Little Free Libraries and Racism

[southernhybrid]

Yeah, what the hell. I just clicked on the link and she talks about a WHITE couple. The author is obviously black. It's about gentrifying a BLACK neighborhood.

And of course, you find it perfectly acceptable for a black woman to be upset that there are white people in her neighborhood.

How did that happen, Trausti?

Obviously Trausti wanted to illustrate the absurdity of the article and NY Times publishing it by changing the race she was upset about.

Anti-white racism is considered a-ok by the woke NY Times editorial board. That's also why they hired anti-white racist Sarah Jeong a few years ago.

The woman was mentally ruminating. She in fact said that she didn't like the way she was feeling when she saw the White couple looking at the little library, but her feelings were at least based on the fact that many Black folks in the US, historically have been forced out of areas where they had lived for many decades, where they felt comfortable, as well as the fact that the primary reason the neighborhood had become Black was due to the White people who left out of fear and prejudice many decades ago. I can understand the resentment she was feeling. She was likely feeling fearful that once again, her Black neighbors would feel pressured to leave their neighborhood.

Since you are very familiar with the Atlanta area, I'm sure you know what the woman is talking about. Remember how poor Black families were pushed out to the suburbs back in the 90s when low cost housing was destroyed in order to make way for the olympics? That's one tiny example of the type of thing this woman was concerned about. Her thoughts have nothing to do with being woke. Her thoughts were more about her fear that once again, Black people would be pushed out of their space by the demands of White people. She never took any action towards anyone. She was simply ruminating about the situation at hand.

She was self examining her own thoughts. She didn't like the way she was feeling when she saw the White couple. She was fearful that her positive actions might be perpetuating gentrification. But, as I said earlier, it's often better to leave some of your thoughts in your head and not publish them in the news, as far too many people will misunderstand your thoughts and. the message that you had hoped to send ends up being misinterpreted as something else.

Some of the comments here are evidence of that.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, what the hell. I just clicked on the link and she talks about a WHITE couple. The author is obviously black. It's about gentrifying a BLACK neighborhood.

And of course, you find it perfectly acceptable for a black woman to be upset that there are white people in her neighborhood.

How did that happen, Trausti?

Obviously Trausti wanted to illustrate the absurdity of the article and NY Times publishing it by changing the race she was upset about.

Anti-white racism is considered a-ok by the woke NY Times editorial board. That's also why they hired anti-white racist Sarah Jeong a few years ago.

Obviously Trausti failed. The article is not about anti-white racism. I can understand why a white supremacist or a conservative snowflake would think that it was, but that does not explain why you or Trausti came to such a blatantly false conclusion.

Not only did he (and you) miss the point of the article, he had to literally lie to make his "point".

 

[Trausti]

Yeah, what the hell. I just clicked on the link and she talks about a WHITE couple. The author is obviously black. It's about gentrifying a BLACK neighborhood.

And of course, you find it perfectly acceptable for a black woman to be upset that there are white people in her neighborhood.

How did that happen, Trausti?

Obviously Trausti wanted to illustrate the absurdity of the article and NY Times publishing it by changing the race she was upset about.

Anti-white racism is considered a-ok by the woke NY Times editorial board. That's also why they hired anti-white racist Sarah Jeong a few years ago.

Obviously Trausti failed. The article is not about anti-white racism. I can understand why a white supremacist or a conservative snowflake would think that it was, but that does not explain why you or Trausti came to such a blatantly false conclusion.

Not only did he (and you) miss the point of the article, he had to literally lie to make his "point".

FFS. She wrote that those people in her neighborhood made her feel uncomfortable. If a White person had wrote the same about the changing demographics of her neighborhood, you’d freak out.

 

[TSwizzle]

But, I don't like gentrification. It's going on in a part of my small city, but it's not pushing Black people out. It's pushing poor people out of the neighborhood, poor people who come in both light and dark shades of skin. The home prices in that area have gone from less than 100K to over 200 K. A lot of the residents are renters. I don't like to see people displaced from a neighborhood that they've called home for decades.

