%..............48%
number of Nobel prizes:........5.................5
intentional homicide rate:.....1,42.............2
Somali diaspora:...................20 000......50 000 - 80 000(?)

Hence it puts into perspective when you just look at Minnesota, and not the whole US. Hawaii or Louisiana are quite different from Minnesota, just as is New York or California. Minnesotans favour democrats, hence the state is closer to the 'socialism' found in a Nordic welfare states. And with several indicators Minnesota is among the top of the US states and doesn't have the most problems in the US. Just like, uh, Finland compared to Europe. So in a way comparing Minnesota (to Nordic countries) tells a lot in my view. For instance, what I've read and Bitter has said that the Somali diaspora in Minnesota is said to have adapted quite well to the state and even has produced a politician to Capitol Hill. In Finland, a half smaller community, has been the most hated ethnic group in the country. This of course makes an interesting comparison on just how xenophobic or intolerant Finns are to Minnesotans.

Helping to reduce poverty becomes a political, racialised issue with all kinds of unnecessary baggage. — Judaka

Reducing povetry happens with creating prosperity. Yet usually what policies we are talking about when "reducing povetry" are welfare policies, wealth transfers etc. These policies, who gets money and who doesn't, create these arguments when race is used to decide who gets what, just like with 'affirmative action'.

Because what would help people to get out of povetry? Simple, that they get a good paying job and stand on their own feet, which itself creates wealth to the society. Yet those jobs don't emerge out of charity. Charity and government handouts similar to charity do not eradicate povetry. They do have a positive aspects also, yet the negative aspects shouldn't be forgotten.

Debating wealth redistribution is another thread but provided there's no racial element, I am a strong believer in it. Without wealth redistribution, I'd basically be saying just ignore the plight of the black individuals and let them fend for themselves and that wouldn't be as convincing to those who want to help regardless of their motivations. It is precisely because I believe in wealth redistribution that I can argue as I do. Redirect our compassion for the good of reducing these unnecessary racial tensions.

@Judaka et al: Here are 5 books that do a good job at explaining how a critical portion of our racial and economic problems were engineered. It wasn't an accident.

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, Richard Rothstein, 2018 (This is a history of the Federal Housing Administration)
Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City, Matthew Desmond, 2016 (Desmond 'embedded' himself among Milwaukee black slum, white trash trailer park dwellers, and two respective slum lords, one black, one white.)
Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City [Baltimore]Antero Pietila, 2010 -- @ssu Pietila is a Finn by birth --
Family properties, Beryl Satter, 2009 - a history of racial succession in the Lawndale section of Chicago
White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, Nancy Isenberg, 2016

What wasn't an accident? I accept the historical grounding for the imbalance in wealth between whites vs blacks as groups.

You've laid out the problem but you haven't told me what you want to do. — Judaka

I want a reduction in the large structured economic disparities with which most Americans live. This can be addressed without reference to race, up to a point.

My answer is to reduce the interpretative relevance of race, stop focusing on whether those struggling in poverty are white and black and aim to tackle problems without racialising them. So let's lay things out: — Judaka

I'll drink to that; BUT, we have to acknowledge that economics have been racialized for quite some time. It isn't the whole story by any means, but it is part of the problem. If our goal is to be 'race blind' then we would definitely stop talking about race so much.

1. We're both trying to reduce poverty
2. We both recognise that a variety of problems within society that impact people and need to be fixed
You want to add:
3. Prioritise poor black communities over poor white communities?
4. Make special rules and exceptions that only apply to people based on race? — Judaka

Yes to Nos. 1 and 2. No on #3: we should definitely not "prioritize poor blacks over poor whites". No on #4: Special rules like Affirmative Action, quotas, and so forth generally backfire and create more intense resentment.

As for culture, I don't know, if they weren't poorer than the majority, they'd try to make better lives for themselves, I know that. — Judaka

So, race-blind, class-based redistribution of wealth is the key step (there are various mechanisms to do this -- it's been done before).

