A Black Author's Journey Into American 'Whitopia'

 

For his book, Searching For Whitopia, Rich Benjamin lists every city and county in the U.S. that is "whiter than the nation, its respective region, and its state." He calls these enclaves "Whitopias."

 

Once Benjamin identified the Whitopias, he immersed himself in them. He wanted to find out why more and more whites are moving to small towns and exurban areas that are, for the most part, white. He even spent time living in three, in Forsythe County, Ga., Couer d'Alene, Idaho, and St. George, Utah.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113543979

Wow ... this looks like a great read! Can't wait to have time to actually sit down and check it out!

whitopia?  This is nothing new.  Hell I've lived in whitopia all my damn life!

nice little anti-white, oversimplified and outright erroneous perspective on the problem, at least judging by the panels

whitopia? This is nothing new. Hell I've lived in whitopia all my damn life!

 

After all, there' nowhere whiter than Harlem and Shaker Square!

 

Ugh, I didn't know "controversial" meant stale and reductionist.  I haven't read it, but from the description, doesn't sound like it offers a lot of insight.

whitopia?  This is nothing new.  Hell I've lived in whitopia all my damn life!

 

After all, there' nowhere whiter than Harlem and Shaker Square!

 

Ugh, I didn't know "controversial" meant stale and reductionist.  I haven't read it, but from the description, doesn't sound like it offers a lot of insight.

 

What I mean is, we live in a white dominated world.  For people of color, what he's written is nothing new.

^Yeah, that makes sense.  I was just busting your chops.

What I mean is, we live in a white male dominated world.  For people of color, what he's written is nothing new.

 

Fixed that for ya.

What I mean is, we live in a white male dominated world.  For people of color, what he's written is nothing new.

 

Fixed that for ya.

 

Thank you dear!

 

^Yeah, that makes sense.  I was just busting your chops.

 

Do I have to give you "the look"?

Maybe stale and reductionist to us, but clearly not everyone believes that the world is round in this regard.  To me, the book's stated premise seems undeniable.  Of course no study will ever "prove" white racism to have been a leading factor in sprawl.  But a quick glance through the history of fair housing laws leaves little question. 

 

If you're white, it only takes a few minutes of conversation with many exurbanites before they throw you a "THOSE people" reference to see where you stand.  If it turns out you're not racist then "THOSE people" means, and always meant, shady low-lifes of all colors.  Because we're not racist, we just have standards, that's all.  If it turns out you're racist too... the euphamism disappears. 

I thought it was funny.  But I just read the cartoon.

I'll give it a read...

 

Also a factor that I have never understood, a majority of white people have an expectation of any housing they own, or at least aspire to own needs to be shiny and new...

He should've thrown Indy on the list too for his case studies. ;)

"Christine says she doesn't miss the many hues in L.A.'s population: "For me it's just the restaurants.""

 

Wow! Who needs diversity when there is a PF Changs at the local mall!

I don't get this example, at least in the context of what he's purportedly discussing

 

Christine Blum moved to St. George in 2004 after living for twenty-four years in Los Angeles. "When I lived in California, everyone was a liberal, pretty much," recalls Christine, the president of the local women's Republican group. "I wanted to be around people who shared my political views." She groans remembering the conversations in California where liberals bashed the GOP and the social settings in which she felt censored. "It's like, I don't want to say what I really think, 'cause they're going to think I'm an evil, right-wing fascist." In California, she worked in the animation field, mostly for Disney, and as an assistant director on King of the Hill. She came to St. George to escape the big city and to start a new career as a cartoonist and illustrator.

 

So she moved from LA to St. George, because she's tired of defending her conservatism, and chose to live in what I'm presuming is a more conservative enclave. Is he suggesting that all conservatives are white, or that all exurbans are Conservative?

 

I guess I'd have to read the book to get the full gist of his argument. Seems like it's one of those back and forths where you never get a resolution as everyone is firmly entrenched in their own belief, and can't / won't concede to the others' viewpoint.

 

BTW, the panels reflect a political cartoon by Tom Toles, who is syndicated nationally. Other than providing political satire that's loosely relevant to the book topic, I doubt is was created specifically for the book.

