It is no secret that the United States has a long and dark history of systemic injustices ranging in a wide variety of aspects within its society. While some of the areas within society that systemic injustice once touched have been phased out and eradicated, there are other areas where systemic injustice is still present. One of those areas would be housing, whether it be towards homeowners, property owners, or renters. Systemic injustice in the housing sector has survived while others couldn’t, seeking out its targets in both the 1900s and the present day. To develop a better understanding of how systemic injustice has found survival in this area, this column will look at and compare two systemic injustices involving housing from the past and modern eras, all while also asking, is this racist?
Understanding the evolution and survival of systemic injustice in the housing sector is much easier when starting from the beginning. That is why it is best to first look at the case of Bruce’s Beach in Southern California, property that once belonged to Charles Bruce and his family. Charles and his family lived on the property, but they also used it to run a successful hotel business. The property has not belonged to Bruce’s family for quite some time, for “[Manhattan Beach] officials in 1924 condemned the neighborhood and seized more than two dozen properties through eminent domain”, a statement written by Rosanna Xia in a Los Angeles Times article (Xia). As for why this happened, “the Bruce’s and their guests faced years of threats and harassment from white neighbors”, meaning that when harassment didn’t drive the Bruce’s out, abusing the system became the only choice (Xia).
Now that the 1900s blueprint for systemic injustice in the areas of housing and property has been introduced, the modern blueprint must also be revealed. While the case of Bruce’s beach involved the ownership of property and housing, the modern case looks at the renting of property. In Washington D.C., renters are being faced with “serial eviction filing”, which is defined in a Washington Post article as “repeatedly filing against the same tenants at the same address” (BrandStudio). Serial eviction filing isn’t happening across Washington D.C. at an even rate, for “fewer than 3 out of every 100 … received an eviction filing” in areas with a low number of African American renters, while areas with higher numbers of African American renters see a rate that is at “25 out of every 100” in terms of “[receiving] one” (BrandStudio). While “serial eviction filing” isn’t an everyday term, it can be summarized as a tool provided by the legal system to landlords that allows them to ramp up the pressure on their renters, and have a much less contested, legal path to removing those who they choose.
Before it can be asked whether one or both cases are racist, the type of injustice at play must first be addressed. When discussing an injustice, what defines the injustice in part is whether it is a stand-alone injustice or systemic injustice. Both Bruce’s Beach and renters in Washington D.C., the two cases introduced earlier, would be defined as systemic injustices over stand-alone moments. Yes, Bruce’s Beach focuses on one person, and the renters in Washington D.C. are not an expansive number of people, but that doesn’t make either case a stand-alone moment. They are rather systemic injustices because the system was manipulated and changed to carry out those injustices. In the case of Bruce’s Beach, the city government of Manhattan Beach used eminent domain, a power only the government can exercise, to remove Bruce from his property. As described earlier when individuals couldn’t drive Bruce out on their own, they had the government step in and abuse the power of the system to remove him, a systemic injustice for that reason. For the Washington D.C. renters, landlords used the fine print of the legal system to drive out renters they wanted going, taking them to court if the unrealistic demands they asked for were not met, demands provided to landlords by the legal system. This is a systemic injustice because landlords used the system to drive out who they wanted, and it is the act of using the system that makes this a systemic injustice. In neither case is this about nothing more than individuals finding a way to use the system to carry out their injustices, defining each move as systemic injustice.
With both cases now defined as systemic injustices, it must be asked “is this racist?” or put simply, “are these systemic injustices driven by racism?”. Overwhelmingly, the evidence points to both the case of Bruce’s Beach and the case of the Washington D.C. renters being racist. Starting with Bruce’s Beach once again, the evidence pointing to this case being racist begins before the systemic injustice by way of the government ever steps in. Rosanna Xia’s quote from the Los Angeles Times should once again be referenced, with that quote being: “the Bruce’s and their guests faced years of threats and harassment from white neighbors” (Xia). After this occurred, the government drove Bruce from his property, and it is no coincidence why that injustice was carried out. When Bruce’s white neighbors failed to drive him out using their old tactics, they had to turn to a new tactic to accomplish what they wanted, and they did just that, proving why this was in fact racist. As for the Washington D.C. renters, only the statistics needed to be compared to see the racist motivations, with “fewer than 3 out of every 100” renters receiving a serial eviction filling in neighborhoods with fewer black renters, and neighborhoods with more black renters having a rate of “25 out of every 100”, per the Washington Post (BrandStudio). Those statistics speak for themselves, with the systemic abuse that is a serial eviction filing being exercised heavily and unevenly, seeing a rate substantially higher in neighborhoods with more black renters. It can be said that yes, this is racist, for they prove the motivations of the landlords carrying out the injustice.