This 100%. I don't like gentrification, regardless of who is doing it, because of exactly that effect.

Sometimes some level of "gentrification" is needed. I grew up in a crappy, run down neighborhood that few outsiders would gravitate to. Now it is quite a nice area with bars and restaurants. Most of the older folks have either died off or are still hanging in there despite most of the old shops and bars all closing down. New people are moving in, young professionals mostly. It's no longer a family neighborhood, my old high school is now "luxury" apartments. I think there is too much nostalgia cast into these views of old neighborhoods. Things change.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, what the hell. I just clicked on the link and she talks about a WHITE couple. The author is obviously black. It's about gentrifying a BLACK neighborhood.

And of course, you find it perfectly acceptable for a black woman to be upset that there are white people in her neighborhood.

How did that happen, Trausti?

Obviously Trausti wanted to illustrate the absurdity of the article and NY Times publishing it by changing the race she was upset about.

Anti-white racism is considered a-ok by the woke NY Times editorial board. That's also why they hired anti-white racist Sarah Jeong a few years ago.

Obviously Trausti failed. The article is not about anti-white racism. I can understand why a white supremacist or a conservative snowflake would think that it was, but that does not explain why you or Trausti came to such a blatantly false conclusion.

Not only did he (and you) miss the point of the article, he had to literally lie to make his "point".

FFS. She wrote that those people in her neighborhood made her feel uncomfortable.

Yes she did. And she wrote how that feeling was wrong.

I get the distinct feeling you did not really read the article you linked to. Perhaps you were too busy falsifying it for your OP?

If a White person had wrote the same about the changing demographics of her neighborhood, you’d freak out.

Your imaginary "whataboutism" only reveals insights into your feelings.

 

[Toni]

He did link the original article —great!

What isn’t ok is that he included a quote—with key words carefully and deliberately changed to misdirect anyone who merely read his fake quote and not the linked article. This was an apparent attempt at ‘gotcha’ to ‘expose’ all of us hypocritical libtards. The changed words in the quoted bit of article were, in fact, a lie.

I have no problem with Trausti or anyone else linking or quoting any article and making the same point he wanted to make: That we hypocritical libtards would be ok with a black person uncomfortable with whites in their neighborhood but would be aghast at a white person uncomfortable with black people in their neighborhood.

But that would have required honesty and desire for an open, sincere discussion which Trausti, for whatever reason, chose not to utilize here.

Abs instead of discussing Trausti and whatever his intentions might have been, we could have had an honest conversation.

 

[Gospel]

I actually find Trausti's edit insightful. Gentrification is usually about white people pushing (via pricing increase) brown people out of their own neighborhoods. While on the other end the argument is brown people are pushing white people out of their own neighborhoods (via pricing decrease). The issue here is one of the said pricing adjustments is always based on tangible investments while the other is based on multiple (sometimes intangible) factors.

 

[TomC]

I actually find Trausti's edit insightful. Gentrification is usually about white people pushing (via pricing increase) brown people out of their own neighborhoods. While on the other end the argument is brown people are pushing white people out of their own neighborhoods (via pricing decrease). The issue here is one of the said pricing adjustments is always based on tangible investments while the other is based on multiple (sometimes intangible) factors.

Honestly, I would find the discussion of the ebb and flow of neighborhoods over time interesting. I spent my youngest years in Gary, Indiana, way downtown. As Gary became blacker, my parents joined the white flight to the suburbs. Not because the city was getting racially darker so much as because property values were dropping and criminal activities rising.

But I think it would be a derail of the thread, to be honest. I don't think that is what Trausti was talking about.
Tom

ETA ~It would be easier to know if @Trausti weighed in on the actual point to the thread.~

 

[Gospel]

Not because the city was getting racially darker so much as because property values were dropping and criminal activities rising.

This. The cause is debatable but if I was to toss my dick on the table and make a claim I'd say it's a combination of the problems in the black community coupled with financial/unethical/political divestments.

