Tell me what L.A. was like back in the 1950's/1960's (Los Angeles: high school, living in)

[Nerdlord]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

The point is that it's not just one ethnicity of people who moves when their financial means change.

And where did anyone ever say that?

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Would you care to address the second part of that post:

For example, neighborhoods such as Compton were, once upon a time ago, 100% White. So then, if everybody was a hardcore Grand Dragon Klansman Nazi Brownshirt Skinhead Stormfronter, how did Black people eventually move into the area? Would not the White racists have kept them out if racism was so prevalent as some people claim?

You are all welcome to your "Leave it to Beaver" nostalgia....there was plenty of good in LA back then. But Disgruntled LA Native was making retarded claims about how life was better for ALL races in 1950 Los Angeles? That is a joke!

LA circa 1950 was not a good place to be black or a woman for that matter...of course, LA was not unique in that regard. This was the case anywhere in the U.S. at the time.

In reference to Compton:...the city was particularly hostile to Blacks when they first tried moving in. Policing strategies were designed to keep the "negroes" out. The "white racists" tried to keep blacks out through racially restrictive covenants....until the courts ruled them invalid in the late 40's. Granted, Compton was like the rest of LA County in this regard...racially restrictive covenants were used all over the county.

According to an essay by Josh Sides, the director of the Center for Southern California Studies at CSU Northridge, in the early years of World War II the Compton City Council resisted construction of a public housing complex in the neighborhood because it was considered "Negro housing." Mobs formed under the slogan "Keep the Negroes North of 130th Street." As with other areas throughout the region, they employed violent tactics, including vandalism and death threats, to keep Black families from moving in.

So no Klansmen in Compton but not exactly an open arms welcome either.

[Astral_Weeks]

^^Again, nothing wrong with celebrating LA's past. I just think it is fantasyland to sugar coat it as being a paradise for all races/ethnicities circa the 1950's, etc..

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

You are all welcome to your "Leave it to Beaver" nostalgia....there was plenty of good in LA back then. But Disgruntled LA Native was making retarded claims about how life was better for ALL races in 1950 Los Angeles? That is a joke!

LA circa 1950 was not a good place to be black or a woman for that matter...of course, LA was not unique in that regard. This was the case anywhere in the U.S. at the time.

In reference to Compton:...the city was particularly hostile to Blacks when they first tried moving in. Policing strategies were designed to keep the "negroes" out. The "white racists" tried to keep blacks out through racially restrictive covenants....until the courts ruled them invalid in the late 40's. Granted, Compton was like the rest of LA County in this regard...racially restrictive covenants were used all over the county.

According to an essay by Josh Sides, the director of the Center for Southern California Studies at CSU Northridge, in the early years of World War II the Compton City Council resisted construction of a public housing complex in the neighborhood because it was considered "Negro housing." Mobs formed under the slogan "Keep the Negroes North of 130th Street." As with other areas throughout the region, they employed violent tactics, including vandalism and death threats, to keep Black families from moving in.

So no Klansmen in Compton but not exactly an open arms welcome either.

just let me ask you, did you live in Los Angeles or L.A. county in the 50s and 60s or are you voicing your opinion on what you have read? Of course it wasn't totally accepting of all minorities, but it was probably more accepting than most large metro cities throughout the United States. We did live there in the 50s and 60s, it was a wonderful place to live for the most part.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by nmnita

just let me ask you, did you live in Los Angeles or L.A. county in the 50s and 60s or are you voicing your opinion on what you have read? Of course it wasn't totally accepting of all minorities, but it was probably more accepting than most large metro cities throughout the United States. We did live there in the 50s and 60s, it was a wonderful place to live for the most part. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I don't doubt it was a hell of a lot better than a lot of places, esp. the Jim Crow south. My parents were alive and well then. They lived in LA, New Orleans, NYC and San Francisco before coming back to LA to have a family. So I am quite aware of how LA stacked up on a comparative basis.

I was born in LA in the late 60's but quite frankly I documented my "opinion" with a reference to a historian with ties to CSUN and a demonstrated specialty in LA's history. I'll take that as evidence more than some random poster on C-D including you.

Dr. Josh Sides - CSUN

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

But Disgruntled LA Native was making retarded claims about how life was better for ALL races in 1950 Los Angeles? That is a joke!

I think that poster blew his credibility back on post #185.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaGal

My parents bought their first home in 1955 in Torrance, CA on the GI Bill. California was not congested back in the 50's and 60's. New communities were still being built (tract homes). Families had problems but it was hidden. Somehow we all got along and made it through. My mother never worked until we were older. You sacrificed a lot back in those days and did not spend a fortune at Christmas. We were your typical Middle Class Americans. There was no "SILVER SPOON" -

I had a similar experience to yours. My parents bought their first home w/ the GI bill as well, a few years earlier. That was definitely a different time in southern California.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

Yeah, I don't doubt it was a hell of a lot better than a lot of places, esp. the Jim Crow south. My parents were alive and well then. They lived in LA, New Orleans, NYC and San Francisco before coming back to LA to have a family. So I am quite aware of how LA stacked up on a comparative basis.

I was born in LA in the late 60's but quite frankly I documented my "opinion" with a reference to a historian with ties to CSUN and a demonstrated specialty in LA's history. I'll take that as evidence more than some random poster on C-D including you.

Dr. Josh Sides - CSUN

Interesting you would have used a CSUN, our daughter and her husband were both grads of CSUN> that being said, using a reference from someone, regardless of who wrote it or how things were documented is very different than living the experience. Heck by the mid 70s many white middle management males were losing promotions to minority women. Yep, that is the truth. But do you think you are going to find that printed in any reference book? Most likely not. Any research, regardless can be slanted to prove what the researcher wants to prove. So, let me assure you, those of us who have lived it, know first hand; we do not have to depend on finding out simply via a book or article.

No one is saying everything was perfect. we had problems, there was prejudice and some had it rougher than others, but overall, Los Angeles and the metro area was a great place to live and yes. life was good. Remember we are generalizing here, not claiming everyone or everything was perfect.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by nmnita

Interesting you would have used a CSUN, our daughter and her husband were both grads of CSUN> that being said, using a reference from someone, regardless of who wrote it or how things were documented is very different than living the experience. Heck by the mid 70s many white middle management males were losing promotions to minority women. Yep, that is the truth. But do you think you are going to find that printed in any reference book? Most likely not. Any research, regardless can be slanted to prove what the researcher wants to prove. So, let me assure you, those of us who have lived it, know first hand; we do not have to depend on finding out simply via a book or article. .

Just nifty nmnita. I see your "ageism" at work again. You do this time and gain. You have a disagreement with a poster and you use age as the reason why that person must be wrong. You offer no actual evidence or source to back up your counter claims....we just have to trust you because you were there!

By that logic, you yourself can make no valid conclusions about the Civil War or any other distant historical event because YOU weren't alive then either!

I will stick to actual historical analysis and an overall weighing of the historical evidence to make conclusions. Anecdotal information from someone who was there is just that...anecdotal. Possibly very interesting but still anecdotal. Often times the people who have lived an event do offer important insight but they are often filled with bias of their own. It can often takes decades to get a clear unbiased picture of events.

That is wonderful your kids went to CSUN...are they professional historians who have written books and done decades of research on the history of Los Angeles?

[afropack-man]

It was great. Just don't be black or Hispanic.