Debating wealth redistribution is another thread but provided there's no racial element, I am a strong believer in it. — Judaka

Yet it isn't so simple. If there wasn't any difference between racial groups and being a welfare recipient or unemployed, it wouldn't matter. But the difference is there, and differences are large.

And this comes to my point in racial or ethnic relations: if one group seems to be a "free rider" in the system, then racism and xenophobic thoughts emerge.

What wasn't an accident? I accept the historical grounding for the imbalance in wealth between whites vs blacks as groups. — Judaka

What was not an accident is the racial distribution of populations and home ownership in metropolitan areas (where most Americans live). As Richard Rothstein shows in The Color of Law, the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) pursued a strict policy of racial segregation from its inception in the 1930s going forward. The FHA didn't invent racial segregation, of course. What they did was effectively restrict the suddenly created and rapidly expanding suburbs to whites. Jews, blacks, asians, Mexicans, et al were barred. How did they do this? They would underwrite mortgages only to white people, and it was up to the local banking and real estate industries to make sure that only white people applied for and received mortgages.

Access to the new and growing suburbs post WWII is the basis for much of the wealth disparity among middle class people. The houses which were built in the 40s, 50s, and 60s and which white people occupied appreciated very nicely. The appreciated value was the foundation of future wealth accumulation. In addition to the FHA, the Veterans Administration followed racialized policies in handing out money for college after WWII. The VA gave an economic boost to millions of white men who served in WWII and later. Lots of non-veteran whites also attending college in the post war boom because they were able to afford what was then MUCH lower tuition than people have to pay now.

So, one might ask, how did it happen that the FHA and VA served mainly whites?

Well, at the time (late 1800s, early 1900s up until the late 60s) southern Democrats had control of enough Senate and House seats and committees to enforce segregation policy on New Deal and post WWII programs. This grip was tight enough that many black workers were initially excluded from Social Security!

All that is what was not accidental.

Why are you voicing such concern about the rebdistribution of wealth within the US?

Perspective: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/managing-wealth/112916/richest-and-poorest-countries-capita-2016.asp

What was not an accident is the racial distribution of populations and home ownership in metropolitan areas (where most Americans live). As Richard Rothstein shows in The Color of Law, the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) pursued a strict policy of racial segregation from its inception in the 1930s going forward. — Bitter Crank

This is actually one crucial issue. Here one of the most successful welfare policies has been right from the start the avoidance of concentrating subsidized housing for the poor in one place. If you would concentrate welfare accomodation in one place, it would create social problems and give the area a bad name, basically you would have the possibility of creating a ghetto in the future. Hence you have had subsidized housing in the more affluent parts of Helsinki. It has eradicated differences between areas and even if some parts of Helsinki are seen less prestigious than others, the real estate prices don't differ so much.

You seem to be having a cognition problem here. The source you cited says the average United States Wealth per Adult is $403,974. You apparently do not understand that this $403,974 is a statistical fiction produced by dividing the total wealth of the country by the adult population. The average adult IN FACT has either no net assets or net assets under $10,000.

If you had not been visiting Mars for the last several years, you would probably have heard about a severely disproportionate concentration of wealth in the United States (and in many other countries). A few people have most of the wealth; most people have very little of the wealth. It fucking does not matter what the average fictional wealth is.

Mmmm ...? Nah!

https://www.gapminder.org/videos/everyone-lives-on-dollar-street/

Good example of a sensible policy.

A number of housing programs in the United States have started to distribute public housing across urban territory in relatively small units. Chicago, for instance, has demolished several of its giant high-rise concrete ghettos in the sky (Robert Taylor and Cabrini Green). Residents were then relocated in distributed smaller units. At least, that's officially what happened. There is some question about how well that actually worked out there.

Distribution in small public housing units that are well managed and maintained is a desirable strategy.