{"version": "1.0", "type": "rich", "title": "I know this is real netpicky but while LA was super super white especially compared to now during the period you mentioned,...", "author_name": "kontextmaschine", "author_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "provider_name": "kontextmaschine", "provider_url": "https://kontextmaschine.com", "url": "https://kontextmaschine.com/post/157222888238/", "html": "<div class=\"question\"><strong>Anonymous</strong> asked: I know this is real netpicky but while LA was super super white especially compared to now during the period you mentioned, there were a few other big cities in America that were even whiter. I checked and statistically it's true but also just from intuition and the Zoot suit riots</div>\n<blockquote><p>\n\n [2/3]\u00a0 And by a few I really mean a lot, New York, Detroit, Chicago, \nand every city in the midwest and northeast were whiter than LA in 1940.\n Not by a huge margin always but still whiter.</p><p>[3/3]\u00a0 \n\n And if you mean before or after 1940 there were plenty of large \ncities that were whiter than Los Angeles at those times too.\n \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\n \u00a0 \u00a0\n<br/></p></blockquote><p>Huh. Fuck. That\u2019s one of the things I thought I remembered from Prof. Blumin\u2019s lectures but I don\u2019t have the notes at hand and your pushback\u2019s making me question things. <br/></p><p>I do think he was talking about the prewar, pre-Second Great Migration boom, but my \u201cGolden Age\u201d and the implication that an inhabitant would live to 1992 in throws that and you say even then.<br/></p><p>I\u2019m wondering if I mangled the line (maybe it was \u201cmost Anglophone, most native-born\u201d, to distinguish from the Italian/Irish/Jewish/Polish/Czech white ethnics back east) or just fucked it up completely and am flat wrong. In any case, don\u2019t have confidence in it anymore, I\u2019ll withdraw it. Thx.<br/></p>"}