Kim Blog Post 5

     In chapter 2 of Dark Ghettos, Shelby argues for self-segregation of black communities and against proposals of racial and economic integration. He claims that black people have legitimate reasons to self-segregate like maintaining "long-standing community ties, to sustain black institutions and cultural practices, and to ensure access to establishments that serve black needs."(pg. 71) However, racial integration attempts to solve inequalities and problems that exist with stigmatized black neighborhoods, by having members of different races live in the same neighborhood so that blacks will have better access to social capital. Economic integration attempts to solve the issues of inequalities and disadvantaged black neighborhoods, by having providing capital in the form of money so that black people could "leave ghettos for more advantaged neighborhoods," effectively making ghettos disappear(pg 77). He also argues that the "integrationist vision" fails to be "sensitive to the reasonable demands and concerns of blacks;" social justice policies like integration should only be practiced if they can be justified to blacks when considering the risks and costs to an "unjustly disadvantaged group." (pg. 67) He further claims that interracial solidarity will be achieved as a "natural by-product of a just multiracial society of equals."(pg.79)

I am thoroughly convinced of his reasoning, but there seems to be a case study that argues for racial and economic integration which could be considered arguably successful in establishing interracial solidarity. Singapore, before developing into one of the wealthiest countries in Asia was a multi-ethnical country dealing with its own version of 'interracial' conflict. Yet to establish interracial solidarity they enacted various housing reforms in which proportions of different ethnicities in neighborhoods needed to reflect the proportions within the population. Although they still continue to have problems, it could be argued to be minor ones in comparison to what they had before and could be determined to be arguably successful. I would be curious to know how professor Shelby would respond to Singapore's case. 

Assuming the veil of ignorance for individuals in the original position given by Rawls, I am not completely sure that such individuals would reject a Singaporean style of integration. In the short-run, those disadvantaged may bear more of the initial suffering, but the short-term suffering would be followed by an explosion of what could be argued as exponential growth in well-being in the long run particularly for those in the disadvantaged group.