Russia abolishes the Pale of Settlement in the late 1800s (late 19th century)

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#11
You're confused about the meaning of American "ghettoes". In America, a ghetto simply means an ethnic or religious enclave, unlike in Europe, where a ghetto generally meant an area where Jews were forced to reside. To the extent that there have been Jewish American ghettoes, they were the product of Jewish people voluntarily choosing to live together. Thus, there is absolutely zero equivalence between the compulsory and restrictive Russian Pale and American Jewish ghettoes.
Yes, that's correct. In the US, there were things such as restrictive covenants up to the middle of the 20th century or so, but this only prohibited certain people from living in certain neighborhoods; it did not categorically exclude certain people from an entire region--like the Pale of Settlement did when it excluded Jews who didn't convert to Christianity from the territories east of this Pale.
 
Jul 2019
561
New Jersey
#12
Yes, that's correct. In the US, there were things such as restrictive covenants up to the middle of the 20th century or so, but this only prohibited certain people from living in certain neighborhoods; it did not categorically exclude certain people from an entire region--like the Pale of Settlement did when it excluded Jews who didn't convert to Christianity from the territories east of this Pale.
What's more, these covenants were purely social, not legal. Of course, in some places (particularly in the south) locals could take matters in their own hands with violence and intimidation, but by and by large the "wrong types" were simply socially ostracized. My grandparents had to put up with that sort of thing in Charlotte, NC, circa 1950.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#13
What's more, these covenants were purely social, not legal.
Yeah, AFAIK, they were private agreements.

Of course, in some places (particularly in the south) locals could take matters in their own hands with violence and intimidation, by and by large the "wrong types" were simply socially ostracized. My grandparents had to put up with that sort of thing in Charlotte, NC, circa 1950.
Yeah, that makes sense. :( I do think that things might have been a bit calmer in the North, though.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#14
In regards to restrictive covenants, sometimes they were motivated by a desire to maintain the ethnic demographics of a particular neighborhood and perhaps even by hate of certain groups; however, sometimes there were rational reasons for people to support such covenants (even if this was morally wrong to do). For instance, if certain groups are much more likely to engage in crime, then it would be unsurprising that some people would want to keep large numbers of those groups out of their neighborhoods (especially if it's hard to get individual-level data on members of these groups before they will settle in their neighborhoods) in order to avoid things such as a much higher crime rate and a severe drop in property values (which is likely to result if there is going to be increased crime). :( I don't think that crime was a particularly large problem when it came to Jews, though.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#15
FTR, my purpose here was not so much to excuse restrictive covenants as it is to explain why exactly some people supported having restrictive covenants.