He's suggesting that Christine's move to Utah was motivated by racism and she's skating the cusp of admitting it.  "Tired of defending conservatism" is a euphamism.  I'm sure she wasn't referring to Scalia's constitutional originalism theory.  In the PC era you have to ask "which aspects of conservatism?  Anti- affirmative action?  Anti- fair housing laws?  Anti- immigration?  Anti- integration?  Social Darwinism in a society where wealth is statistically a racial issue?" 

 

This is like people saying the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights.  OK... states' rights to do what, exactly?  To interefere with the dormant commerce clause?  Didn't think so.  "States' rights" is another one of those euphamisms, one popular with anti-integration activists of the 60s.

 

She could have moved to a Republican county in Cali, but no, this lady moved to Utah.  Utah's NBA team often has 5 white guys on the floor.  Come on.  And the religion that happens to dominate Utah has somewhat embarassing historical positions on race.  By historical I mean not that long ago. 

^In the 10 drafts prior to the 2005 when they selected Deron Williams, the Utah Jazz had selected 7 white b-ball players and scooped up every Matt Harpring and Jeff Hornacek on the FA market.  Coincidence?

The problem becomes the definition of "white".  Most people take it to be color of skin.  But is it?

 

Why isn't "white" merely a common set of values shared by people?

 

When the country was initially settling, people migrated together by similar traits, except most everyone was white.  Neighborhoods were made up of Irish, Dutch, Polish, Slovakian, Italian, etc.  Dutch people didn't live in Irish neighborhoods and vice versa.  It wasn't called "racism" then even though technically it was.

 

Ultimately those cultures integrated b/c they shared some basic common values.

 

Today you see similar things.  Minorities move to "white" neighborhoods just the same as white people - and for the same exact reasons.  There are far too many areas dominated by an urban culture of crime and violence that no respectable person wants to be a part of...white or not.

He's suggesting that Christine's move to Utah was motivated by racism and she's skating the cusp of admitting it.  "Tired of defending conservatism" is a euphamism.  I'm sure she wasn't referring to Scalia's constitutional originalism theory.  In the PC era you have to ask "which aspects of conservatism?   Anti- affirmative action?  Anti- fair housing laws?  Anti- immigration?  Anti- integration?  Social Darwinism in a society where wealth is statistically a racial issue?" 

 

This is like people saying the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights.  OK... states' rights to do what, exactly?  To interefere with the dormant commerce clause?  Didn't think so.  "States' rights" is another one of those euphamisms, one popular with anti-integration activists of the 60s.

 

She could have moved to a Republican county in Cali, but no, this lady moved to Utah.  Utah's NBA team often has 5 white guys on the floor.  Come on.  And the religion that happens to dominate Utah has somewhat embarassing historical positions on race.  By historical I mean not that long ago. 

 

Bah, that's entirely too subtle and/or nuanced an argument to hold my attention. Clearly the author is a liberal, and as such, pro-abortion. I don't think we can lend any credence to an argument put forth by a baby killer.

 

Snarky comments aside, you've read a lot into that snippet, and you're probably right that he was implying that euphemism. I'd argue that you both have an overly cynical view regarding people's motives. At least I hope you're overly cynical. You may be right, but she may also have been fed up with arguing about her positions on trickle down economics, foreign policy and the health care debate.

 

I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that people are still that overtly racist in this day and age. I'm probably naive, but I hope not.

I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that people are still that overtly racist in this day and age. I'm probably naive, but I hope not.

 

Stay gold, Ponyboy.

Some are, but I really believe that most aren't anymore.  But since when do conversations on race steer clear of making sweeping proclamations about people's character based on their skin color?

I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that people are still that overtly racist in this day and age. I'm probably naive, but I hope not.

 

Stay gold, Ponyboy.

 

Comparing me to C. Thomas Howell is grounds for fighting. Have at you!

 

Meh, whatever. I have a cynic's view toward pretty much everything else. I don't have it in me to apply it here as well.

"Comparing me to C. Thomas Howell is grounds for fighting. "

 

Is it just me, or did he look more Indian than black in that movie?

I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that people are still that overtly racist in this day and age. I'm probably naive, but I hope not.

