• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Little Free Libraries and Racism

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree that Truasti's edit (regardless of the reason) is questionable. :LOL:
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
The point of the OP is a lie and an attempt at a gotcha. That's the OP. This is my contribution to the discussion of the OP.

Your moral courage is duly noted.
 
I agree that Truasti's edit (regardless of the reason) is questionable. :LOL:
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
The point of the OP is a lie and an attempt at a gotcha. That's the OP. This is my contribution to the discussion of the OP.

Your moral courage is duly noted.
Like I said, "I'm not holding my breath".
Tom
 
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
Your response is evidence that alleged inspiration is insufficient.
 
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
Your response is evidence that alleged inspiration is insufficient.

I've got a neighbor who tells me about her regular conversations with Jesus. It's evidence for Jesus's Resurrection, but not very good evidence.
Oh well.
Tom
 

I've got a neighbor who tells me about her regular conversations with Jesus. It's evidence for Jesus's Resurrection, but not very good evidence.
Oh well.
Tom
Perhaps your responses would be more meaningful if you stopped holding your breath.
 
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.

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 ;) ~
Here in my city, it was about water. Wikipedia explains it better than I could.

Post World War II[edit]​

In the years following World War II, the Michigan state legislature enacted laws making it increasingly difficult for incorporated cities to expand by annexing territory from neighboring townships. Townships, which had historically served an agrarian, smaller population than that of larger cities, were given the ability to provide nearly all the same services an incorporated city could. Although Midland pursued (and continues to pursue) a policy of "No annexation, no water,"[37] Saginaw chose to sell water to neighboring communities under long-term contracts. This allowed the townships to further develop at the expense of the city, the limits of which changed little after consolidation in 1989–90. The unintended consequence of this choice was that Saginaw's population stopped growing, new housing development focused on the suburban townships, and businesses eventually followed.
 
I don' t know why we spend so much time arguing about the thoughts of one woman who happened to write an opinion piece, but for some crazy reason we do. So, let me add a little bit of the writer's thoughts for those who can't access it. She's talking about how fearful she is that the historical removal of Black people from places will be repeated again in her neighborhood. In parts of her piece, she doesn't like the way she is feeling about White people, as she doesn't want to be like those who have negative feelings about her people. At least that is the impression I have gotten when I read the entire article twice. The reason that property values dropped during what was known as "white flight" is simple due to supply and demand. As a neighborhood suddenly had numerous homes for sale, the prices dropped, allowing people who had lower incomes to move into the neighborhood. You smart people certainly are aware that due to racism and the lack of opportunities that many Black folks have, especially back in the 40s, 50s and 60s, when this happened, their salaries were statistically lower than that of White people, even White people with similar experience and educational levels.

The author of the articles is fearful that now that her neighborhood is predominately Black and Latino, suddenly White folks will decide they want to move in. She is simply fearful that what was once nicely settled and familiar, will change and push some of her Black neighbors out of the area, just as they were pushed out in so many other circumstances, including some mentioned in the quote beneath my wordy post. I mentioned in a previous post, that Black folks in ATL had their low income housing destroyed to make way for the Olympics in the mid 90s. Fuck it. Read the quote below.

One of the most famous examples of that displacement happened several miles south of Inglewood. Bruce’s Beach, a Black-owned resort, once thrived along the coast of tony Manhattan Beach, until it was seized by eminent domain in 1924 by white city officials. They claimed they needed the land for a public park, but they didn’t build one for more than three decades. It’s clear they simply wanted the bustling holiday and leisure spot and the Black people it attracted gone. That parcel was recently returned to the descendants of Willa and Charles Bruce, who owned it — an extraordinary example of reparation, but an isolated one that still leaves the problem of Black unsettledness intact.
When my uncle, Paul Aubry, bought a house in Los Angeles in the predominantly white, working-class South Central neighborhood of the late 1940s, he wasn’t just buying a house; he was putting his stake in the ground, making his claim to the American ideal of belonging.
My uncle’s claim was rejected. A cross was burned on his lawn. As more Black families moved to the neighborhood, white people moved out in droves. The ground shifted under Uncle Paul’s feet. That white flight forged the chiefly Black and brown South Central of popular imagination and created similar demographics in other city neighborhoods across the country, including Inglewood.
It has to be said that there’s nothing inherently wrong with the Black-, Latino- and immigrant-rich neighborhoods that resulted from those flights. Community has always been our greatest asset, and its greatest source of capital. But now, as younger generations of white people move back to the neighborhoods their parents shunned, in the phenomenon I call “white return,” it all suddenly feels up for grabs — again.
Instead of the blatant racism of what happened at Bruce’s Beach, we now have gentrification. It’s perfectly legal, but ultimately it causes the same racial displacement, on a much larger scale. The stratospheric rise in home prices alone has meant that the Black population of Los Angeles has been declining for decades, and has dropped to around 9 percent.
The anti-gentrification strategy articulated by many of my longtime Black neighbors is this: Stay put. Don’t sell. Stand your ground. While that is possible for some of us (I won’t be selling because, really, where would I go?), it’s not for everyone, and it’s not a permanent solution. It also doesn’t solve the bigger crisis of belonging.
Ultimately, the moment with the couple I saw through my window raised for me a serious moral question about how I should act. Screaming at them to get off my lawn would be adopting the values of the oppressor, as my racial-justice activist father used to say. Yet my resentment was not analogous to the white resentment of generations past (and of now, I’d argue). White resentment has always been legitimized, and reinforced, by legal and cultural dominance, a dynamic evident in everything from the rise of Trumpism to the current battle against the political boogeyman of critical race theory.
 
Thread closed while the mods clean up the accusations of lying, which is against the TOU
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom