Get up out of that so I can take one more punch at you!

Sadly, Everett would need to wait for the Fair Housing Act of 1968 for this landlord’s behavior to be federally illegal. It’s unclear what state Mr. True lives in (besides anger, obviously).

    • macarthur_park@lemmy.worldOP
      65·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, I was hoping that maybe back then the term was meant to refer more to the “human race”, so a concern about population growth.

      But some quick googling indicates the eugenics-meaning version of the term was coined around 1900. Honestly not a good look for Everett.

        • criitz@reddthat.com
          15·
          3 months ago

          I thought this at first too, but what he’s accusing the guy of is wanting him to kill his children, so associating it with race suicide makes it more like one of his beliefs not the other guy’s (ie. “you want me to kill my children, you must be someone who’s in favor of race suicide - which I believe in!” )

      • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works
        22·
        3 months ago

        Everett is protesting against the concept. He’s the one asking the other man, “Dude, are you for eugenics? You must hate kids. Taste my fist.”

      • Rolando@lemmy.world
        21·
        3 months ago

        Well, according to that Wikipedia page, people who used the term “race suicide” believed that “desirable” people were having too few kids and “undesirable” people were having too many kids.

        So Interpretation A of this cartoon is the following:

        1. the Landlord believes in the “race suicide” concept, and believes that Everett is an “undesirable” person who has too many kids. The Landlord is insincere when he says that Everett is “estimable” and a “desirable tenant”.
        2. Everett scorns the “race suicide” concept, and argues for his kids’ right to exist.

        And Interpretation B is:

        1. the Landlord sincerely thinks Everett is “estimable” and a “desirable” tenant, but just doesn’t want his kids to live there for some reason
        2. Everett believes in the “race suicide” concept, and is telling the Landlord that without his kids, “race suicide” would occur.

        I’m leaning slightly towards Interpretation A because I think the Landlord is being insincere, but I could be convinced otherwise.

        Edit: on second thought, I don’t think Interpretation B Point 1 relies on the Landlord believing Everett is “estimable” and a “desirable” tenant, only on the undesireability of the kids living there.

          • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works
            9·
            3 months ago

            Thank you. Everett is the one standing up for renter’s rights. It’s illegal in the US to discriminate against potential renters because they have kids, or don’t have kids.

            • Catoblepas
              3·
              3 months ago

              This comic is from the early 1900s, when they didn’t have those protections. The Federal Fair Housing Act wasn’t passed until the 60s, and it wasn’t expanded to include families with children until the 80s.

              It’s possible he is defending renter’s rights here, but it’s important to remember that prior to WWII eugenics was considered a progressive cause, and it was championed by other progressive groups at the time as well, like feminist groups. The idea was that you could reduce suffering by not causing people with undesirable traits (mostly disabilities) to be born to begin with. If True was a eugenicist, it wouldn’t be out of place in the historical context of things.

        • criitz@reddthat.com
          5·
          3 months ago

          People who believed in race suicide used it as a justification to have more white kids, not get rid of white kids. Your point A1 doesn’t make sense unless they are different races, but they both look white to me. So it’s gotta be B.

          • Rolando@lemmy.world
            2·
            3 months ago

            Hmmm good point. But I think the eugenics of the time was also based on class, ethnicity, and personal characteristics:

            In the United States, “unfit” races have historically included minorities such as immigrants and African Americans, people with mental and physical disabilities, people in poverty, institutionalized people, and/or people convicted of crimes. Eugenics sought to eliminate these people, such that their “undesirable traits and behaviors” would be effectively weeded out of the human population over time.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_suicide

            Note the 1903 illustration on that page “Concerning Race Suicide”. Everybody seems to be of European descent, but the wealthier people on one side have no children but the people on the other side – who seem to be coded as lower-class recent immigrants – have many chidren. I think that is being presented as a bad thing, though everybody seems to be happy and well-fed (if a bit crowded).

            • criitz@reddthat.com
              3·
              3 months ago

              Touché. I don’t read the “you’d make a desirable tenant, but…” as insincere, so I tend to view it as the landlord saying he likes Everett fine but doesn’t want Everett’s children around.

      • VerilyFemme
        18·
        3 months ago

        I feel like Everett is held back by the views and vocabulary of the times here. His point is less to-do with race relations or politics and is really about how it is ridiculous that a man with kids is being turned down from housing just for having kids. I’m assuming he just wanted to be as insulting as possible, and that was a heavily fear-mongered issue at the time.

      • HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee
        2·
        3 months ago

        I’ve seen other comics where Everett rejected the concept. One was when he told a woman he believed in it (in the sense of wanting it to happen) and threatened to kill children, and another when he told a man who brought it up that he was introducing him to race homicide. (I guess the term “genocide” hadn’t entered the vocabulary.)

  • tetrachromacy@lemmy.world
    15·
    3 months ago

    I don’t have kids and won’t. In my experience as a tenant renting various crap shacks, both children and adults can be loud and annoying, so it’s not like renting to adults only will bring the noise level down. Kids run around and scream, but adults work on endless home improvement projects, or have lots of loud argumentative sex, or play an electric drum kit until 2am. Lots of variety. Point being that anyone has the potential to be a bad neighbor.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      13·
      3 months ago

      adults work on endless home improvement projects, or have lots of loud argumentative sex, or play an electric drum kit until 2am.

      I’d like to humbly apologize for my behavior from 2009 to 2013. I was in a house but I was definitely doing all of these. I did use headphones for my electric drum kit, though.

  • desktop_user
    3·
    3 months ago

    isn’t age discrimination still allowed, just not against the old people?

    • Srh@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 months ago

      In housingin the us you can’t discriminate based on familial status (that law was passed way after this comic). What I think you are talking about would be in the work place title 7.

    • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      All sorts of discrimination can occur, it should just never be articulated or put into writing. Unless it’s just egregious, discrimination is pretty damn difficult to prove.

      …but no, most discrimination is not allowed. Especially when it comes to basic things like age, race, gender, marital/family status, religion, sexual orientation.