 

[Emily Lake]

But, I don't like gentrification. It's going on in a part of my small city, but it's not pushing Black people out. It's pushing poor people out of the neighborhood, poor people who come in both light and dark shades of skin. The home prices in that area have gone from less than 100K to over 200 K. A lot of the residents are renters. I don't like to see people displaced from a neighborhood that they've called home for decades. I can understand the writer's conflicting feelings about her little library, but i don't really understand when people want to publish such personal thoughts.

The problem is gentrification is not a cause, but a result.

Improve a neighborhood, you attract people with more money. This displaces some with less money.

I think the problem is some seriously screwed up property tax laws.

 

[TomC]

Not because the city was getting racially darker so much as because property values were dropping and criminal activities rising.

This. The cause is debatable but if I was to toss my dick on the table and make a claim I'd say it's a combination of the problems in the black community coupled with financial/unethical/political divestments.

This is what would make the discussion so interesting.
For example,
Did property values drop because more black people moved there? Or did more black people move there because it became more affordable as property values dropped?

There was lots more going on than just the racial mixture of the population. Gary was very dependent on the steel mills to pump money into the local economy. But the steel industry was going more high tech, the old plants couldn't easily keep up. Gary's steel mills were mostly built in the 20s. That's why my parents parents came there.

Then there's the rise of environmental issues. Up until the 60s, those huge dirty plants could just dump mountains of toxic waste in Lake Michigan or the Calumet River or the air. Hey "What's good for General Motors is good for America!", amirite? Black people didn't care as much about issues like heavy metals in the water or particulate matter in the air. More black people meant less resistance to corporate profits at the expense of a habitable environment.

There's a ton of interesting questions.
Tom


ETA ~BBC on the table will not improve my focus on social issues ~

 

[laughing dog]

I think you are mistaken—which is vastly different than thinking that you are deliberately lying. People can be and do post things that they believe to be true but are actually false. People also deliberately post things that are intended as sarcasm or irony. It’s rare—in fact, this is the first time I can think of when a member deliberately altered the text of an article to change facts.

Correct me if I'm wrong(I don't care enough about NYT to get access), but didn't @Trausti post a link to the original essay in the OP? If so, it doesn't look much different from others forms of "literary license" I see on this and other places all the time.

I'll agree it was hamfisted to the point of counterproductive. Maybe better to have posted the original behind a spoiler but in the post.

But I don't believe his point had a thing to do with gentrification. He was pointing out a common phenomenon. Whether an opinion is praiseworthy or appalling often depends entirely on the race of the speaker. It's a subtle but pervasive form of racism.

And I honestly think much of the outrage in this thread is because the OP touched a nerve.
Tom

You think wrong.

 

[TomC]

I think you are mistaken—which is vastly different than thinking that you are deliberately lying. People can be and do post things that they believe to be true but are actually false. People also deliberately post things that are intended as sarcasm or irony. It’s rare—in fact, this is the first time I can think of when a member deliberately altered the text of an article to change facts.

Correct me if I'm wrong(I don't care enough about NYT to get access), but didn't @Trausti post a link to the original essay in the OP? If so, it doesn't look much different from others forms of "literary license" I see on this and other places all the time.

I'll agree it was hamfisted to the point of counterproductive. Maybe better to have posted the original behind a spoiler but in the post.

But I don't believe his point had a thing to do with gentrification. He was pointing out a common phenomenon. Whether an opinion is praiseworthy or appalling often depends entirely on the race of the speaker. It's a subtle but pervasive form of racism.

And I honestly think much of the outrage in this thread is because the OP touched a nerve.
Tom

You think wrong.

The brilliance of your analysis is an inspiration to us all.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I think you are mistaken—which is vastly different than thinking that you are deliberately lying. People can be and do post things that they believe to be true but are actually false. People also deliberately post things that are intended as sarcasm or irony. It’s rare—in fact, this is the first time I can think of when a member deliberately altered the text of an article to change facts.

Correct me if I'm wrong(I don't care enough about NYT to get access), but didn't @Trausti post a link to the original essay in the OP? If so, it doesn't look much different from others forms of "literary license" I see on this and other places all the time.