After absorbing the previous information, both the systemic injustice and racist motivations, several class concepts appear within Bruce’s Beach and Washington D.C. renters. The most glaring class concepts present would be “the Self and the Other”, “Subalterns”, and “Structural Inequalities”. The role of “the Self” is presumed by those attempting to remove Bruce from his property, and also the Washington D.C. landlords. In both instances, “the Self” is achieved because those mentioned view themselves as superior, being a class above who they view as “the Other”, and because of this, choose to belittle “the Other” and take out injustices on them. By nature, Bruce and the renters become “the Other”, because in a relationship where “the Self” has already been taken on, those they target to become “the Other”. Additionally, the concept of the “Subaltern” is present, but mainly in the case of the Washington D.C. renters, not Bruce. Bruce would be defined as “the Other” more than the “Subaltern” because there is a chance for him to fight back and be inside the power structure, gaining it back, which is proven by his family recently being awarded the property that was always theirs. The renters are the “Subaltern” because they have no chance at making it inside the power structure, to a degree have to comply with the landlords, for they need a place to live, and fighting back for that reason is not an option, cementing their role. Lastly, “structural inequalities” are present, for it is structural inequalities that provided the landlords and those driving out Bruce with the opportunity to access the power they needed to succeed. Structural inequalities made it so the system was much easier to access for certain groups, and because of this, they took advantage and abused the system for their power, an opportunity provided by structural inequalities.
As mentioned in the opening sentences of the column, one of the goals of comparing these two cases was to find out how systemic injustice, and specifically that motivated by racism, as found a way to evolve and survive in the area of property and housing. This question should be answered because of the longevity systemic injustices have found in this aspect of society, with Bruce’s beach happening in 1924, and the Washington D.C. renters happening in the 2020s. And although the “early” example here takes place in 1924, there are plenty of examples just like that one that happened long before 1924. To answer the question of how longevity has been found, there is not one concrete answer to the question, however, part of the answer has to do with the fact that the legal system is similar across most states. When systemic injustices driven by racism worked, such as Bruce’s beach, the blueprint on how to do so was placed out for those looking to do the same in states across the nation. America’s legal system is painfully difficult to change, so once these loopholes were found in one state, they spread to another, and another. Since they aren’t crimes by law they are technically allowed by way of the legal system, they have found survival in the fact that they work because of a system that will never be completely changed, and as long as the system lives, so do the injustices. The other aspect briefly touched on there is the fact that these injustices work in almost any state, so their survival works in part because the system is difficult to change in one place, let alone 50 different states. To conclude, the survival and evolution of these racist, systemic injustices have gone on for as long as they are not painfully obvious, they hide behind the US legal system, and it is the mere fact that they are systemic injustices and not stand-alone moments they have been allowed to continue.
To answer the question this column began trying to address, yes, the cases of Bruce’s Beach and the Washington D.C. renters are racist. Through an exploration of class concepts, systemic vs stand-alone injustices, and motivations for action, it could be determined that yes indeed, these are racist. Class concepts, and what they teach about the dynamics in relationships as well as the history of racism in the United States, allow for these cases to be looked at critically, and come away with that conjunction. It was this form of bias and structural injustice that stood out the most, as it was the motivation for these wrongful acts, and an eye capable of seeing that can be trained through the class concepts. Conclusively, these compared cases reveal a lot more than just being racist, they also reveal how and why America continues to struggle with systemic injustices and change to prevent that is so difficult.
(Present day photo of Bruce’s Beach, provided by Los Angeles Times Article)
(Photo of targeted Washington D.C. neighborhoods, provided by Washington Post article)
Works Cited
BrandStudio, W. P. (2021, March 25). Fighting D.C.’s home eviction crisis with data. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/brand-studio/wp/2021/03/25/fighting-d-c-s-home-eviction-crisis-with-data/.
Xia, Rosanna. “Bruce’s Beach Can Return to Descendants of Black Family in Landmark Move Signed by Newsom.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 30 Sept. 2021, www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-09-30/newsom-signs-law-to-return-bruces-beach-black-family.