 

I think that's the whole point.  People aren't overtly racist anymore because that's just not considered OK these days.  Instead, some people do things motivated by race but claim ulterior motives.  In the example, if Christine was overtly racist, she would have claimed she moved to Utah "to get away from the [insert word of choice for AA's here]".  Instead, she claims other reasons for the move.  Now we won't know if she's racist or not, even if she truly is.  Maybe she isn't, but surely others who are racist could make the same move and use the same reasons, and we wouldn't know which of them individually are racists and which are not.  This is all part of the "euphimism game" mentioned by 327, for which I feel he is spot on.  The overtly racist have diminshed in number, but the covertly racist have filled [some or much, depending on how cynical you are] of that void.

"Comparing me to C. Thomas Howell is grounds for fighting. "

 

Is it just me, or did he look more Indian than black in that movie?

 

You're thinking Soul Man, I'm thinking Outsiders.  Same difference.  And yes, he looked Indian and not even slightly black in that movie.

I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that people are still that overtly racist in this day and age. I'm probably naive, but I hope not.

 

I think that's the whole point. People aren't overtly racist anymore because that's just not considered OK these days. Instead, some people do things motivated by race but claim ulterior motives. In the example, if Christine was overtly racist, she would have claimed she moved to Utah "to get away from the [insert word of choice for AA's here]". Instead, she claims other reasons for the move. Now we won't know if she's racist or not, even if she truly is. Maybe she isn't, but surely others who are racist could make the same move and use the same reasons, and we wouldn't know which of them individually are racists and which are not. This is all part of the "euphimism game" mentioned by 327, for which I feel he is spot on. The overtly racist have diminshed in number, but the covertly racist have filled [some or much, depending on how cynical you are] of that void.

 

Yup.  Spot on.

I dunno, I used to have a group of friends and all of us were liberals and there was one girl who was a conservative Republican type, and she always used to complain about all the difference.  It wasn't racially motivated, it was that when the group was together, there was collective eye-rolling or bashing about people on the republican side of the fence or their antics, be it Bush or Rush or Old Face-Shooter.  It was more of a dissatisfaction about hainging out with people who didn't share her viewpoints on finance or abortion than anything to do with race. It *kind* of sounded like that with this Christine chick to me.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html

 

No Longer Majority Black, Harlem Is in Transition

 

By SAM ROBERTS

Published: January 5, 2010

 

"For nearly a century, Harlem has been synonymous with black urban America. Given its magnetic and growing appeal to younger black professionals and its historic residential enclaves and cultural institutions, the neighborhood’s reputation as the capital of black America seems unlikely to change soon.

 

But the neighborhood is in the midst of a profound and accelerating shift. In greater Harlem, which runs river to river, and from East 96th Street and West 106th Street to West 155th Street, blacks are no longer a majority of the population — a shift that actually occurred a decade ago, but was largely overlooked.

 

By 2008, their share had declined to 4 in 10 residents. Since 2000, central Harlem’s population has grown more than in any other decade since the 1940s, to 126,000 from 109,000, but its black population — about 77,000 in central Harlem and about twice that in greater Harlem — is smaller than at any time since the 1920s."

 

 

 

I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that people are still that overtly racist in this day and age. I'm probably naive, but I hope not.

 

I think that's the whole point.  People aren't overtly racist anymore because that's just not considered OK these days.  Instead, some people do things motivated by race but claim ulterior motives.  In the example, if Christine was overtly racist, she would have claimed she moved to Utah "to get away from the [insert word of choice for AA's here]".  Instead, she claims other reasons for the move.  Now we won't know if she's racist or not, even if she truly is.  Maybe she isn't, but surely others who are racist could make the same move and use the same reasons, and we wouldn't know which of them individually are racists and which are not.  This is all part of the "euphimism game" mentioned by 327, for which I feel he is spot on.  The overtly racist have diminshed in number, but the covertly racist have filled [some or much, depending on how cynical you are] of that void.

 

Look, I get that there are people out there who either directly don't like minorities, or subconciously are moving because they are frightened of what minorities represent in their minds.

 

As it relates to the short snippet presented on NPR's website, though, the examples aren't that supportive of his argument. Again, I should probably read the whole book.

