The wolves who attack whole minority neighborhoods claim a profit, not a racial, motive -- even though, as you and Sarah L. point out the impact is racial.

Personally, I'm amazed that courts continue to honor loan documents and mortgages which memorialize patently unfair transactions. While the criminal law is not, in my view, an effective means of controlling such bandits, halting foreclosures premised on "mortgages" issued in the course of unfair transaction could. Those purchasing securitized loans would be very wary, if the underlying enforcement mechanism required fairness. Is there a place for such legislation?

By the way, are there no unscrupulous women out there (however dressed)?

Predatory Lending Generally:

Predatory lending is a national problem. It harms not only the borrowers directly affected, but also our nation as a whole because it undermines the American dream. Throughout our nation’s history, buying a home has been a key investment for securing economic wellbeing. Millions of American’s purchase homes in order to take their families out of poverty, and into middle-class life. Predatory lending practices undermine the American dream by preventing millions of poor Americans from achieving middle-class status. Exploitative lending is a clear example of how people are (im)poverished, such that, they are impacted by social circumstances which make them poor even though they work and aspire not to be. Strict regulations and oversight over the mortgage industry are necessary and far past-due.

The Racist Components of Predatory Lending:

Mr. Griffith’s post is right on point—the current predatory lending problem is a form of racism. However, Millstone’s comment wrongly concludes that predatory lending does not have a racial motive. Millstone’s comment epitomizes the mainstream discourse regarding institutionalized racism. Mainstream viewpoints often fail to recognize the breadth of racism by perceiving it as something which must be outright and overt. Recognizing this flaw helps answer Griffith’s fundamental question: Why isn’t there public outrage which fuels a grassroots movement to stop racist lending practices?

Predatory lending is a form of institutionalized racism that is much more covert and indirect than the “in your face racism” signified by Griffith’s noose hanging example. On its face, predatory lending appears to be a problem caused by self-interest to maximize personal gain at the detriment of others—or, in the present case, corporate interest in maximizing profits at the detriment of poor people. Thus, predatory lending appears to be a racially neutral problem. The race or ethnicity of the poor people disproportionately suffering from predatory lending practices appears to be a mere coincidental factor.

Such mainstream perspectives regarding racism often fail to realize that racism may be covert, discreet, or indirect. Conventional beliefs must begin to realize that after a certain point, negligent conduct becomes willful blindness towards what one is purposefully doing. Understanding this is key to understanding racist lending practices. Intentionally using predatory lending practices in communities of color rather in equally poor predominately white neighborhoods is racist economic exploitation.

So, to answer Mr. Griffth’s main question, a grassroots movement to stop racist lending practices will arise when mainstream public perceptions encompass a better understanding of racism’s complexities.