"When the mid-20th-century white homeowner claimed that the presence of a Bill and Daisy Myers decreased his property value, he was not merely engaging in racist dogma—he was accurately observing the impact of federal policy on market prices."

Because that's the inevitable reality of government involvement in the market. Absent government interference, there would not have been an artificial suburban housing boom to be steered. But any sort of program to disburse reparations would just create similar opportunities for injustice. And forty years down the road, an almost identical article is written complaining about how the invisible secret racism ruined the reparations project and resulted in iniquities and other crap, that we need a NEW reparations project to fix.

An open and honest look at history involves including private comments as well as public quotations about such people as Lyndon Johnson. The author was absolutely in love with the white poverty/Negro poverty comment, but doesn't seem much interested in Johnson's gutting of the enforcement provisions of the 1957 Civil Rights Act or the political calculation in his switch to signing the 1964 Act, while chortling to his cronies "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years."

An open and honest look at history might wonder at the insistence on collective punishment for the crimes of a limited number of dedicated individualists, who are characterized as much by their vision of separation from the whole, as their racism. States Rights and Slavery were the two issues of the South, and yet, they would punish people throughout the country for the sins of those who wished to be no part of that country, and did all they could to effect the separation.

An open and honest look at history might undermine the claims of the author and his ilk about the country being built on slavery, when the slave, and later Jim Crow, states were the poorest and most backward in the country. One can assert that those poverty-stricken states were deprived their share of New Deal money out of racism towards their large black (non-voting) populations, but the more probable explanation is that the purpose of the New Deal was much more inclined toward the re-election of its perpetrators, than alleviating any other problems, and thus the money was concentrating in the swing states. The South at the time was in no danger of voting Republican, as that was the party still popular with blacks, for both opposing slavery, and more recently, having anti-lynching planks in their national platform. Because of this one-sided political situation, the Democratic administration counted the South as well in its camp, and was more concerned with dispensing largess where it would help more in 1936 & 1940.