 

Christine easily could have moved for reasons other than racism. By the same token, the people that moved because of gang violence in their neighborhood may not be racist, they just don't want their kids getting shot. Whether or not the gang members were black, latino, asian or russian is irrelevant.

Today you see similar things. Minorities move to "white" neighborhoods just the same as white people - and for the same exact reasons. There are far too many areas dominated by an urban culture of crime and violence that no respectable person wants to be a part of...white or not.

 

What you say is true, but I don't feel it is the whole story.  Rather, I think it compounds the problem of racism, detecting it, and how to solve the problem.

 

There is no doubt that some areas are safer than others and that that is a very important factor in choosing where to live for most people.  It is also true that crime rates are very often correlated (notice I said correlated, not caused) with the racial makeup of an area.  However, I believe that people also look at the same crime (or action) differently based on race.  For example, a few white kids arguing, yelling, or fighting outside of Mentor High School is just "kids being kids" to most white people, but the same thing involving black males outside Cleveland Heights High School is a reason to never come back to the Cedar Lee area due to the amount of "thugs" around and representative of an entire culture.  Over the years, I feel these attitudes both exaggerate problems and cause them at the same time, as they become a vicious cycle of lowered expectations and lowered self-esteem.  I am sure most have heard of it, but a good example is the 20/20 series where black teens and white teens were put into a park to vandalize a car, and not only was 911 called repeatedly on the black teens and not once on the white teens (IIRC), but somebody actually called 911 on the black teens while they were just sleeping in the car waiting for the film crew to come.  Also compounding the problem are people that scream racism at every turn or make a profit from publicizing racial issues.  All they tend to do by "crying Wolf" is cover up or downplay the effects of the people who have a real complaint.

 

And don't forget that it is very possible for a person to be racist against their own race.  Racism usually involves the way you treat people you don't know based on skin color, not the way you treat people you do know (who have more become individuals to you).

 

Ultimately those cultures integrated b/c they shared some basic common values.

 

Maybe partly, but I think the bigger factor is that it's harder to walk down the street and identify a white person's ethnicity than it is to determine if a person is white or black.  There is no doubt that ethnic peoples were very racist when they first came to the United States (even against other white ethnicities), but it was easier for them to assimilate, especially as their accents went away and the white population of the US truly began to be looked at as a melting pot.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html

 

No Longer Majority Black, Harlem Is in Transition

 

By SAM ROBERTS

Published: January 5, 2010

 

"For nearly a century, Harlem has been synonymous with black urban America. Given its magnetic and growing appeal to younger black professionals and its historic residential enclaves and cultural institutions, the neighborhood’s reputation as the capital of black America seems unlikely to change soon.

 

But the neighborhood is in the midst of a profound and accelerating shift. In greater Harlem, which runs river to river, and from East 96th Street and West 106th Street to West 155th Street, blacks are no longer a majority of the population — a shift that actually occurred a decade ago, but was largely overlooked.

 

By 2008, their share had declined to 4 in 10 residents. Since 2000, central Harlem’s population has grown more than in any other decade since the 1940s, to 126,000 from 109,000, but its black population — about 77,000 in central Harlem and about twice that in greater Harlem — is smaller than at any time since the 1920s."

 

 

Funny, I thought about posting that too.  But man, what bad journalism- last time I checked it, the comments were properly ripping it apart.

Hasn't anyone seen Avenue Q?  "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist" is the funniest song ever.  And more than a little true.  Or as George Clooney put it in Up In the Air: "I stereotype cause it's easier"  :lol:  I find it amusing when people pretend they don't have automatic assumptions about others, be it a matter of race, gender, religion or political affiliation.

I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that people are still that overtly racist in this day and age. I'm probably naive, but I hope not.

 

I think that's the whole point.  People aren't overtly racist anymore because that's just not considered OK these days.  Instead, some people do things motivated by race but claim ulterior motives.  In the example, if Christine was overtly racist, she would have claimed she moved to Utah "to get away from the [insert word of choice for AA's here]".  Instead, she claims other reasons for the move.  Now we won't know if she's racist or not, even if she truly is.  Maybe she isn't, but surely others who are racist could make the same move and use the same reasons, and we wouldn't know which of them individually are racists and which are not.  This is all part of the "euphimism game" mentioned by 327, for which I feel he is spot on.  The overtly racist have diminshed in number, but the covertly racist have filled [some or much, depending on how cynical you are] of that void.