I'll agree it was hamfisted to the point of counterproductive. Maybe better to have posted the original behind a spoiler but in the post.

But I don't believe his point had a thing to do with gentrification. He was pointing out a common phenomenon. Whether an opinion is praiseworthy or appalling often depends entirely on the race of the speaker. It's a subtle but pervasive form of racism.

And I honestly think much of the outrage in this thread is because the OP touched a nerve.
Tom

Speaking for myself, my outrage, such as it is, is that a poster deliberately lied, and deliberately lied by altering text in a published article. I am not certain but I believe that making such alterations to another poster's posts is a TOU infraction but I'm not sure. I don't have the time or interest to look it up myself.

Whatever interesting points there were to be made about gentrification (or simply the notion that whites in a black neighborhood = gentrification!), racial divides in housing/real estate, etc. or points about what you term a 'common phenomenon' or perhaps a common perception/misperception are, for me, overwhelmed by my response: Trausti's post and his discussion are not to be trusted because he deliberately lied. Not because he disagrees with me on anything and not because he selectively quoted a source or posted a source I find unreliable but because he deliberately lied to watch an explosion.

 

[Gospel]

I agree that Truasti's edit (regardless of the reason) is questionable.

 

[TomC]

Whatever interesting points there were to be made about gentrification (or simply the notion that whites in a black neighborhood = gentrification!), racial divides in housing/real estate, etc. are, for me, overwhelmed by my response: Trausti's post and his discussion are not to be trusted because he deliberately lied. Not because he disagrees with me on anything and not because he selectively quoted a source or posted a source I find unreliable but because he deliberately lied to watch an explosion.

I can't help but notice how thoroughly focused on the posting style, while ignoring the point, you are.

Instead of defending your "separate but equal" attitude towards public conversation you keep going on about your outrage over how the point was made.

This isn't difficult for me to understand. You'd rather not talk about politically correct racism. Got it.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I agree that Truasti's edit (regardless of the reason) is questionable.

I described it as "hamfisted to the point of counterproductive", IIRC.

But I'm watching the PC dodge the point of it. Try getting them to admit that having different sets of rules for white folks and black folks is systemic racism.
Tom

 

[Toni]

I agree that Truasti's edit (regardless of the reason) is questionable.

I described it as "hamfisted to the point of counterproductive", IIRC.

But I'm watching the PC dodge the point of it. Try getting them to admit that having different sets of rules for white folks and black folks is systemic racism.
Tom

Maybe someone should start an honest thread about that.

 

[Toni]

Whatever interesting points there were to be made about gentrification (or simply the notion that whites in a black neighborhood = gentrification!), racial divides in housing/real estate, etc. are, for me, overwhelmed by my response: Trausti's post and his discussion are not to be trusted because he deliberately lied. Not because he disagrees with me on anything and not because he selectively quoted a source or posted a source I find unreliable but because he deliberately lied to watch an explosion.

I can't help but notice how thoroughly focused on the posting style, while ignoring the point, you are.

Instead of defending your "separate but equal" attitude towards public conversation you keep going on about your outrage over how the point was made.

This isn't difficult for me to understand. You'd rather not talk about politically correct racism. Got it.
Tom

Posting style?

No, the intentional lie, the intention to deceive and to create a gotcha moment. Dishonesty is not a style.

Such tactics do not lend themselves to honest discourse.

 

[TomC]

I agree that Truasti's edit (regardless of the reason) is questionable.

I described it as "hamfisted to the point of counterproductive", IIRC.

But I'm watching the PC dodge the point of it. Try getting them to admit that having different sets of rules for white folks and black folks is systemic racism.
Tom

Maybe someone should start an honest thread about that.

Here?
On this forum?

I've got pretty thick skin, but I'm not putting my hand in that blender.

Frankly, you could put your outrage over the way Trausti did the OP aside. Then discuss the point of the OP, here in the already existing thread. But I'm not holding my breath.
Tom