There is this idea that the Northern region of the United States is a safe haven, where all people aspire to go. On this side of the country, all problems of racism and segregation are solved, and in these states exist communities that live and work together, regardless of race and background. At least, that is the narrative that was pushed. During this time, the oppression and inequality towards Black people and all people of color (POC) was so severe, that this mentality could not be limited to the Southern region of the country. While the Northern states in the U.S. did not suffer the blatant racism that was prominent in the South, blind and naive racism was their new Jim Crow.
Brown v. Board of Education, one of the most known and successful landmark cases, made it illegal to allow segregation in schools on a federal level. However, where victory was found in the South, the same could not be said in the North. Even Theoharis states: “In fact, as in other Northern cities, segregation worsened in New York City in the decade after Brown” (Theoharis 43). New York City’s Board of Education (BOE) actually used the Brown ruling against the Black and Puerto Rican people and claimed that they could not do anything to help the segregation in their schools (Theoharis 44-45). The BOE claimed that the segregation in their school resulted from housing segregation, and used this to reinforce neighborhood boundaries and implemented discriminatory zoning practices. Massachusetts, a state not far from New York, has only ended segregation in its public school bus systems, not 50 years ago in Boston. Boston communities of color suffered the same injustices from their BOE as New York City. This lack of focus on helping POC people in the North was happening even with the NAACP. All the focus was on making equal laws and communities in the South, and rightfully so, but this meant the same dedication to fighting for civil rights was not shown to the North. This was apparent when a mother, Ruth Baston, reached out to the NAACP chapter in Boston for help regarding education inequality for her daughter (Theoharis 49). However, this chapter had no subcommittee for education, “and asked her to chair one” (Theoharis 49).
What makes all of this so fascinating are the people of all backgrounds in the North who fed into the narrative that their side of the country could not be racist. If people used to flee there from slavery because of the “freedom” this region had, how could these people in the North inflict the same harm? In reality, there was a new evolution of racism taking place. This could be found in the way laws, rules, and documents were being worded (Theoharis 51). Rather than acknowledge racial inequalities embedded within the system and community, white people looked at the surface-level issues and faulted POC communities for the problems they faced. Using language like “de facto” was damaging because it deflected the problems of school segregation away from the people who could change these policies (Theoharis 34). In New York and Boston, problems started arising when coded language was added to the conversation on school segregation. Black and Latine parents were trying to fight the BOE to allow their children to have the same education that was being provided to white children. However, terms like “‘neighborhood control,’ ‘taxpayer’s right,’ and ‘forced busing’” were being used by white parents who were opposed to ending segregation in their schools and education (Theoharis 51). Instead, words like “‘problem students’ [and] ‘cultural deprivation’” were used against Black and Latine students for “hampering their [own] educational success” (Theoharis 51). Northern cities were supposed to be ahead in the civil rights movement, and yet the battle for equal rights for all POC didn’t get better, people just got better at hiding their racism and bigotry.
I was not surprised by the history explained in this reading. Racism does not have limits, nor does it have borders. Why is history so quick to assume these prejudices did not extend beyond the South? Why were—and are—people so quick to believe that the North was shielded from racism? The laws and policies against POC communities were created and enforced by white individuals. It could be argued that, during this time, POC individuals also reinforced the idea that the North did not have racism. However, when a narrative is so persistent and enticing, people will believe it, especially when they want what is being said to be true. Because the narrative of freedom is not true, then what do we have to hold onto as success? Of course, there were victories within the Civil Rights movement, but the problem went beyond changing laws; they needed to change their minds. I agree with Theoharis, people are afraid to admit the North was not the achievement history has made it out to be, but why can we not be honest about this? If anything, we can learn from this history and see how this false hope and success still exists in our society today.
Will Wright 
I think you pose some very intriguing and important questions in your discussion post. I like how you point out that racism does not have borders, as it is important to recognize that discrimination happens everywhere. I agree with you that this is a history we can learn from, so it is important to recognize and tell it. The way systematic racism could be hidden in the North or go unacknowledged by focusing on surface-level issues or by faulting communities of color, as you pointed out, is a different form of racism, and the coded language used by white people in Northern cities allowed people to ignore the racial inequalities in the system. While it is maybe crazy to think that the North struggled to desegregate schools after Brown v. Board, I was also not surprised by this history and, like you, found it hard to understand why people were so quick to assume the North did not have the same prejudices and discrimination that existed in the South.
LikeLike