 

Look, I get that there are people out there who either directly don't like minorities, or subconciously are moving because they are frightened of what minorities represent in their minds.

 

As it relates to the short snippet presented on NPR's website, though, the examples aren't that supportive of his argument. Again, I should probably read the whole book.

 

Christine easily could have moved for reasons other than racism. By the same token, the people that moved because of gang violence in their neighborhood may not be racist, they just don't want their kids getting shot. Whether or not the gang members were black, latino, asian or russian is irrelevant.

 

I was replying to your quote, not trying to say it was a good example for the writer to use (I think it was a terrible example to use).  You implied people were saying she was overtly racist if she moved based on race.  I was stating that (1) even if she moved based on race, it wouldn't have been overt racism, (2) that covert racism most certain does exist, (3) we can't know why she moved, and (4) that this fact exemplifies the inherent problems with the covert racism of today.  It can't be proven or identified and thus doesn't make for a good example, and it always provides people with the "you're just claiming they're racist" rebuttal, since only the individual in question can know their own intentions (and only if they bother to stop and analyze their true intentions).

 

And don't take anything I say personal.  (I sensed that when you started your post off with the word "Look".  Of course I'm looking if I'm reading your post! :) )

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html

 

No Longer Majority Black, Harlem Is in Transition

 

By SAM ROBERTS

Published: January 5, 2010

 

"For nearly a century, Harlem has been synonymous with black urban America. Given its magnetic and growing appeal to younger black professionals and its historic residential enclaves and cultural institutions, the neighborhood’s reputation as the capital of black America seems unlikely to change soon.

 

But the neighborhood is in the midst of a profound and accelerating shift. In greater Harlem, which runs river to river, and from East 96th Street and West 106th Street to West 155th Street, blacks are no longer a majority of the population — a shift that actually occurred a decade ago, but was largely overlooked.

 

By 2008, their share had declined to 4 in 10 residents. Since 2000, central Harlem’s population has grown more than in any other decade since the 1940s, to 126,000 from 109,000, but its black population — about 77,000 in central Harlem and about twice that in greater Harlem — is smaller than at any time since the 1920s."

 

 

Funny, I thought about posting that too.  But man, what bad journalism- last time I checked it, the comments were properly ripping it apart.

I don't know if it's "bad journalism" or, like all "reporting," just a particular interpretation of observations filtered through the viewpoint of one writer (like everything in the NY Times, it's told from the perspective of the upper middle class :roll: liberal wing--lol). I don't know enough about what's going on in Harlem to judge how accurate/inaccurate it is, but obviously a lot of longtime Harlem residents aren't happy about the changes taking place; maybe not so much about racial differences, but about the loss of affordable housing--something that's happened in the East Village.

Because of my social situation with my stepfather's family I fall into the overly cynical category.  Racism is just way too in my face to give people the benefit of the doubt, particularly if they're in law enforcement or a member of an Irish American organization.  I just can't be objective on this subject, it's a weird feeling for me that way.

^I think it's bad journalism to assert through photos and anecdotal interviews that Harlem's racial shift is primarily black to white when, as the article's own data show, it's really black to "other" or Hispanic.  It's not just a bias, it's a glaring mismatch between data and article.  Oh well.

^I think it's bad journalism to assert through photos and anecdotal interviews that Harlem's racial shift is primarily black to white when, as the article's own data show, it's really black to "other" or Hispanic  Latino.  It's not just a bias, it's a glaring mismatch between data and article.  Oh well.

 

let me fix that^ for you before you incur someone's wrath :wink:. You're right, it wasn't just whites they were talking about---that's the Times for you!

^I think it's bad journalism to assert through photos and anecdotal interviews that Harlem's racial shift is primarily black to white when, as the article's own data show, it's really black to "other" or Hispanic Latino. It's not just a bias, it's a glaring mismatch between data and article. Oh well.

 

let me fix that^ for you before you incur someone's wrath :wink:. You're right, it wasn't just whites they were talking about---that's the Times for you!

