Even if things get misty wrt the more distant past, what about the historically recent neoliberal era, alone?

Here in New Zealand, where I live, two thirds of Māori in Auckland owned their own homes in the 1960s, but only 18 per cent do today.

To borrow a phrase from Leonard Cohen, "everybody knows" that neoliberalism is a kind of colourblind racism, whereby the rug was pulled up against non-European great migrations to urban areas.

Here in NZ, at least, the state is required under the Treaty of Waitangi to afford Māori and Pākehā (white settlers), and everyone else who might come, the same protections under the law, and the only question is whether this amounts to 'negative' rights or to the more positive kinds of aid you mention, which definitely went to Pākehā in spades back in the day--all kinds of housing assistance, and so on-- but were then abolished once large numbers of Māori, and Pacific Islanders too, started moving to cities such as Auckland, which are getting pretty close to being majority minority these days but were almost exclusively Pākehā in the 1950s.

This is the dirty little secret of NZ's neoliberal turn, from a country that used to be run on much the same lines as Sweden: where, as an old newsreel from back in the day has it, "Only an intensive building programme now can provide for the future! Children, the citizens of tomorrow, must also have their chance!": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj7tTDHH8oE.

Today, the children of the Kiwi poor, are seen as a law and order problem, the main building programme the current NZ Govt is proposing being more prisons. However, in our country, neoliberal austerities are wide open to legal challenge thanks to the TOW, and even in the USA, something similar might be possible.

After all, we do now know what Ronald Reagan thought of shoeless Africans, to the point that even Nixon was embarrassed; and let's not get started on Lee Atwater ...