Joseph Eichler was one of the few developers in the Bay Area in the 1950's who purposely did not follow the realtors segregating guidelines. He sold to anyone. Consequently, the Monta Loma neighborhood in Mountain View had some original owners who were Black, and some who were Jewish, two groups who were not sold to by most realtors and developers of the day.

That should be "Jim Crow", not "Jim Crowe."

Didn’t know that about Eichler. It is a great neighborhood.

>"Consequently, the Monta Loma neighborhood in Mountain View had some original owners who were Black..."

^ Maybe so in Mountain View but pretty much ZERO in Palo Alto 'Eichlerville'.

In the 1950s, Palo Alto relegated people of color to south of Page Mill Road residencies.

As a result, many African-Americans chose EPA and then the whites and Asians began moving out of the neighborhood in droves. Many resituated in Mountain View & Sunnyvale.

Today EPA is heavily Hispanic and Pacific Islander.

For those trying to sanitize Mountain View's history, it makes an appearance in The Color of Law. The American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group committed to racial integration, wanted to build a community that would sell to both white and black people in Mountain View, and city officials told them they would never grant the necessary approvals for it.

> "a Quaker group committed to racial integration, wanted to build a community that would sell to both white and black people in Mountain View, and city officials told them they would never grant the necessary approvals for it."

^ Is that why Mountain View remained so heavily Hispanic at one time?

If the city was against both white and black residents, this would only leave room for other ethnicities to inhabit the community.

I do recall seeing some white people in older Mountain View photographs. Did they sell their properties to people of Mexican descent only to move back at a later time frame?

Many of the city streets now have Caucasian names attached to them. We're they renamed, leaving a few Hispanic ones remaining?

Being new to Mountain View, I find this racial profiling both interesting and somewhat disturbing.

It's a good book, you should give it a go. The reason people objected to integrated developments in the past is not because they sold to white people, but because they sold to black people.

At the risk of being labeled a "troll" or engaging in "trolling," someone should speak up for native Americans who were pushed aside and exterminated by immigrants. Washington DC pays tribute to native Americans - including through a commercial enterprise named the WASHINGTON REDSKINS. If our ancestors had not cleared out those REDSKINS, none of you would own or rent a residence in Mountain View. Indeed, there would be no Mountain View, no California and no USA. But pick your favorite history - if you like - and disregard the rest.

> "Washington DC pays tribute to native Americans - including through a commercial enterprise named the WASHINGTON REDSKINS. If our ancestors had not cleared out those REDSKINS, none of you would own or rent a residence in Mountain View. Indeed, there would be no Mountain View, no California and no USA."

^ I too find the term 'redskin' disparaging to Native Americans
but wasn't it the Ohlones who originally inhabited this area?

I was told that the Cherokee and Indian monickers were removed a long time ago from the local Sequoia HS and Stanford University + Fremont HS sports programs.

San Diego State (my alma mater) still uses the Aztecs though the Aztecs resided in Mexico. Is this acceptable being that the name originates from another locale?

Lastly, would the Ohlones be acceptable as a localteam name? I believe there is an elementary school in Palo Alto named after them and no on is complaining.

De Anza College still uses the Dons as their mascot with the profile of a conquistador. Is this OK?

The politically correct climate is getting very confusing these days.

A little story - a true one. Some 2 decades ago, I tuned into KGO Radio (810 am) on a Monday morning. The Washington Redskins had just played the San Francisco 49ers the day before at Candlestick Park. Two native Americans had protested outside the game the use of the name Redskins as derogatory and a tribute to the slaughter of native Americans. And by the way, as I type this post, I see on TV that the owner of the Washington Redskins has something new to say on the subject. I will add that info if he arrives. But returning to my true story: the KGO morning host, Ronn Owens, raised the possible topic among others at the top of his talk show. He asked whether the protest was an example of political correctness. I called in. I pointed out that most NFL players were actually black and that the team would be more accurately named the WASHINGTON BLACKSKINS. Ronn Owens was speechless. I then asked whether, if the team were named the WASHINGTON BLACKSKINS, did he think anyone would object. Ronn then went to his "I don't know about all of this political correctness" crutch. He terminated my call. But others followed. For the whole first hour of the show (9-10 am) people called arguing that REDSKINS is dehumanizing and racist. To start the second hour (10-11 am), Ronm Owens had a guest: Marlo Thomas. Look her up if you don't recognize the name. Ronn told Marlo that he had just spent an hour being criticized for defending the name REDSKINS and asked what she thought. Marlo said that if people find it offensive, the name should be changed. Of course it depends on WHY a name is found to be offensive, but Marlo basically had it right. Since then, the billionaire owner of the Washington Redskins has repeatedly refused to even discuss a name change. But apart from the name, give some thought to the history - all of the history.

CNN just reported that billionaire Dan Snyder, the Washington Redskins owner, is reviewing the name REDSKINS. Why? Because corporate sponsors have threatened to leave. So if this billionaire changes the name from REDSKINS to something else, will that solve the problem? Will it "right" history? Will that be the end of the discussion of the natives in America who were in the way of the foreign invaders?

> "Will that be the end of the discussion of the natives in America who were in the way of the foreign invaders?"

^ Years ago, a Native American once told me that they should have let the Pilgrims STARVE as the Puritans not only took over their lands but also practiced bogus stuff like witch hunts.

The Spanish Inquisition and the explorers/conquistadors from Spain were also a bunch of bad apples.