 

Even though Hispanic is actually the correct term! :)  /ducks

"White Harlem"!!!  :-D

 

obscure George Carlin reference for Morningside Heights...or maybe not so obscure...not sure.

 

I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that people are still that overtly racist in this day and age. I'm probably naive, but I hope not.

 

I think that's the whole point.  People aren't overtly racist anymore because that's just not considered OK these days.  Instead, some people do things motivated by race but claim ulterior motives.  In the example, if Christine was overtly racist, she would have claimed she moved to Utah "to get away from the [insert word of choice for AA's here]".  Instead, she claims other reasons for the move.  Now we won't know if she's racist or not, even if she truly is.  Maybe she isn't, but surely others who are racist could make the same move and use the same reasons, and we wouldn't know which of them individually are racists and which are not.  This is all part of the "euphimism game" mentioned by 327, for which I feel he is spot on.  The overtly racist have diminshed in number, but the covertly racist have filled [some or much, depending on how cynical you are] of that void.

 

Look, I get that there are people out there who either directly don't like minorities, or subconciously are moving because they are frightened of what minorities represent in their minds.

 

As it relates to the short snippet presented on NPR's website, though, the examples aren't that supportive of his argument. Again, I should probably read the whole book.

 

Christine easily could have moved for reasons other than racism. By the same token, the people that moved because of gang violence in their neighborhood may not be racist, they just don't want their kids getting shot. Whether or not the gang members were black, latino, asian or russian is irrelevant.

 

I was replying to your quote, not trying to say it was a good example for the writer to use (I think it was a terrible example to use).  You implied people were saying she was overtly racist if she moved based on race.  I was stating that (1) even if she moved based on race, it wouldn't have been overt racism, (2) that covert racism most certain does exist, (3) we can't know why she moved, and (4) that this fact exemplifies the inherent problems with the covert racism of today.  It can't be proven or identified and thus doesn't make for a good example, and it always provides people with the "you're just claiming they're racist" rebuttal, since only the individual in question can know their own intentions (and only if they bother to stop and analyze their true intentions).

 

And don't take anything I say personal.  (I sensed that when you started your post off with the word "Look".  Of course I'm looking if I'm reading your post! :) )

 

I'm not offended. Ok, I'm a little offended at being called Ponyboy, but that wasn't  your fault.

 

Anyway, I think we're largely in agreement here. My problems are more with the writer's methodology.

I loved it when I went to see that movie screening for Metropolis, when the audience was talking to the panelists about gentrification of cities and discussing the merits of diversity.

 

This black woman raised her hand and was like "I keep hearing everyone talk about promoting diversity but all I see in the audience is white people". It was true. It's ridiculous to try and solve problems without inviting all of those who are affected by it. Hell, most of this forum is white and really only represents educated, liberal and gay whites.

 

I don't think the people who support this whole New Urbanism movement and effort to make the inner city trendy are really considering the social ramifications of their wishes coming true. When people complain to politicians and developers about the poor being kicked out to areas where mass transit isn't feasible, I expect to see a lot of blank stares on the faces of decision-makers. The closer minorities, the underclass/lower class is to everyone else, the more they're seen and heard. That's the problem with Appalachia. You have 20+ million people in Appalachia, living in worse conditions than anyone else (no plumbing, no jobs, contaminated water/pollution, etc) in America but few people are aware of it because it's out of sight/out of mind. It's much more effective to organize/protest/riot in the city than in the exurbs or rural country.

 

The inconvenience of the poor living in the exurbs is and will probably continue to be an afterthought to stakeholders. Just as few people cared that black businesses would go under after desegregation in the '60s. There is absolutely no cost effective way to have excellent public transit service in all of the outer ring suburbs or even most suburbs in general. Public/private Corporations who recieve funding from the city are redeveloping center-cities but not emplementing price controls and enough public housing.

 

We need to bring accessibility, integration and public transit as a means for equality at the forefront of all this.

 

 

As far as whites still searching for a "whitopia", they will look for it in small isolated towns, I think. Not the inner city.

Isn't the question really where is the balance between self segregation and forced diversity? People by nature want to live by similar people at some level. SHS96 touched upon it earlier in the thread, you used to have neighborhoods for separated by ethnicity/race and economic status (IE working class Italians, middleclass blacks, etc) , now it seems that we only have the big divisors left  White/Black/Latino and Rich/Poor. And unfortunately because of development policy, school policy and aspects of racism, it has come down to city lines instead of neighborhood lines. Add the power of the developer/construction lobby and it's a lot easier for upper middle class whites to create new towns in the middle of cornfields for whatever reasons. (Not defending motivations, just stating facts)

 

I really thinks the banking industry has a huge role in this shift to exurbia in the last 10 years. They thought,they knew what your new house on a cul-de-sac in Morningwood Meadows would be worth so they would loan you the full amount. However even if you are a "white male" with perfect credit try walking into a bank and making the case to lend you the cost of an existing house in the city/inner ring burb plus the cost of renovations. See hoops, get prepared to jump. It was a much riskier proposal, at least in Ohio (some of the boom spots on the coast might have been different) it was easier for most people to move to the exburbs if they wanted new/updated digs.

He's suggesting that Christine's move to Utah was motivated by racism and she's skating the cusp of admitting it.  "Tired of defending conservatism" is a euphamism.  I'm sure she wasn't referring to Scalia's constitutional originalism theory.  In the PC era you have to ask "which aspects of conservatism?  Anti- affirmative action?  Anti- fair housing laws?  Anti- immigration?  Anti- integration?  Social Darwinism in a society where wealth is statistically a racial issue?" 

 

This is like people saying the Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights.  OK... states' rights to do what, exactly?  To interefere with the dormant commerce clause?  Didn't think so.  "States' rights" is another one of those euphamisms, one popular with anti-integration activists of the 60s.

 

She could have moved to a Republican county in Cali, but no, this lady moved to Utah.  Utah's NBA team often has 5 white guys on the floor.  Come on.  And the religion that happens to dominate Utah has somewhat embarassing historical positions on race.  By historical I mean not that long ago. 

 

Bah, that's entirely too subtle and/or nuanced an argument to hold my attention. Clearly the author is a liberal, and as such, pro-abortion. I don't think we can lend any credence to an argument put forth by a baby killer.

 

Snarky comments aside, you've read a lot into that snippet, and you're probably right that he was implying that euphemism. I'd argue that you both have an overly cynical view regarding people's motives. At least I hope you're overly cynical. You may be right, but she may also have been fed up with arguing about her positions on trickle down economics, foreign policy and the health care debate.

 

I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that people are still that overtly racist in this day and age. I'm probably naive, but I hope not.

 

I think you're being naive!  When white folks stop calling me the "n" word, based on skin color, then we can have that discussion.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html

 

No Longer Majority Black, Harlem Is in Transition

 

By SAM ROBERTS

Published: January 5, 2010

 

"For nearly a century, Harlem has been synonymous with black urban America. Given its magnetic and growing appeal to younger black professionals and its historic residential enclaves and cultural institutions, the neighborhood%u2019s reputation as the capital of black America seems unlikely to change soon.

 

But the neighborhood is in the midst of a profound and accelerating shift. In greater Harlem, which runs river to river, and from East 96th Street and West 106th Street to West 155th Street, blacks are no longer a majority of the population %u2014 a shift that actually occurred a decade ago, but was largely overlooked.

 

By 2008, their share had declined to 4 in 10 residents. Since 2000, central Harlem%u2019s population has grown more than in any other decade since the 1940s, to 126,000 from 109,000, but its black population %u2014 about 77,000 in central Harlem and about twice that in greater Harlem %u2014 is smaller than at any time since the 1920s."

 

 

 

 

That article has misrepresentated and it doesn't take account that Harlem has become expensive  - at the expensive - of long time resident and the poor.

 

The project on 128 that they reference, some people are trying to close and have the people shipped to the far end of the BX and Coney Island.  Coney Island is the new dumping ground for the poor.

 

Harlem's "other" are mixed people mostly black/latin mixed young professionals.

 

Whites aren't taking over harlem but the morningside Heights and the Frederick Douglas / Manhattan Avenue core has been revamped.  It started in 2002, one developer renovated blocks by himself.  BLOCKS.  Which brought stabilization of the "income" yet pushed out those who couldn't afford to stay.

 

The "park to park" central Harlem area has become expensive at the cost of losing Harlem's cultural identity.

I think you're being naive! When white folks stop calling me the "n" word, based on skin color, then we can have that discussion.

 

That discussion also cannot begin until black folks stop referring to GROWN men as "white boys"... but that is a discussion probably more appropriate for the pet peeve thread.

I think you're being naive!  When white folks stop calling me the "n" word, based on skin color, then we can have that discussion.

 

That discussion also cannot begin until black folks stop referring to GROWN men as "white boys"... but that is a discussion probably more appropriate for the pet peeve thread.

 

Isn't that how white folks refer to GROWN black men as "boy"?  It's a two way street.

I think you're being naive!  When white folks stop calling me the "n" word, based on skin color, then we can have that discussion.

 

That discussion also cannot begin until black folks stop referring to GROWN men as "white boys"... but that is a discussion probably more appropriate for the pet peeve thread.

 

Isn't that how white folks refer to GROWN black men as "boy"?  It's a two way street.

 

Nobody that I know and if such a comment was made in public in this day and age, society would throw a fit.  The other way down that street seems to be socially acceptable for whatever reason and that is what ticks me off.  Regardless, you are making my point.  It IS a two way street.  That was all I was trying to say.  I grew up as a minority in both school and even moreso in my neighborhood.  Trust me when I say I have witnessed and, to some extent, experienced reverse racism at its worst.  Ignoring it or justifying it on past experience is not the answer.

I think you're being naive!  When white folks stop calling me the "n" word, based on skin color, then we can have that discussion.

 

That discussion also cannot begin until black folks stop referring to GROWN men as "white boys"... but that is a discussion probably more appropriate for the pet peeve thread.

 

Isn't that how white folks refer to GROWN black men as "boy"?  It's a two way street.

 

Nobody that I know and if such a comment was made in public in this day and age, society would throw a fit.  The other way down that street seems to be socially acceptable for whatever reason and that is what ticks me off.  Regardless, you are making my point.  It is a two way street.  I grew up as a minority in both school and even moreso in my neighborhood.  Trust me when I say I have witnesses and, to some extent, experienced reverse racism at its worst.  Ignoring it or justifying it is not the answer.

 

Key words, "nobody that I know".  I've been called the N word, spic, or "boy" more times than I care to remember.  Trust me.  If things had gone differently when i was a freshman out OSU, today it would be called MTS University after my incident with that piece of trash from SW Ohio.

 

I don't think society would throw a fit.  People of color would throw a fit.

 

prime example.  This tacky Jersey Shore show that everyone is talking about.  Italian politicians statewide in Jersey came out to denouce the show saying ti gave italians a bad name.  So when Black, Latin or Asian shows come on like the real world or shows that depict minorities in a negative manner (Steroptypically Ghetto), why arent those very same politians up in arms and joining forces with minorities who don't like those shows??

 

You're missing my point MTS.  I never said that racism towards blacks does not exist.  I spent 7 years in NC and know all about it cupcake.  All I meant to get accross was that is not the only form of racism that needs to end and that, at present, Blacks are just as racist towards whites, if not more.... and definitely much more overt in my experiences.

 

And I would bet you that if a white guy was going around in public referring to blacks as "boy"... someone would say something to him.... at least it would be heavily frowned upon by most of the population.  Whereas the reverse scenario would barely get a second glance because it is not percieved as being racist... just common terminology.

 

The "park to park" central Harlem area has become expensive at the cost of losing Harlem's cultural identity.

 

You see whites moving to areas historically rich in white culture - SanFran, Boston, areas of Manhattan, etc. and of course certain parts of each individual city but I don't see any sign of wealthy blacks doing that. I don't think white people should be entirely to blame for Harlem losing its cultural identity. You were just talking about how all the black entrepreneurs flocked to D.C., Houston, then Atlanta. It seems like they should be the ones taking back the night and restoring Harlem to its glory. NYC probably has more black millionaires than all of the southern cities combined. Yet guys like Jay-Z move to Tribeca! There are plenty of black professionals that can move there and exert influence. Blacks are the fastest growing group among college graduates, now. It would seem Harlem has much more cultural value to well-off blacks compared to whites.